1977-03-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. As the Minister of Finance flits from Washington, the capital of the United States of America, to New York, the financial capital of that country, picking up instructions, suggestions and possible options for his forthcoming budget, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence):
That this House request the minister upon his return to make a statement on motions setting out what economic alternatives he has been given with respect to his forthcoming budget so that the House may be fully informed of our background position with particular reference to our relationship to the U.S.A.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REQUEST THAT ROLE OF COMMITTEE FOR CANADIAN UNITY BE SPECIFIED-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr.   Ren@: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce an important motion of pressing necessity.
In view of the existing ambiguity concerning the national unity committee within federal-provincial relations office, since that special section could merely become a political organization to promote the Liberal party and since we have no specific definition of national unity and therefore the role of the organization could be distorted, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) be asked to table in the House the essential papers providing clear and specific information on the role of that section for Canadian unity whose direction has been entrusted with Mr. Paul Tellier.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.


HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir):
That this House desires that arrangements be made for Her Gracious Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of Canada either to prorogue the present session or to give the Speech from the Throne for a new session later in 1977 when she will be attending events in celebration of her twenty-fifth anniversary on the Throne.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the presentation of such a motion for debate in the Chamber requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: It was Liberal members who said no.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
[Stage Direction]
SUGGESTED MEETING WITH QUEBEC OFFICIALS CONCERNED WITH MAGNESIUM QUEbECOIS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
80010-34%

March 9, 1977
Disability Pension
Considering that everything must be done to lower the unemployment rate in Quebec, that some $80 million in capital expenditures earmarked for the creation of some 400 new jobs in the Trois-Rivieres-Shawinigan area are frozen both in Ottawa and Quebec City, that the Magnesium Quebe-cois project would compensate the loss of 400 jobs in the area resulting from the likely closing down in 1977 of the Gulf plant in Shawinigan, and that the people backing this project are still hopeful to get the green light from the Foreign Investment Review Agency, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour):
That the House immediately direct the Minister responsible to call a meeting as soon as possible of all interested parties within both the federal and provincial governments, so that this important project may become a reality in Quebec.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.

O)


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, because this is an urgent matter I ask leave to present it under Standing Order 43. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That this House calls attention to the fact that the rate of a 100 per cent war disability pension under the Pension Act, which was established in 1972 in relation to the composite rate of five public service groups, all of them very low, has now fallen behind that composite rate by more than $500 a year, and this House therefore calls on the government to close that gap by restoring the rate of a 100 per cent war disability pension to the basis established in 1972, and to take this action without delay, in fairness to Canada's disabled veterans.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion pursuant to the Standing Order can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on an urgent and pressing matter relating to the Minister of Agriculture's announcement that all pesticides sold and used in Canada must now be registered. Since this will close the border to any Canadian farmer buying pesticides in the United States, thereby threatening with economic loss those farmers who ordered U.S. pesticides earlier but have not yet taken delivery, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That the Minister of Agriculture suspend any restrictive or punitive actions against those farmers who have not yet taken delivery on their pesticides ordered before the minister's announcement and that those pesticides, ordered earlier, be allowed to enter Canada subject only to the conditions and regulations which existed before the minister's announcement.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROPOSED SURCHARGE ON ICE SHOWS TO PROVIDE FUNDS TO AID DEVELOPMENT OF FIGURE SKATERS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the showing by Canadian figure skaters at last week's world championships was the most disastrous in recent history, and because foreign professional ice shows continue to reap the benefits of Canadian skating talent without contributing to the development of that sport which is partially subsidized by the federal government; I move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle):
That the Minister of State responsible for amateur sport be instructed to initiate and put into effect forthwith a reasonable surcharge on foreign professional ice shows signing amateur skaters from this country which proceeds would be directed to the obviously necessary financial aid of our skaters, as well as for the development of that sport at the grass roots level.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of such a motion for debate. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
March 9, 1977



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. It concerns the potential drought crisis in western Canada. As the minister knows, if there is not a very wet spring there could be a major crop and grass disaster-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the minister will take this question more seriously than do some of his colleagues.


Some hon. Members:: Elear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: That kind of disaster, if it comes, could sharply increase food prices in Canada and perhaps trigger inflation again. Since the five western states of the United States have already started rationing water and nine governors of U.S. states have agreed to attend an emergency summit meeting on the drought question in that country, can the minister tell the House if he is prepared to take the lead and gather together ministers of agriculture from the affected provinces in Canada to assess the situation, to develop preliminary plans, and then to report to the House of Commons?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we are already holding scheduled symposiums with farmers to remind them and show them how to farm under dry conditions. Most of them are aware of it, but some want to be brought up to date on this type of farming. We are having discussions also with meteorologists, and we are even having discussions with people who maintain that they can make rain.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: My colleague here tells me we have in-house experts. We realize this is a very serious condition, but through the legislation provided by this government there is crop insurance and there is a grain stabilization program which was not available during previous dry years. So, they have that kind of protection. We are as concerned as the Leader of the Opposition says we should be, and as he is, about this very serious condition. We will be doing everything humanly and physically possible to make sure that we use the water carefully and do everything possible. I just want to say one more thing. I ask even the good members of the House of Commons to pray for rain-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hees:: That is the limit of this government's policy.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am sure it would be of scant comfort to the farmers of western Canada to know that in the face of the
Oral Questions
lowest rainfall in that region in nearly a century, the Minister of Agriculture is acknowledging that the policy of the government of Canada is to pray for rain.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: It worked for Moses.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am advised by someone on the other side that it worked for Moses. There are some differences which this government has seldom realized between Moses and themselves.
My question is whether the government, instead of proceeding as though it were simply a problem as usual, recognizing the potential emergency nature of this situation, will call together other ministers of agriculture and other departments of agriculture to try to work out some common approach in which governments of all levels can take advantage of the new technologies that have been developed to ensure as best we can that some extraordinary protection is given to farmers against the very unusual and special crisis that is developing now in western Canada?


Eugene Whelan: I just want to say that we are exploring every avenue that is possible and we will be discussing it in a more formal manner than the manner in which our officials have been discussing proposals concerning what we should be doing together with the provincial authorities. I want to remind, through you, Mr. Speaker, members of the House and the Canadian people that if He is on our side, the one to whom we pray, he can do us a lot of good.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Short of that kind of reliance has the minister's department started any special studies on long-range weather forecasts or soil conditions, and is his department prepared to use the new forms of modern technology, such as land satellites and remote sensing techniques, which can develop an accurate picture of the drought situation and the potential moisture situation in Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I said, we are using every bit of scientific knowledge available to us. We have a very good system of making these forecasts. I have discussed this with the colleagues of the Leader of the Opposition who are from western Canada and who live in the dry area. We are trying to get every bit of information we can, and we are going to do everything humanly possible to make sure we use every bit of scientific and technical knowledge which is available to us. We are putting all that data together. I have made a personal survey of the mountains, the hills, etc.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: We are using the advice of the Americans. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition knows as well as I do that snow in the mountains not only affects weather and

March 9, 1977
Oral Questions
moisture conditions in western Canada but also in the United States of America. Our conditions are bad, but theirs are worse. They are already rationing water, mainly because they depend a great deal more on irrigation than we do. We have not become as dependent on irrigation as they have. We know the Americans are curtailing their production, and that is going to have an effect on our importation of some foods from that country. I am ready and willing to listen to any advice which anyone has.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The difference between Canada and the United States is not in the conditions; the difference is in the response of governments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Will the minister, either in this House or outside, tell us specifically what he and his officials are doing, and will he tell us whether he intends to convene a conference of ministers of agriculture from the affected provinces so that there can be public discussion of this serious problem?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think one of the worst things we could do would be to try to say that we have a system which would guarantee moisture. We do have one of the most efficient systems in the world. We have research people in the field of agriculture who know how to farm under dry land conditions. They have proved that they can produce crops under the kind of conditions which prevailed during the dirty thirties. They can grow practically normal crops in southern Alberta, and the Leader of the Opposition should know about that. I said that we are holding symposiums and advising farmers in order to bring them up to date. Provincial people are well aware of this. They are using our research people. All departments are using every bit of information there is, and we are doing everything humanly possible.


POTENTIAL DROUGHT IN WESTERN CANADA-SUGGESTED DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES ON JOINT ACTION
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I have a follow-up question for the Minister of Agriculture with regard to this very serious western and North American drought situation. In my personal opinion the current situation is at least as serious, and possibly more so, as the two worst years of the thirties, and I refer to 1932 and 1937. Would the minister consider some kind of joint discussion with authorities from the United States, where the situation is even more serious, with a view to assessing more accurately the total continental drought and considering the possibility of some joint contingency planning?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker,
I think that first and foremost any discussions we have should be with provincial ministers and provincial governments concerning any program we should develop, what action we should take. For instance, moving livestock from an area which is dry
(Mr. Whelan.]
to an area which has ample forage is one thing which is being considered at the present time. We will be meeting with the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States of America in a few days, I hope, and this will be one of the things which we will be discussing.


POTENTIAL DROUGHT IN WESTERN CANADA-EFFECT ON CATTLE INDUSTRY
Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there is less than the normal snowpack to provide water for irrigation and less than half the normal downstream flow along the entire eastern slopes of the mountains and that today, approaching mid-March, there is no snow at all over much of the prairies, is the minister fully aware of the possible consequences of this situation on our total Canadian cattle industry in that significant increases in marketings of cows and yearling feeder cattle could suddenly disrupt present indications of a modest upturn later on in the fall causing a set-back of at least another year in the upturn of the cattle industry?


Eugene Whelan: I am certainly aware of that, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member was present when I said that very same thing at the annual meeting of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. He is one of the members with whom I discussed this very serious question. I know he is very familiar with dry land farming in that part of Canada, in southern Alberta. As I said to the Leader of the Opposition, I have viewed the mountains, I have viewed the foothills, I have viewed the prairies; I have seen that there is no snow. I have gone over the reports from our officials. The hon. member from Grenville-Carleton is used to giving people "snow jobs" but this is a different kind of "snow job".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS PROPOSED MEETING BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND PREMIER OF QUEBEC TO DISCUSS UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In yesterday's throne speech in Quebec City Premier Levesque announced his government's intention to deal immediately with what he described as the brutal unemployment crisis in his province. He specifically indicated his desire to co-operate with the federal government in this area. Will the Prime Minister respond immediately to this suggestion by requesting a joint meeting between himself and the premier in order to come to grips with this very serious human question, keeping in mind that more than half the new unemployment in the country as a whole in the past two years has occurred in Quebec?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not been apprised yet of Premier Levesque's speech but I

can assure the hon. member and the House that if Premier Levesque is disposed to co-operate with us in this matter or any other matter which is for the welfare of the inhabitants of Quebec we would be very happy to co-operate.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question. Mr. Speaker. I repeat, my reading of the meaning of the throne speech was that there was a very specific suggestion made by the government of the province of Quebec to co-operate with the existing federal government and within the existing federal institutions.
I should therefore like to ask the Prime Minister if he does not think it appropriate that with all seriousness he should respond by instructing his ministers responsible for example, for housing, public works and transportation, to name three areas that the province of Quebec said they wanted to act in, to meet with their counterparts either in Ottawa or Quebec City to start to deal with the very serious problem of unemployment in the province of Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question.


TRANSPORT
John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As I understand the Prime Minister, he responded by saying he would be willing to do something. All I am asking him to do is take some initiative in this. I would move to the Minister of Transport and ask him, considering that one of the areas the province of Quebec said they want to act in is transportation, will the minister now indicate to the House that the Liberal party intends to live up to its commitment made in 1974 to provide some $290 million for assistance to municipalities for rapid transit systems which would help the people of Montreal and other cities in that province as well as elsewhere in Canada?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add today to answers previously given on this subject. We have cited very clearly the financial difficulty which led us to conclude that in this area of prime provincial responsibility we ought not to intrude as far as we had originally intended. We have not made a final decision as to the financial arrangements into which we might enter.

[DOT] (M30)


ABORTION
Mr. Andrfe Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Oral Questions
In a statement made by the minister before an assembly of representatives of national women associations, he said that abortion could be a family planning method, which is quite a new interpretation of the law passed by this House in 1969. Would the minister tell the House whether he was talking on behalf of the government and taking advantage of his ministerial privilege to make the law on abortion less stringent, without previously submitting this point to the House of Commons, as he should have done?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would read the statement I made on that occasion, a copy of which has been sent to every hon. member, he would see that it says clearly and explicitly that abortion cannot be considered by the government as an acceptable family planning method, and that it is in accordance with what I have repeatedly said in this House since 1973.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, in announcing this broadening of the abortion policy, did the minister take into account the petition tabled in the House on May 29, 1975, which I have here and which was signed by over a million Canadians who are opposed to any easing of the abortion legislation?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I refer the hon. member to my statement. He will see that it does not broaden either the act or the policy on abortion. That act and that policy were passed by the House a few years ago, and the stipulations of the act are clear. The hon. member will note that in my statement I indicated very clearly that any steps in that direction will have to be taken within the provisions of the law as it now stands.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, on page 1 of the statement of the minister to which I am now referring, one reads, and I quote:
Counselling services on abortion should be given by institutions dispensing family planning services . . .
Mr. Speaker, in other words, when a child is not wanted, as the minister says in closing, and I quote:
In pursuing the fundamental objective that every child should be wanted . ..
-the minister suggests abortion in the case of a child that is not wanted. Is the minister willing to commit himself, and the government, to respecting the will of a million Canadians who are opposed to what the minister said?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the very question of the hon. member shows the twisted mind with which he approaches the subject.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question, addressed to the Prime Minister, is based on the announce-

March 9, 1977
Oral Questions
ment of the establishment of a committee consisting of Mr. Gordon Robertson, Mr. D. S. Thorson, Mr. Roger Tasse, and belatedly, Commissioner Nadon of the RCMP, to recommend to the Prime Minister the next Commissioner of the RCMP. Will the Prime Minister reconsider this extremely ill-advised action which will result in the complete subversion of the force to the political control of the Prime Minister, and reassure us that the traditional method of selecting the next commissioner from within the ranks of the force which has existed for some 104 years will continue, thereby assuring the continued integrity of that force?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised that a single question can contain so much misinformation.


An hon. Member:: How about the answer?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The suggestion concerning the late addition of Commissioner Nadon is a sheer fabrication. I discussed this with Commissioner Nadon quite some time ago, and it was always clear that he would be a member of the selection committee. Second, the appointment is not made by the Prime Minister; it is made by order in council, this is the way it has been, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member really ought to know that. Third, the selection has not always proceeded in the way the hon. member mentioned. At least two other selection committees of which I know have been set up. One was set up in 1969, another in 1931. In 1969 the commissioner was chosen from within the force, and in 1931 the commissioner was chosen from outside the force. I think hon. members of the opposition would agree that we should have the best possible person heading the force.


An hon. Member:: But not under political control.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And the way to get such a person is to ask for advice, in the way being done.


Mr. Paproski:: Ask Marc Lalonde.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I accept the Prime Minister's explanation with respect to Commissioner Nadon. Perhaps there was an omission on the part of the media in failing to include his name-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: -with Messrs. Robertson, Thorson and Tasse, whose Liberal sympathies are well known. The fact that the two other appointments were in 1866 and 1936 does not justify this action at this time and the danger of the political tainting of the force. I wonder if the Prime Minister will tell the House what part incidents like those involving Senator Giguere and the initiative properly taken by the RCMP in-that prosecution played in the setting up of this committee.


WHEAT-DISCUSSIONS ON PRICE WITH UNITED STATES- EFFECT ON OTHER COUNTRIES IN ATTEMPT TO REACH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. It has to do with his trip to the United States, where he discussed pricing arrangements with the United States secretary of agriculture. Apparently other exporting countries were deliberately ignored in those discussions, which may have been a tactical error if an agreement is to be reached. Can the minister say what steps are now being taken to correct that obvious omission, and to correct the impression that this was a price-fixing arrangement between Canada and the United States, and other countries will have to follow suit?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in this preliminary meeting designed to elicit the views of our respective countries we immediately noted the desire on the part of both countries to look toward a new international arrangement. Our total objective will be to work together, to include other countries in the discussions. Indeed, I have personally been in touch with ministers from Australia. Progressively, working parties will be set up to enlarge the scope of the discussions, and I am sure that we may well reach the conclusion that the International Wheat Council continues to be a good forum for further discussion.


WHEAT-EFFORTS OF WHEAT BOARD TO FIND MARKETS
Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether, while these discussions are continuing, the Wheat Board is actively seeking markets for our wheat and seeking to enter into bilateral agreements with other countries, pending a new agreement on the international scene?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, of course, the Canadian Wheat Board is vigorously pursuing markets for Canadian grain in the usual way.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Knowing the anxiety of many Canadians to have members of their families in the Baltic states, whom they have not seen for many years, come to visit them in this country, and in view of the apparent Soviet policy to refuse exit visas for any such visits, will the minister appeal to the Soviet Union in the spirit of Helsinki to make these family visits possible? I ask this question because it is particularly timely on this day of the annual Baltic evening on Parliament Hill and because today,
March 9, 1977

for the first time, the honorary consuls of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are present together in our diplomatic gallery.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am delighted in paying particular attention to this special day. I assure the hon. member and the House, as I have said on many previous occasions, that we regret in this country that there has not been as much success as we should like with regard to family reunification. Periodic representations are made to the representatives of the appropriate countries and, of course, it is my intention and that of the government to continue making such representations until these highly desirable family reunifications are achieved.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: 
James Aloysius McGrath: I will repeat my question. My question has to do with a court action which was taken recently against a company known as 210 Somerset Street Limited, the owners of the Quai d'Orsay Hotel. It is prompted by the fact that in July, 1973 a CMHC/NHA insured loan amounting to almost $2 million was made to this hotel. Such a loan is not covered under the provisions of the National Housing Act and I ask the minister under what authority this loan guarantee was made.


Mr. Ouellet:: I shall take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker, and give the answer tomorrow.
Oral Questions


FINANCE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. As the Minister of Finance has flown to Washington and to New York, apparently to receive last minute instructions before bringing in a Canadian budget-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -would the Prime Minister tell us whether his trip was arranged, or at least discussed, during the right hon. gentleman's visit with President Carter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is interesting to see how the shadow minister of finance would construct his budget if ever he gets to this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: We will show you!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is precisely my point. They will go to Washington and ask how to write a budget!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


POSSIBILITY OF DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT CARTER ON UNITED STATES METHOD OF ACHIEVING ECONOMIC RECOVERY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As the economic recovery of the United States has been dramatically more successful than that in Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -would the Prime Minister inform us whether during his discussions with President Carter any clue was given by the President as to why the Americans, without controls, are experiencing a rate of inflation which, in the aggregate is now 8 per cent less than in Canada, and a real growth one-fifth better than in this country, yet they have less unemployment? If any suggestions were made, may we assume the Minister of Finance is now being briefed in detail as to how the Americans did it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we know how the Americans did it. We do not want to follow the same route of having a 6 per cent recession. We know that would be the Tory way of dealing with inflation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 9, 1977
Oral Questions


ALLEGED AGREEMENT CANADA WOULD BORROW LESS IN UNITED STATES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A final question to the Prime Minister dealing with how the Grits are actually doing it. Will the Prime Minister confirm or deny reports that before and during his visit to Washington the Americans made it clear they would like us to stop sopping up so much debt money from their domestic market and that accordingly we have adjusted our Canadian interest rate downward to discourage the aggressive Canadian borrowing which has taken place in the United States over the last 30 months? Have we agreed that the government should take less in debt financing from the U.S. market?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Late last year the minister stated he proposed to set up a series of mini-Berger inquiries late in 1977 with respect to the Alcan pipeline proposal. Has he yet made a decision with regard to setting up these inquiries?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, an inquiry will be set up in the Yukon to examine the social and economic impact of the proposed Alcan pipeline and I am presently reviewing a number of names to determine who shall conduct that inquiry.


Douglas Charles Neil: Can the minister tell us what he expects the time frame to be-when the results of the inquiry will be reported back to the department?


William Warren Allmand: Obviously, this process will not take as long as the Berger inquiry. We hope that the community hearings will be completed in the early summer but no exact timetable has yet been set up.

[ Translation]


ABORTION
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
To follow up on what the hon. member for Lotbiniere said about abortion and considering the minister's statement before the representatives of the National Women's Organization,

which was publicly condemned by the Front commun pour le respect de la vie during a discussion on a matter of national interest held outside the House, does the minister intend to make a statement in the House or to introduce an amendment to the present legislation on abortion, thus allowing members of the House to discuss that subject?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. In view of the threat by Bell Canada to stop the installation of new telephone service if the CRTC does not allow Bell the full rate increase it wants, will the minister assure the House that after the CRTC has examined the evidence regarding Bell's finances and made its decision, the company will be obliged to conform to that decision without any reduction in services to telephone subscribers?
[ Translation]


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I may reply to the hon. member, in answer to his question, that the CRTC does not act under threats.


EFFECT OF PROFITABILITY OF BELL SUBSIDIARIES ON JUSTIFICATION FOR RATE INCREASE
Reginald Cyril Symes: Would the minister ask the CRTC to examine the profits of Bell Canada's unregulated subsidiaries with a view to ascertaining how their profitability would affect Bell's justification of rate increases ranging between 9.5 per cent and 12 per cent, and increases in service charges between 30 per cent and 50 per cent?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is confusing two matters, but I can assure him that in its regulating function, the CRTC examines all activities relevant to the setting of the rate which it intends to ask for the telephone service.
March 9, 1977

Oral Questions


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Has the air space area covered and controlled by or through the Moncton air traffic control centre been reduced by 350,000 square miles to appease some Quebec air traffic controllers? If this is true, why is it being done and what will the potential job loss be in the Moncton area? Further, what effect will it have on the continuation of the present traffic control centre which is being built or rebuilt in Riverview, New Brunswick?


Otto Emil Lang: The change in the control of air space is not being done to appease anyone but follows long study and planning of the best traffic management patterns from a technical point of view, planning which began in 1973-74. The controllers in the Moncton area have been assured that it will not involve the loss of any jobs.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of news reports published in New Brunswick to the effect that the Ministry of Transport is considering sharing in an important highway development program with that province, would the minister assure the House that any agreement with New Brunswick will ensure that highways 17, 11 and 8 are upgraded to a better standard before any federal funds are used to help to build super four-lane highways elsewhere in the province while the development of the northern part of the province is being stifled by an inadequate highway network?


Otto Emil Lang: No agreement by the Department of Transport has been entered into with the Province of New Brunswick although we have held discussions, as the hon. member knows, concerning the possibility of making use of certain transportation money which might otherwise be applied in other ways. There are discussions as well between the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Atlantic provinces concerning highway construction. In regard to the question of specific highway projects, I can only assure the hon. member that I for one, and my officials, will be very conscious of the strong feelings which he expresses about the need for highway development in the northern part of New Brunswick.


DATE OF DECISION ON PROGRAM FOR HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION IN ATLANTIC REGION
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister has indicated he is going to divert funds to strengthen the highway program for all of the maritime provinces, and since it is so vital to the Atlantic region to construct a proper highway and that it is necessary to start very soon, can the minister say how close he is to a decision?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we are closer to the day when that decision will be made.


AGRICULTURE
John Wise: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and relates to his recent announcement last Friday to close the border to pesticides. In view of the fact that many producers have not only ordered but paid for chemicals and are simply awaiting delivery of U.S. pesticides, would the minister suspend any restrictive actions against these earlier ordered pesticides?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we are considering all requests which have been submitted to us by members of parliament and also by the growers themselves. No decision has been made at this time.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. Since the minister has been so keen to respond quickly to pleas for aid from the pesticides industry, will he also exhibit such quickness in aiding the Canadian fruit and vegetable industry, the industry most affected by the closure of the border; and will he stem the flow the low priced imports which have ruined the incomes of many fruit and vegetable producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should also tell us that many pesticides in Canada are cheaper than those available to United States farmers. American farmers have never had the opportunity to come to Canada to buy pesticides because the American government does not allow them to do so. No other country in the world allows their farmers to do what our farmers in Canada have been doing. The hon. member says that I acted quickly on behalf of the chemical industry. They have been making representations to me about this matter for over six months. In fact, if I check the records, I think I could go back almost as far as a year. We have had discussions with farm organizations, so to say that this was imposed quickly without discussions with the people concerned is just not the fact.

March 9, 1977
Oral Questions


SUGGESTED EMBARGO ON IMPORTATION OF PROCESSED PRODUCTS TO SUPPORT PROCESSING INDUSTRY
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that many segments of farm production need a strong processing industry in Canada, and in view of the minister's statement that he put an embargo on pesticides to create a strong pesticides industry in Canada, is the minister making representations to the cabinet that they place a similar embargo on imports of processed products which are produced in Canada in order to have a strong processing industry in support of the farmers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out before answering the last part of the hon. member's question that the programs this government has put in to help the farmers to whom he has referred are superior to the programs the American government has provided for their farmers. For instance, the apple producers got nothing from their government last year; the average apple producer in Canada received over $17,000 in payments this year. Certainly, I am making that kind of representation because I want to help the total agricultural industry, as the hon. member knows very well.


CUSTOMS
George H. Whittaker: 
PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of Treasury Board. The minister undertook to make an announcement in this House on the commission that he is setting up to examine the actuarial viability of public service pension plans. Will he, when doing so, announce the criteria or assumptions which the actuaries will be required to use when making their inquiry?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: My commitment, Mr. Speaker, was to make the terms of reference public on the first possible occasion. They have not been finalized, and when completed I will seek the occasion to make them public.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the hundreds of thousands of pounds of offshore imported beef, not equal to domestic quality yet not identified as to source, now on the market, is the minister going to take steps to require all offshore beef to be labelled as such, thereby giving protection to Canadian consumers which they do not have at the present time?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to consult with the Minister of Agriculture about this; I will take notice of the question.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and relates to an answer he gave to a question yesterday regarding the difficulties experienced by Radio-Canada with their editorial staff. In light of the Prime Minister's reluctance yesterday to commit himself to naming the people within Radio-Canada who are subversives, in the sense of the question of separatism, for the reason that no criminal acts were alleged, would the Prime Minister now tell the House whether upon reflection he would be prepared to take some action in connection with those people who are named on the extra parliamentary opposition list, since those people were, of course, named as being subversives and were accused of being criminals within our society?
March 9, 1977


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not quite clear what action the hon. member is suggesting I take. Perhaps he could ask a supplementary question.


Frank Oberle: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is going to respond to correspondence that he has from individuals on the extra parliamentary list requesting that a tribunal be set up and that they be given an opportunity to clear their names of the charges which were laid against them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there were no charges laid against them. As far as I know, they do not have anything to clear. The only way in which names might have been made public is through the good offices of the opposition, and they should do what they can to rectify the harm they have done.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. In view of the fact that on a world-wide basis 19 tankers went aground or blew up in 1976, double the 1975 toll in tonnage and spilling more than a quarter of a million tons of oil into the sea, and in view of the minister's statement at Dalhousie University on February 25 that a good way to stop this is to make cargo owners liable not only for the clean-up but also the damage they cause if their oil is spilled, I would ask the minister what plans he is going to take to protect our environment from this type of sea-borne demolition?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious, as I said before, that the way to solve this problem is to set international standards for all tankers, those that do enter our waters and those that do not, because once spilled the oil tends to move in the direction the waves push it. Obviously, if there is no international agreement, coastal states will have to protect themselves. The suggestion that I made at Dalhousie was that it might be an idea to have the companies owning the cargo also made responsible for any damage that that cargo causes if it is sent in leaky ships.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am not certain whether I should direct it to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment or to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs could tell us whether he discussed this proposition with the Americans when he was in Washington? Is he giving any thought to establishing a satellite monitoring system that would keep track of tankers and other ships when they enter our 200-mile limit? Also, will he or his officials consult with the London based intergovernmental maritime consultative
Oral Questions
organization in the hope of establishing tighter international conventions governing oil spills and the design and operation of tankers when they are in our waters?
Hou. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, there are various parts to that question.
I could probably answer yes to each one, that action is being taken on all of those fronts. On the specific question of whether the matter of Canada-U.S. co-operation has been discussed, very definitely so. One of the reference points for the conclusion of a permanent settlement on the boundary question is that pollution control will be one of the elements in that solution. In other words, that is one of the matters the negotiators will be discussing this year. As the hon. member knows from the experience of last December, the American spill of yesterday could be a Canadian spill as of tomorrow. Therefore, that is the kind of arrangement we are trying to work out which will deal with that kind of situation. All of the other elements at one time or another in recent months have been discussed.
In so far as the surveillance of the 200 miles is concerned on an electronic basis, the hon. member will know it is a very expensive system, particularly if it is going to be all embracing. Of course, certain new parts of it have been put into place in terms of coastal authorities both on the west coast and east coast and very likely more will be done as time goes by.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


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


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that, during the question period, there was no reference or nearly none to the ideas expressed the day before yesterday during the inauguration speech of the second session of the 31st legislature in Quebec City, that there was some mention of the question of the recognition of the French language in the province of Quebec, and that this morning the information media reported certain statements allegedly made by the Solicitor General of Canada. I would have like to ask him a question about this during the question period.
Mr. Speaker, he is reported to have said that if the rights of the English-speaking minority in Quebec were not respected following passage of legislation that will be submitted to the Quebec National Assembly, the federal government would intervene to protect the rights of English-speaking minorities in Quebec, while avoiding any use of force.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this question is of national interest and this is why I would have liked the Chair to recognize me so that I may ask the minister about this to allow him to clarify the statement he made on this issue and to make all of Canada aware of the intentions of the federal government concerning the rights of minorities in a given province.

Canada Shipping Act


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert) wanted to put a question to the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) during the question period this afternoon, but unfortunately this was impossible because of the pressures which are typical on a Wednesday, especially because several members seek the floor each Wednesday to ask their questions. This afternoon it was possible to give the floor to only one Social Crediter, to two New Democrats, and then 12 or 13 Progressive Conservatives. I am convinced of the importance and of the quality of the question prepared by the hon. member for Bellechasse, but unfortunately it was impossible to recognize him this afternoon. He may perhaps ask his question tomorrow. This subject can be the matter of a question, but not of a question of privilege or a point of order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Just to keep the record complete, Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, under Standing Order 41(2), copies in both official languages of the correspondence I received today from Mr. Harry Boyle, Chairman of the CRTC, in which he indicates the Commission's agreement to undertake an inquiry into the CBC.


AERONAUTICS ACT
Otto Emil Lang: for leave to introduce Bill C-40, to amend the Aeronautics Act.


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

Otto Emil Lang: for leave to introduce Bill C-41, to provide a maritime code for Canada and to amend the Canada Shipping Act and other acts in consequence thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
(Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse).]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 349, 350, 353, 355, 947, 1,012, 1,082, 1,306, 1,471, 1,518, 1,547, 1,548, 1,693, 1,720 and 1,978.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What proportion of total sales were the sales of the four largest firms in the agricultural implement industry in (a) 1960, (b) 1965, (c) 1970, (d) 1975 (or the most recent year statistics are available)?
2.	What proportion of total sales did the eight largest firms in the industry earn in (a) 1960, (b) 1965, (c) 1970, (d) 1975 (or the most recent year statistics are available)?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada replies: 1. The proportion of total sales earned by the four largest firms in the agricultural implement industry was 71.6 percent in 1965, 70.5 percent in 1970 and 65.2 percent in 1972 (Data for 1960 are confidential).
2. The proportion of total sales earned by the eight largest firms in the agricultural implement industry was 90.9 percent in 1958*, 84.8 percent in 1965, 79.9 percent in 1970 and 77.8 percent in 1972.
* Data are not available for 1960. Data are available for 1958 as the result of a recent historical study of selected industries.
Note: Data are given confidential status when there is considered to be a reasonable chance of particulars being deduced.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What proportion of total sales were the sales of the four largest firms in the beverage industry in (a) 1960, (b) 1965, (c) 1970, (d) 1975 (or the most recent year statistics are available)?
2.	What proportion of total sales did the eight largest firms in the industry earn in (a) 1960, (b) 1965, (c) 1970, (d) 1975 (or the most recent year statistics are available)?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Statistics Canada reports: Soft Drinks Manufacturers: 1. The proportion of total sales earned by the four largest soft drink manufacturers was 45.1 percent in 1958*, 40.8 percent in 1965, 45.9 percent in 1970 and 46.2 percent in 1972.
2. The proportion of total sales earned by the eight largest soft drink manufacturers was 52.9 percent in 1958*, 48.0 percent in 1965, 54.5 percent in 1970 and 55.8 percent in 1972.
March 9, 1977

Distilleries: 1. The proportion of total sales earned by the four largest distilleries was 81.1 percent in 1958*, 84.2 percent in 1965, 86.4 percent in 1970, 80.9 percent in 1972.
2. The proportion of total sales earned by the eight largest distilleries was 91.7 percent in 1958*, 96.3 percent in 1965, 97.9 percent in 1970, and 94.5 percent in 1972.
Breweries: 1. The proportion of total sales earned by the four largest breweries was 92.5 percent in 1958*, 94.5 percent in 1965, 94.0 percent in 1970 and 96.5 percent in 1972.
2. The proportion of total sales earned by the eight largest breweries was 96.9 percent in 1958*, 99.6 percent in 1965 and 100 percent (only 7 enterprises) in 1972. The data for 1970 is confidential.
Wineries: 1. The proportion of total sales earned by the four largest wineries was 78.2 percent in 1958*, 71.1 percent in 1965, 64.1 percent in 1970 and 63.9 percent in 1972.
2. The proportion of total sales earned by the eight largest wineries was 95.4 percent in 1958*, 94.9 percent in 1965, 94.4 percent in 1970 and 89.4 percent in 1972.
* Data are not available for 1960. Data are available for 1958 as the result of recent historical study of selected industries. Note: Data are given confidential status when there is considered to be a reasonable chance of particulars being deduced.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What proportion of total sales were the sales of the four largest firms in the flour and breakfast cereal products industry in (a) 1960, (b) 1965, (c) 1970, (d) 1975 (or the most recent year statistics are available)?
2.	What proportion of total sales did the eight largest firms in the industry earn in (a) 1960, (b) 1965, (c) 1970, (d) 1975 (or the most recent year statistics are available)?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Statistics Canada reports that: The flour and breakfast cereal products industry were treated as two industries by Statistics Canada beginning in 1970. 1. The proportion of total sales earned by the four largest firms in the following industries was: (i) Flour Mills industry: (a) 80.0 per cent in 1958*, (b) 79.6 per cent in 1965; (ii) Breakfast cereal manufacturers industry: (a) confidential, (b) confidential; (iii) Flour mills and breakfast cereal manufacturers: (c) 70.0 per cent in 1970, (d) 66.8 per cent in 1972.
2. The proportion of sales earned by the eight largest firms in the industry was: (i) Flour mills: (a) 90.2 per cent in 1958*, (b) 90.1 per cent in 1965; (ii) Breakfast cereal manufacturers: (a) confidential; (b) confidential; (iii) Flour mills and breakfast cereal manufacturers: (c) 87.7 per cent in 1970, (d) 85.3 per cent in 1972.
* Data are not available for 1960. However, for certain industries data are available for 1958 as the result of a recent historical study of selected industries.
Order Paper Questions
Note: Data are given confidential status when there is considered to be a reasonable chance of particulars being deduced.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What proportion of total sales were the sales of the four largest firms in the fruit and vegetable processing industry in (a) 1960, (b) 1965, (c) 1970, (d) 1975 (or the most recent year statistics are available)?
2.	What proportion of total sales did the eight largest firms in the industry earn in (a) 1960, (b) 1965, (c) 1970, (d) 1975 (or the most recent year statistics are available)?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Statistics Canada reports that: the fruit and vegetable processing industry was treated as two industries by Statistics Canada beginning in 1970. 1. The proportion of total sales earned by the four largest firms in the following industries was as follows: (i) The fruit and vegetable processing industry: (a) 44.1 per cent in 1958*, (b) 39.2 per cent in 1965; (ii) The fruit and vegetable canners and preservers: (c) 41.6 per cent in 1970, (d) 39.7 per cent in 1972; (iii) The frozen fruit and vegetable processors: (c) The data for 1970 is confidential, (d) 60.5 per cent in 1972.
2. The proportion of total sales earned by the eight largest firms in the industry was: (i) The fruit and vegetable processing industry: (a) 52.6 per cent in 1958*, (b) 52.0 per cent in 1965; (ii) Fruit and vegetable canners and preservers: (c) 57.5 per cent in 1970, (d) 55.9 per cent in 1972. (iii) Frozen fruit and vegetable processors: (c) 78.0 per cent in 1970, (d) 78.2 per cent in 1972.
* Data not available for 1960. However, for certain industries, data are available for 1958, as the result of a recent historical study of selected industries.
Note: Data are given confidential status when there is considered to be a reasonable chance of particulars being deduced.
anti-inflation board-personnel


Mr. Howie: 1.	(a) As of November 1, 1976, how many persons were employed by the Anti-Inflation Board, (b) what is the total annual wage of those employed?
2.	How many persons were employed by the Anti-Inflation Board for a nominal, on a volunteer basis or fee for service?
3.	Have outside consultants been employed by the Anti-Inflation Board since its inception and, if so (a) how many, (b) who were these firms or persons, (c) what amount was paid to each, (d) for what purpose were they employed, (e) in each case, is the report available to the public?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. As of November 1, 1976 (a) 674 permanent and term employees, (b) Annual salary for permanent and term employees-$ 10,644,009.20.
2.	One hundred ninety-one secondments, executive interchange, contract and personnel agencies.
3.	(a) Nineteen; (b), (c) and (d) See the table below, (e) It will be noted that the purposes of the studies as shown in the

March 9, 1977
Order Paper Questions
table below were mainly to assist in the internal operations of the AIB. The reports are for internal administration and will not be made public.
3(b)	3(c)
Firms or Persons	Amount Paid
1. Bureau of Management	$221,871.00
Consultants, Department of	
Supply and Services	
2. Project Management Centre,	21,150.00
Department of Supply and	
Services	
3. University of Toronto	5,000.00
4. University of Guelph	1,737.92
5. Mr. D. Auld	133.95
6. Mr.L. Christofides	*	
7. Mr. R. Swindinsky	*	
8. Mr. Y. Kotowitz	4,265.81
9. Mr. J. C. Gragg, University of	1,000.00
British Columbia	
10. Canadian Economic Services Ltd.	4,930.20
11. Corporate Economics Ltd.	12,250.00
12. Systemshouse Limited	94,232.52
13. Data Logic Ltd.	153,395.88
14. Systems Dimension Ltd.	80,692.62
15. Data Cap Ltd.	39,527.20
16. CD Howe Research Institute	4,016.53
17. N. A. Gemmel	8,000.00
18. Herman Smith Resources	32,595.15
19. Pierre Fontaine et Associe	60,890.24
3(d)
Purpose of Study
Internal operation and administration of the department
Central Planning and scheduling
a)	wage determination in Public Sector
b)	analysis of changes in relative earnings
c)	analysis of wage controls in U.S.A. Analysis of microwage adjustments and
income policies
Analysis of microwage adjustments and income policies
Analysis of microwage adjustments and income policies
Analysis of microwage adjustments and income policies
Analysis of microwage adjustments and income policies
Role of expectations in the process of inflation To design systems for assessing A IB's impact on consumer prices Compensation evaluation Computer programming services Computer programming services Computer programming services Computer programming services Advice on Communications Policy Advice on development of reporting systems Advice on establishment of Compensation Branch
Assistance and advice in the development of AIB communications
* No payments had been made up to November 1, 1975.


Mr. Howie: 1.	What amount was paid for entertainment by the Canadian foreign service including trade commissions, embassies, consulates, delegations and all offices in and outside of Canada in the fiscal year ending March 31 (a) 1976, (b) 1975, (c) 1974?
2.	Is a separate account available for alcoholic beverages and (a) if so, in what amount, (b) if not, what is available and in what manner is it ascertained?


Ralph Goodale: 1.
Department of External Affairs
Canadian International Development Agency Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce Department of Manpower and Immigration
(a)


[Stage Direction]
(b)
[Stage Direction]
2. No. (a) Not applicable, (b) No separate account is maintained and it would be impossible to calculate these
(Mr. Kaplan.]
expenditures with any meaningful accuracy. Other departments involved have submitted a nil reply or cannot separate the entertainment costs of foreign officials and delegations from the general hospitality account.
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Has the playing of the Royal Anthem "God Save the Queen" been dropped by CBC TV when they sign off each evening and, if so, by whose authority?
2.	(a) For what reason was the decision taken, (b) on what date was the Royal Anthem dropped?
3.	Has the Royal Anthem been dropped by all CBC TV stations and, if not, which CBC TV stations are no longer playing the Royal Anthem at sign off and what is the reason in each case?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. The CBC television network as such does not sign off at night. Sign-off is carried out by individual stations. The CBC has placed the responsibility on these stations to decide whether "God Save the Queen" will be played.
2. Not applicable.
March 9, 1977

3. No. CBC stations which do not carry "God Save the Queen" are as follows: CBGAT Matane, CBVT Quebec City, CBOT and CBOFT Ottawa, CBLFT Toronto, CBET Windsor, CBWT and CBWFT Winnipeg, CBXFT Edmonton, CBRT Calgary, CBUFT Vancouver, (11 out of a total of 27 stations). The reasons given by these stations is that "O Canada" has general public acceptance as the national anthem and is therefore considered to be the appropriate anthem to be played at sign-off.


Mr. Neil: As of November 30, 1976, how many (a) producers have opted out of the Western Grain Stabilization Plan, (b) employees are on staff under the Western Grain Stabilization Plan?


Otto Emil Lang: In so far as
Canadian Wheat Board is concerned: As of December 31, 1976. (a) 39,663; (b) Nine full-time; six casuals.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Is mail delivery being extended to new urban concentrations of population which lie outside existing door-to-door letter carrier routes and, if so, by what methods?
2.	Are steps being taken to bring this service into line with the door-to-door service available in other areas and, if so, what are they?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: 1. Delivery beyond existing letter carrier route boundaries is made through group boxes located in or near new areas.
2. No. Extensions of letter carrier service have been deferred until further notice. This policy became effective November 18, 1975, and is part of the federal policy on restraint in spending.


Mr. Malone: 1.	(a) In each of the past three years, how many persons received CPP disability allowances, (b) how many were eligible for a disability tax exemption, (c) what was the (i) average, (ii) median income of the recipients?
2.	(a) In each of the past three years, how many persons qualified for a disabled persons tax exemption, (b) what was the (i) average, (ii) median income of the recipients, (c) how many were recipients of CPP disability benefits?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as Health and Welfare Canada is concerned: 1. (a) The number of persons in receipt of CPP disability pensions at the end of the past three years was: December, 1974 38,444; December, 1975 48,901; December, 1976 61,305. (b) and (c).
2.(a), (b) and (c) The Department of National Health and Welfare has no information relating to personal incomes or tax exemptions.
In so far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned: 1. (b) and (c) This information is not available.
Order Paper Questions
2. (a) and (b) The information requested is not readily available from existing statistical tabulations, (c) This information is not available.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs obtained (a) part-time, (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia, (ii) Alberta, (iii) Saskatchewan, (iv) Manitoba, (v) Ontario, (vi) Quebec, (vii) New Brunswick, (viii) Nova Scotia, (ix) Prince Edward Island, (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies, (b) average hourly rate paid to employees, (c) total amount paid by the Department in (i) 1975, (ii) 1976?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: 1. (a) Yes.
2.	Main Estimates.
3.	(c) (i) $392,045. (ii) $291,569.11 to January 25, 1977. Other information is not readily available.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Department of Communications obtained (a) part-time, (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia, (ii) Alberta, (iii) Saskatchewan, (iv) Manitoba, (v) Ontario, (vi) Quebec, (vii) New Brunswick, (viii) Nova Scotia, (ix) Prince Edward Island, (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies, (b) average hourly rate paid to employees, (c) total amount paid by the Department in (i) 1975, (ii) 1976?


Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: 1. See following statement.
	1975-76	1976-77
British Columbia	4	19Alberta	8	7Saskatchewan	1	1Manitoba	2	1Ontario (including National Capital Region)	139	142Quebec	5	5New Brunswick	0	0Nova Scotia	0	0Prince Edward Island	0	0Newfoundland	0	0British Columbia	0	0Alberta	0	0Saskatchewan	0	0Manitoba	0	0Ontario (including National Capital Region)	0	0Quebec	0	0New Brunswick	0	0Nova Scotia	0	0Prince Edward Island	0	0Newfoundland	0	0
March 9, 1977
Order Paper Questions 2. From the Department's main estimates.
(a) (i)
(ii)
3. See following statement.
(b) (i) (ii)	(c)
Hourly Rate/Agencies
Province	1975-76	1976-77British Columbia	$2.34	$2.28Alberta	2.20	2.48Saskatchewan	2.08	2.10Manitoba	2.12	2.38Ontario	2.53	3.00Quebec	1.83	1.88New Brunswick	0	0Nova Scotia	0	0Prince Edward Island	0	0Newfoundland	0	0


Mr. Howie: Does the government have any contingency plans to protect the Canadian public from the increased inflation resulting from the devaluation of the Canadian dollar in relation to foreign currencies and, if so, what are they?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The government's existing policy concerning the indexation of the Old Age Pension, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, the Family Allowance, Veterans Benefits, etc. automatically provides a degree of protection against increases in the price level from any source.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1975, has DREE made any effort to find or assist in the finding of industries willing to locate in the Industrial Park at Nackawic, New Brunswick and, if so, what are they?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: Please see the reply to question 1063, House of Commons Debates, January 24, 1977, page 2290.


Mr. Halliday: 1.	Has any of the Olympic track and field equipment in Montreal been sold to persons outside of Canada and, if so (a) what equipment, (b) to whom, (c) was it sold by auction, (d) what was the price in each case?
2.	Was the sale advertised in Canada and, if so, in what manner and in what locations?
3.	Was any consideration given to distributing such equipment free to Canadian track and field clubs and, if so, what was the conclusion and the reason for such conclusion?


Ralph Goodale: This matter does not fall within the administrative responsibility of the Government of Canada
(Mr. Milne.]
(i) (ii)
Total Paid by Dept.
	1975-76	1976-77
The average hourly	$ 2,472.00	$26,270.00rate paid to employees	1,950.44	9,388.50by agencies is not	175.50	275.61known to the Department of Communica-	2,564.02	624.76tions	59,087.00	86,214.922,448.98	2,866.880	00	00	00	0
(see Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Form, Fourth Edition, citation No. 171 (Y).
*


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 1,052 and 1,164 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
1 should perhaps point out to the House that this is largely the material requested yesterday which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Poulin) and I undertook to present to the House as quickly as possible in response to the question of the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay).


Mr. MacKay: 1.	Since April 1, 1970, did Dr. Ivan Fellegi, Assistant Chief Statistician, receive any remuneration for services rendered outside of his official duties at Statistics Canada and, if so, in each case, what was the (a) name of the organization or individual which paid him, (b) date of payment, (c) amount involved, (d) nature of the service rendered?
2.	Is Mr. A. Sunter, recently Senior Advisor to Dr. Ivan Fellegi at Statistics Canada, presently employed in the Public Service and, if so (a) in which department, (b) at what classification and salary range, (c) in what capacity, (d) at what location?
Return tabled.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	Prior to February 28, 1974, what outside activities relating to the dissemination or analysis of statistical data by Mr. Gerald Snyder, Mr. F. L. Torring-ton, Mr. I. E. Altman, Mr. Y. Goulet and Rosalyn Snyder were known to Dr. Sylvia Ostry, Messrs. V. R. Berlinguette, G. W. Andrews and Walter Duffett of Statistics Canada?
2.	Prior to February 28, 1974, was the existence of Alan Jefferey Associates known to Dr. Sylvia Ostry, Messrs. V. R. Berlinguette or G. W. Andrews of Statistics Canada and, if so, in each case, what was the earliest date of such knowledge?

3.	During December 1973 and January and February 1974, was statistical information requested by officials of the National Capital Commission from the Merchandising and Services Division of Statistics Canada and, if so (a) what was the information, (b) on what dates, (c) in each case, what was the name of the (i) NCC official, (ii) Statistics Canada official, (d) what information was (i) provided, (ii) not provided and, for what reason?
4.	Did NCC officials discover that Decision Sciences Corporation, Pennsylvania, was obtaining statistical information on shopping centres in the Ottawa area from employees of Statistics Canada and, if so (a) how was the discovery made, (b) on what date, (c) who was the NCC official and from what source did he or she learn of such information?
5.	Was a Statistics Canada employee reported to the NCC for providing statistical data to Decision Sciences Corporation and, if so (a) what was his or her name, (b) was the employee contacted by any official of the NCC for the purpose of obtaining statistical information and, if so (i) on what date, (ii) what data were sought, (iii) what was the name of the NCC official?
6.	Did the Statistics Canada employee, referred to in Part 5, offer to sell privately to the NCC, statistical information and, if so (a) what was the asking price,(b) how did the NCC official respond to the offer and did he notify any other NCC officials and, if so (i) who, (ii) on what date?
7.	As of November 3, 1976, was the Minister responsible for Statistics Canada aware that an employee had offered data derived from Statistics Canada sources to an official of the NCC and (a) if so, for what reason was it not reported in the answer to Part 9 of Question No. 764, (b) if not, were the officials of Statistics Canada aware of this offer?
8.	As of November 3, 1976, was the Minister responsible for Statistics Canada aware that Mr. Snyder in 1973, entered into negotiations with Dean John Crispo and with the Government of Ontario regarding a study of shopping centre sales, which Mr. Snyder would conduct on a non-governmental basis and (a) if so, for what reason was it not reported in the answer to Part 9 of Question No. 764, (b) if not, were the officials of Statistics Canada aware of such negotiations?
9.	Was the Chairman of the NCC notified of the activity of the Statistics Canada employee and, if so (a) on what date, (b) by whom, (c) in what form?
10.	Did the Chairman of the NCC notify the Clerk of the Privy Council of the activity of the Statistics Canada employee and, if so (a) on what date, (b) in what form?
11.	(a) What employees of Statistics Canada were referred to by name or title in the letter of the Chairman of the NCC to the Clerk of the Privy Council, (b) what were the reported activities of each such person?
12.	Did the (a) Chairman of the NCC, (b) Clerk of the Privy Council notify the Chief Statistician of the activity of the employee of Statistics Canada and, if so, on what date and in w.hat form?
13.	Did the Chairman of the NCC notify the RCMP of the activity of an employee of Statistics Canada, as reported to him by his officials and (a) if so, on what date, (b) if not, for what reason?
14.	(a) What employees of Statistics Canada were referred to by name or title in the letter of the Clerk of the Privy Council to the Chief Statistician, (b) what were the reported activities of each such person?
15.	Did the Clerk of the Privy Council notify the RCMP of the activity of an employee of Statistics Canada, as reported to him by the Chairman of the NCC and (a) if so, on what date, (b) if not, for what reason?
16.	Prior to February 28, 1974, were there any discussions between the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Chief Statistician about the activity of an employee of Statistics Canada reported by the Chairman of the NCC and, if so, on what date?
17.	Did the Clerk of the Privy Council in his letter of February 26, 1974, or on any other occasion, offer any advice to the Chief Statistician on the action to be taken in respect of the activity of an employee of Statistics Canada as reported to him by the Chairman of the NCC and, if so (a) what was the advice, (b) on what date was it offered and for what reason?
18.	On what date did the Chief Statistician first learn of the alleged improper activity of an employee of Statistics Canada as reported by the Chairman of the NCC?
19.	On February 28, 1974, did the Chief Statistician call a meeting of Statistics Canada officials to discuss the improper activities alleged by the Chairman of the NCC of a Statistics Canada employee and, if so, what were the names of the officials present at the meeting?
Order Paper Questions
20.	Did any official of Statistics Canada, privy to the information conveyed to the Chief Statistician by the Clerk of the Privy Council or the Chairman of the NCC, discuss the alleged improper activity of an employee of Statistics Canada with the Director of the Merchandising and Services Division prior to April 28, 1974 and (a) if so, who was the official and on what date did the discussion take place, (b) if not, what were the reasons for not notifying the Director of the Merchandising and Services Division?
21.	Did any official of Statistics Canada, privy to the information conveyed to the Chief Statistician by the Clerk of the Privy Council or the Chairman of the NCC, discuss the alleged activity within the Merchandising and Services Division with (a) Mr. Snyder, (b) Mr. Torrington, (c) Mr. Altman, (d) Mr. Goulet prior to June 17, 1974 and, if so (i) what were the names of the officials involved, (ii) what was the nature of the discussion, (iii) on what date did the discussion take place?
22.	Did the RCMP contact (a) Mr. Snyder, (b) Rosalyn Snyder, (c) Mr. Torrington, (d) Mr. Altman, (e) Mr. Goulet and, if so, in each case, on what date?
23.	What individuals were interviewed by the RCMP in the course of their investigation and on what dates?
24.	Was any search made by the RCMP in the course of their investigation and, if so (a) on what date, (b) what were the locations involved, (c) what documents were seized, if any?
25.	Was the conclusion of the RCMP investigation that there had been no breach of the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act, based on consultation with Statistics Canada officials and, (a) if so (i) what were the names of the officials, (ii) what advice did they provide, (b) if not, what were the qualifications of the investigating RCMP officer which would have provided the statistical expertise required to form such a judgement?
26.	Were all the data sold to Decision Sciences Corporation examined in detail by officials of Statistics Canada?
27.	Did Mr. Snyder, Rosalyn Snyder, Mr. Torrington, Mr. Altman or Mr. Goulet, employees of Statistics Canada, state to the RCMP that they or Alan Jefferey Associates were operating with the prior knowledge or approval of any official of Statistics Canada and, if so, what officials were named?
28.	As of February 1, 1974, did (a) Mr. Snyder, (b) Mr. Torrington, (c) Mr. Altman, (d) Mr. Goulet from Statistics Canada have access to data files containing information pertaining to individual respondents of Statistics Canada surveys and, if so (i) what surveys were involved, (ii) what was the exact nature of the information in each case?
29.	What were the exact responsibilities of (a) Mr. Snyder, (b) Mr. Torrington, (c) Mr. Altman, (d) Mr. Goulet with respect to the planning, implementation and publications of the 1971 Census of Merchandising and Services?
30.	What was the total cost of the 1971 Census of Merchandising and Services, in each fiscal year, in which expenditures relating to the Census were made?
31.	In the initial submission presented by Statistics Canada to the Treasury Board relating to the 1971 Census of Merchandising and Services, what was the projected cost for each fiscal year of the Census?
32.	Did any publication resulting from the 1971 Census of Merchandising and Services contain less information than had been planned as of June 1, 1971 and, if so, in each case, what were the reasons for the absence of such information?
33.	Of the publications that had been planned to result from the 1971 Census of Merchandising and Services, which ones had not been published as of October 1, 1976 and, in each case, for what reason?
34.	As of October 1, 1976, what publications have been issued from the 1971 Census of Merchandising and Services and, in each case, what was the content and date of such publication?
35.	As of June 1, 1971, what publications were planned to result from the 1971 Census of Merchandising and Services and, in each case, what was the intended content and date of the publication?
36.	As of October 1, 1976, how many employees of Statistics Canada with university degrees, occupied positions which do not require university degrees and, in each case, what was the classification of such position?
Return tabled.

March 9, 1977
Old Age Security


Ralph Goodale: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Marc Lalonde: that Bill C-35, to amend the Old Age Security Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Marc Lalonde: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to Bill C-35,1 am pleased at the outset to thank all hon. members who participated in the debate on second reading and in the discussions of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. As was noted on these occasions, the provisions of the bill are important for all residents of Canada, especially for those who have earned social security credits in other countries but who are deprived of foreign benefits in the absence of international agreements. Now that a general consensus has been reached concerning these provisions, I trust that hon. members will want to give the bill speedy passage.
The constructive suggestions made by hon. members on all sides of the House in considering this bill are a matter of public record. I would therefore like to describe briefly certain of the measures which my department has taken in responding to them.

In addition to the public information campaign, to which I referred in committee, for conveying the provisions of the bill accurately to the general public, I intend to continue our efforts to inform fully all members of program developments. As a result of the arrangements for closer liaison between constituency offices and OAS regional offices which my department inaugurated last December, our regional directors report that the level of service to pensioners has improved and that GIS renewals are being handled more effectively. This is due in large part to the more prominent role being played by hon. members and their constituency offices in handling inquiries from pensioners. For its part, the department has improved its field services through the establishment of 76 itinerant offices. In combination, these measures have led to a more efficient resolution of pensioner problems and, in most cases, to same day replies.
My department intends to reinforce this link by providing program information to constituency offices, as we have done during the initial phases of this bill. I will, of course, continue to welcome the comments of hon. members on our progress in this area.
When the standing committee was examining the bill the other evening, one hon. member raised an objection to the fact that we require the pensioner to sign jointly with his spouse the application for spouse's allowance benefits. I undertook at that time to investigate whether a pensioner had ever refused to sign an application for spouse's benefits. Upon investigation we could find only one instance of a pensioner refusing to sign the spouse's application out of over 75,000 benefits being paid, and even this particular instance could well be justified since in some instances the fact that a spouse's allowance would be granted could result in lower GIS benefits for the pensioner. The dual signing requirement would therefore not appear to be a significant problem. At the same time there are good reasons for having this procedure.
The dual signatures give some assurance, first of all, that the couple are indeed married or have a common law relationship and are living together. The dual signatures also mean that we have the spouse's acceptance of the fact that his or her GIS may be varied downward in accordance with the rates payable under the spouse's allowance program. Therefore it would seem to be the best course to leave the matter the way it is.

It is also the government's intention to broaden the options feature under the GIS and spouse's allowance programs to provide compensation for reductions in Canada Pension Plan benefits and for cessation or reduction of alimony payments or of private carrier disability insurance payments.
GIS and spouse's allowance benefits are payable on a fiscal year basis and are based on income received in the previous calendar year. However, when a person suffers a loss of income due to termination or reduction of private pension benefits, GIS and spouse's allowance benefits may be recalculated on the basis of the estimated reduced income for the
March 9, 1977

current calendar year, thus allowing for an increase in these income-tested benefits.
Currently, the old age security regulations governing this issue do not include CPP/QPP survivors' and disability benefits, alimony or private disability insurance payments. My officials have recently reviewed this issue and have concluded that the option provisions currently covering annuity payments, unemployment insurance benefits plus superannuation and other private pension payments should also cover supplementary CPP/QPP benefits, alimony and private disability insurance payments.
I wish to thank the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) in particular for having brought the matter to the attention of the committee.
The government therefore intends to amend the old age security regulations so that the new option provisions become effective with the proclamation date of this bill. In the meantime, my officials will continue to study this matter with a view to clarifying whether other income items should be added to the list used to determine entitlement to income-tested benefits under the old age security program.

Time does not permit me to review all the helpful suggestions made and the efforts being deployed in following them up. The primary objectives of Bill C-35 are to permit international agreements, and to provide greater equity in the treatment of beneficiaries and consistency among the three tiers of the Canadian retirement income system. Therefore, in once again thanking all concerned for their contribution toward achieving these objectives-and assuring them of the continuing co-operation of my officials and myself-I would urge upon all hon. members the bill's speedy passage.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, as has been stated, we do not intend to hold up this bill unduly because the vast majority of us who have had anything to do with it through second reading stage, committee stage, and now third reading, find there are matters in it that have been outstanding for a considerable time which need a little tidying up.
I was pleased to note that the minister had reviewed the position which was brought to his attention by one of the lady members with regard to joint applications. It is interesting to note that out of 75,000 joint applications there was only one which was a problem, which really indicates that there is no problem whatsoever.
I am also appreciative of the fact that the minister indicated to us that certain exceptions will be made in the GIS. He mentioned that in a few cases it would be counted as income. I would respectfully point out to the minister that in committee he indicated some 18 different examples of income which would reduce GIS. As I understand it, he is looking into this matter very thoroughly. It seems to me that if anyone needs assistance in this country, it is certainly our senior citizens, to whom we owe a considerable debt, and I hope the minister will be active in this regard and that in the near future he will
Old Age Security
come up with further exemptions which would allow long-run financial assistance to our senior citizens.
I would like to take a little bit of time to review this legislation. Changes in the residency requirement respecting old age security so that the pension is earned by residents at the rate of one-fortieth of the eventual full pension for each one year of residence in Canada after age 18 mean that in order to receive the full pension one must be legally resident in Canada for 40 years. Any length of residence less than 40 years would qualify a person for an OAS pension which is a portion of the full pension calculated at the rate of one-fortieth for each year. The present residency rules create a situation whereby one either qualifies for pension or does not receive one at all. This is certainly a hardship. We have now done away with the all or nothing at all provision with respect to OAS. I must say that that is a commendable step, and it will certainly assist many people.
I think this bill is very important, and it will seem even more important when I indicate what can happen to some people who are being shortchanged. On the international level, to protect the acquired social security credits of our residents who migrate across international borders during their active years, as a result of this bill we can negotiate reciprocal agreements with other countries similar to those already in existence. This would facilitate the receipt of pension credits accumulated by immigrants in their country of origin though they now reside in Canada. Reciprocal agreements make social security portable between contracting countries and allow for the co-ordination of their social security programs.
As I understand it, we do not need this bill to start negotiating with countries such as Italy, France, the United Kingdom, Bermuda, Jamaica, etc., but it is the expressed intention of the minister to start, if not continue, discussions with the various countries so that we can be in a position to execute the documents as soon as this bill is proclaimed. As I understand it, the bill will be proclaimed as soon as possible, but the earliest date the minister can see right now is July 1.
I hope that on further reflection the minister will be able to settle on an earlier date because I do not know why, if this bill is passed tonight or perhaps tomorrow, it cannot be implemented a little earlier. In any event, we at least know he has a target date of July 1.
I would like to put on the record what this new residency requirement actually does. There has been a lot of misunderstanding. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked me-and I was very honoured-to second his motion regarding the press, on February 10. Not having read the bill to know what it is all about, the press, unwittingly perhaps, projected a feeling by way of reports which left people confused with respect to what is really required. 1 would like to put the following on the record:
Q. To whom would the new residence rules apply?
A. After a transition period of 40 years, to everybody. During the transition period, however, only to residents of Canada under the age of 25 when the new

March 9, 1977
Old Age Security
rules come into force, and to anyone, irrespective of age, who is not now residing in Canada or who has not had prior legal residence here after the age of 18.
That is an important statement. It indicates that the new rules apply during the transition period only to residents of Canada under the age of 25, and those coming into Canada. That is one point.
There is another point. This does get a little fuzzy unless one is extremely careful, and I want to follow it up. Regarding to whom the new residence rules apply, persons 25 or over residing in Canada or having had prior legal residence here after the age of 18 will have the opportunity, as they have now, to qualify for a full pension under the existing residence requirements. That means the present law. If they cannot qualify for a full pension under the existing rules, they could receive a partial pension related to their years of residence in Canada, under the new rules. That means that these people will have a choice, and this is where we have to be extremely careful. This is why I pointed out to the minister that we must advertise in order to bring about full awareness of the implications of the matter I just spoke of because, if one is not careful, one can be shortchanged. If people do not know what this bill is all about, they may take an early pension and get less than the amount to which they would really be entitled had they known the implications of applying for an earlier pension.
I know the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre likes to have credit given to him when it is due. He brought home very forcibly a problem which can arise. I would like to read from the committee report of February 22 wherein the hon. member was concerned about a person who would be entitled to twenty-nine fortieths of a pension because that person had that amount of time, but if he waited a further month he could have been entitled to thirty fortieths, if I can put it that way. This means that that has to be properly advertised.
By asking for an early pension a person can shortchange himself for the sake of one month. At page 19:15 the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is reported to have said the following:
Let me give you this example. I have picked figures that build up my case, but it is a case that could take place. Somebody is in Canada now who is over 25, which puts him in the category of having the choice. He stays here until he is 43-that is 18 years-and then he goes away. He comes back at age 62. So, at age 65 he has had 18 years that he was here earlier and three more, which makes 21. So, under the new rule he qualifies for 21/40ths of the pension.


Marc Lalonde: Right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But let us take that same person who had 18 years here before. Under the old rule, on the three for one basis, that is worth six years. He has now been here from age 62 to 65, three years, that is nine years. If he waited one more year, instead of getting 21 /40ths of the pension he would get 100 per cent under the old rule. I do not think it is good enough just to spell out the rules. I think the person who comes along with that record should be told, 'Look, brother, one more year and you will get 100 per cent instead of 21/40ths.'
That is what I mean by a shortchange provision. We are very happy to have had the wisdom and expertise of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who zeroed in on this, but what do we intend to do? Well, the minister says he realizes that if people are not careful they will be shortchanged, and once they are shortchanged there will be no

turning back. We cannot turn back the clock, although the minister said that perhaps there would be some consideration given. However, the way the act is drafted, once a person applies and his application is approved, he has had it. In that way people can be shortchanged.
I am pleased that the minister mentioned the new liaison he has with the regional offices which are dealing with local constituencies in order to help senior citizens understand not only OAS but everything else which has to be done in terms of completing forms. We are concerned about whether there will be proper counselling. They should be told, "Under the regulations, if you take this pension now you are going to be shortchanged, so wait a month or two years, depending upon the circumstances, and you will be able to take full advantage of the act."
What 1 asked for, what I think the minister will do, and what should be done, is the provision of counselling services immediately the act is proclaimed so that no one will be shortchanged. In other words, I do not want the onus to be on the applicant; I want the onus to be on the government to protect our senior citizens. The minister says he understands that, and will move in that direction, not only on the domestic level but internationally as well. It is extremely important that people involved in this type of program not be shortchanged. I know the minister has been said to be a hard nut at times, but in connection with our senior citizens he seems to have some sympathy-except in one area, the spouse's allowance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Terrible!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Let me bring up another matter which was mentioned in committee. I am not going to be partisan because it is not a partisan matter. The government talks about restraint but it has spent $1 million trying to defend the indefensible-wage and price controls. I asked the minister, and he agreed, to find money to introduce an advertising program to publicize the changes. I know he has shafted all the municipalities with respect to urban transit, but this particular matter I speak of is extremely important.
I must give the minister credit for a paper which he had prepared setting forth all the hypothetical questions and answers. I asked him and he agreed-he is nodding his head affirmatively so he thinks this is a good point-to find the money for an advertising campaign to let senior citizens know the effect of this bill, particularly those who will be taking advantage of the choices offered.
In amending the Old Age Security Act the minister had to refer to the spouse's allowance, much to his disappointment and chagrin. This is one of the most draconian and callous measures the government could possibly conceive. It is a very simple procedure, but the minister opened up a hornets' nest and has no sympathy for the people involved.
March 9, 1977

First of all, there are people living together-they do not even have to be married. They can be living in sin, but I do not want to get involved in that because we raised hell about it before. If the minister's morality leans that way, that is his business. If one spouse is 65 and the other spouse between 60 and 64-under 65-the younger is entitled to a spouse's allowance. The spouse's allowance was set up because it was recognized that two people could not live on one pension, so it was a good principle. But the minister goes along with the fact that when the person receiving the old age pension dies, the one receiving the spouse's allowance no longer gets it. If they are receiving a combined pension of $420 and the one on old age security dies, then the survivor gets nothing.
I do not know why the minister is so hard in this respect. His position is indefensible. There are 200 elderly people who get a message of condolence every month when the spouse dies but then we tell them they are not going to get any money and that they can go on welfare or social assistance. That is not the same thing, Mr. Speaker. Once a person receives an income as a right, which he or she will as a result of this legislation, then I cannot understand why the minister is insistent on cutting the survivor spouse's allowance off. That does not make sense; it is draconian; it is callous. I hope the minister will have second thoughts about this. He will probably give a lot of excuses, but we cannot accept them.
I should also point out that the spouse's allowance is discriminatory. The minister would be better advised to wait until he brings in social security legislation. If he thinks he can win the approval of the provinces to a guaranteed annual income, he would be better to wait until such time as the country can afford it, otherwise he will only alienate the senior citizens. Those between age 60 and 64 who are living with someone, married or not, are recognized, but widows, widowers, spinsters, bachelors and separated people in the same age group are left out. That is blatant discrimination and has no place in government policy. The principle is wrong and we on this side resent it. We shall continue to hammer home the fact that the death of one spouse should not disentitle the other. The minister is going to have to see to it that these people are recognized.
I think I have covered the important points, Mr. Speaker, and I know my colleagues will have something to say on the bill. It moves in the right direction. The old age security pension will now be based on periods of residence, and that is a good thing. When the bill is passed, the "all or nothing" law will be removed, and if a person desires he or she can acquire a portion of the pension. Some 500,000 people in the country will be affected by the new reciprocal agreements. There are countless hundreds concerned about pensions from Great Britain who have not been able to acquire either the escalation in the principal payment of the pension or the escalation itself. Once these agreements are entered into Canadians living abroad will be able to take advantage of the pension there and those who come here from abroad can take advantage of pensions they cannot draw now.
Old Age Security
We endorse this bill, Mr. Speaker, we hope the minister will introduce the counselling service which is extremely important because of the choice, and that he can spend some money on advertising. If the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) can spend money flying the old Learjet surely we can get money to advertise the new rules that will affect so many people.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated when I spoke on behalf of the New Democratic Party on second reading, we support the principle of this bill, which has the effect of establishing a new basis with respect to the residency requirements for old age security. That is still our position. Not only do we support it, we welcome it because we believe that what is being proposed will solve a number of problems and put things on a basis of fairness. However, I shall have something more to say about that in a few minutes.
Of course during the course of my remarks I shall say something about the things not in the bill and which ought to be in it. Likewise, I shall speak with strong feeling about one feature of the Old Age Security Act which is being continued by this legislation without any attempt to correct a flagrant injustice involved therein.
Having said that we support the change this bill will establish in the residency requirements, 1 think I should put on record again the motion this House passed under Standing Order 43 on Thursday, February 10, as reported on page 2905 of Hansard. I had the privilege of moving the motion. It was seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), and reads in these words:
That this House urges the media to make it clear to the people of Canada that anyone now in Canada who is 25 years of age or over will not be affected by the new rules regarding old age security but will, on reaching age 65, be able to qualify under the residence rules now in effect for the full amount of the basic pension.
Not only did the House pass the motion unanimously, but the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) read it into the record when the standing committee met to deal with the bill. He gave that plea his approval. Emphasizing this aspect of the matter at the beginning of one's speech may seem to be a bit of a departure from the broad principles of the legislation, but my experience and correspondence tell me that it must be emphasized.
Let me make it clear that I think many of the provisions in the new rules are good. 1 shall say why I think so in a moment. In the meantime many Canadians now in this country, when they hear about the new rules, are confused and concerned lest they will get less pension than they thought they would receive.
I think all in this House agree that we want it to be understood that anybody who is in Canada on the day this new law is proclaimed, which I understand is to be July 1, 1977, who is 25 years of age or older, still has the right to qualify under the old rules, because the law will provide precisely that any such person can choose as between the old rule and the new rule, whichever is to the benefit of that person. But even

March 9, 1977
Old Age Security
after we have settled these things and the press has reported them, we will still get letters and inquiries. People are concerned about these things. The minister says that he will give the matter publicity. I hope that that publicity, together with what we are saying, will relieve the anxiety of those now in the country who fear that something will happen to the amount of pension they will get.
The present full pension is available to anyone who has resided the last ten years before age 65 in Canada or who meets the various rules which can be substituted for that requirement. Such people will still be able to get the full pension.
Since I have said so much about the applicability of the old rules to those who are now in this country, why am I speaking favourably about the new rules; why do we bother with them? There are two main reasons for the new rules. First, they will make it possible for persons who have left Canada, or persons who leave Canada before age 65 and who at present, unless they go through a pretty awkward routine, get nothing, to get a proportional amount of the pension. The new rule says that you get one fortieth of the full pension for each full year of residency in Canada after age 18. That means that persons now abroad who are not able to draw the old age security pension will, under the new rules, if they spent 15, 20 or 30 years in Canada after age 18, be able to apply for a prorated portion of the old age security pension. It is unfortunate that many of these people have been denied pensions. I think the rule which made it possible for some individuals to get the pension by coming back and spending a year in Canada at age 64 or 65 was fair, but impossible for many people to meet. Sir, I think it is good that we are making this provision.
The other side of the coin is not so easy to defend initially; certainly it is not so easy to praise, because it suggests that certain persons may get a lesser pension. Those who might get less down the road sometime are persons who come to Canada after this bill becomes law and are here after age 18 for less than 40 years. They will get only that number of fortieths represented by the number of years they have been here after age 18. Since we do not pay the pension to those who have left, why should we not be fair and treat both those who have come and those who have gone away in the same way?
What is the rest of the picture? Under this law reciprocal arrangements will be possible with other countries, and as we gain experience with this new law we shall see that there will be a great many persons in Canada who will be drawing pensions made up of a portion earned while they were in Canada, and a portion earned while they were in some other country, or perhaps two or three other countries. I am satisfied that when this whole process is in full working order, in many of those cases the situation will be much better than now and that many individuals will have a better total pension than they can now receive. As I say, this matter must be based on fairness.
The thing that strikes me as unfair at the moment is this: A person can be born in this country and live here until he is 55 years of age and then go away; but unless he comes back for

that other year about which we all know, he gets nothing. On the other hand a person can come to this country at age 55 and ten years later get the full pension. Clearly, the all or nothing arrangement contains elements of unfairness. This legislation seeks to correct that unfairness, and in that respect we think it is a good idea.
I shall return to that in a moment. Before I do so may I say that in addition to the need to clear up the confusion existing in the minds of many who are now in this country, it will also be necessary to clear up the confusion which may arise once the new regime is in operation. I thank the hon. member for Hamilton West, a good friend, for making it unnecessary for me to include all that I might have put into my speech, by quoting what I said in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. I appreciate his compliment, that I made the case with the examples I gave. Actually, I gave two examples.
When the new rule comes into effect, some persons will get less than they would otherwise be entitled to if they apply at the wrong time. The scheme will be worked on the basis of full years. If a person applies when he has 29 years and 11 months of residency, he will get less than if he had waited another month, and had 30 years of residency. In other words, he would get twenty-nine fortieths instead of thirty fortieths. He should be advised to wait one more month.
Then there will be cases of those who, by waiting a year or two, might qualify under the old rule and get 100 per cent pension, whereas under the new rule they would get less. I am happy to say that the response we got in the standing committee to the two examples I raised was an assurance, especially from public service officials representing the department, that a counselling service for dealing with such cases will be established.
I testify to what the minister has said, that the regional old age security offices have been developing contacts with our constituency offices and that counselling services are more available than they used to be. I am glad to know that when the new system gets going there will be a still more active counselling service. It can be very important to a person whether he applies, say, this month or next. When you add the escalation factor, in the years down the road, the point at which a person applies can make a tremendous difference. It is no use applying and then realizing one should have waited a month. It is too late, then. The basic amount given is the basic amount for life. So I am glad this counselling is to be put in place.
The legislation, generally, is the kind we can support. The two elements of confusion we have been talking about, the confusion which exists right away on the part of those who are here, and the confusion which can come down the road a bit, need to be dealt with and I am glad the department intends to do so.
Despite the approval I have given to the change of residence rules, there is one element which disturbs me. I am not going
March 9, 1977

to make a big fuss about it today because I think the fuss will have to be made in ten or 11 years' time, so hon. members can count on me 10 or 11 years from now to raise the point I have in mind-provided some of them are still here!
We are saying that a year's residence in Canada after age 18 gives you a fortieth of the pension, whether you are born here or came as an immigrant, whatever the age was. That is complete mathematical fairness. But I also look at it this way: a person who lives in Canada until he is 35, 40, 50, pick any age you want, and who then goes away, has maybe taken a slightly different attitude than the person who comes here even as late as age 55. The ones who have gone away from Canada and left-in some cases it would be for health reasons; that is one of the main reasons why I am delighted about this bill- and in other cases it might be for economic reasons because they can pick up a pension or a higher income in some other way-have left the country, have shaken the dust of Canada off their shoes, but those who have come here have come by choice; they have decided they want to live here for the rest of their days. It may be just a bit tough to tell such persons that because they were here only ten or 15 years prior to age 55 they will get only ten or fifteen fortieths of the pension. The reason I am not unduly concerned about this is because I have been here long enough to know that when injustices of that kind develop something is usually done about them. This will not show up in the next 10 or 11 years.
During the next eight or nine years, the old rules will apply and the persons who come here late in life will not qualify under either set of rules. In about 10 or 11 years from now, you watch, there will be members getting up in this House and saying, "I have got correspondence, I have got cases of persons who have come here late in life, who have made this country their home, who have made a contribution, and some of them will get only ten or fifteen fortieths of the pension." And the minister over there will say ten or 15 years from now, "Oh, but that person can get the full GIS." And we will say from this side-or maybe we shall be over there-"Ten fortieths or fifteen fortieths of the basic pension and the full GIS don't add up to the amount he would get if he got the full pension, and the full GIS." And the minister of that day, if he is anything like the present minister, will say, "Oh, but such persons can apply for social assistance." Social assistance, relief, welfare, whatever you call it, still has a stigma attached to it no matter how much you say it is a right under the law. I believe that if the day comes when we realize that Canada is not being fair to some of our new Canadians, we shall correct it.
I say that, Mr. Speaker, because I remember the days when no pensions could be taken out of Canada at all. And then we got it so you could take it if you had been here for 25 years. Later we changed that to 20 years. I remember the days when missionaries who had spent their lives abroad could not get the pension in Canada. But, as these things came to light parliament had the decency to correct them. Therefore I believe that ten or 11 years from now, if it does become apparent that we are not being fair to the immigrants who have come to this country and have been here only ten or 15 years, we will at
Old Age Security
that time do something about it. I would like to have it on the record now, and it comes from one who supports the bill, that this is a situation we may have to deal with a decade hence.


An hon. Member:: I don't think I shall be around.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear a number of remarks from over there. Some of my hon. friends do not seem to want to stay around here. This is a good place to stay.


An hon. Member:: He can listen as well as speak.


Marc Lalonde: He can do both.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to see that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has decided to come down to this end of the Chamber so he can hear me better.


Marc Lalonde: I want to hear the words of wisdom.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope he will like what I am going to say now, as well. I think that on a day like this, when we are amending the Old Age Security Act, it should be said, and who better to say it than a member of the opposition, that I think our Old Age Security Act and Canada Pension Plan legislation together make up one of the best provisions for retirement security you can find anywhere.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: In principle, old age security and the Canada Pension Plan are good. You know I believe we should increase the amount and lower the age, but in principle not only are they good-


An hon. Member:: They are the best in the world.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That sounds like the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). Everything he speaks of is the best in the world.


An hon. Member:: Like the government. It is the best in the world.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Listen! If you want me to make a speech about how the Liberals were forced to bring these things in, I shall do so. I have been here. I know the history. But I want to say to my hon. friends opposite who are now in a receptive mood and agreeing with me, that I see the day coming when retirement security, pensions for people generally will be based even more than they are today on the Old Age Security Act, and the Canada Pension Plan.
There is a great pension debate going on in the country right now. Do you know why that debate is going on? It is because private plans cannot fill the bill. Private plans cannot provide escalation, and all this campaign against escalation of public service pensions by private interests is just because they cannot do it.
3818

March 9, 1977
Old Age Security
Dr. Noel Hall in his report on railway pensions a while ago said that unless private pension plans can come through with escalation to keep pension plans up to the cost of living, they will fail. And I think they will. So I believe that what we need is to extend the Canada Pension Plan so that it provides not just 25 per cent of the income adjusted and so on of one's best working years, but 50 or 75 per cent.
Now I am back to what I was saying a moment ago when I was agreeing with my friends across the way that the concept of a basic flat pension, such as old age security, which is paid to everyone who reaches retirement age without any means test at all, plus an earnings-related pension on top of that, such as the Canada Pension Plan provides, is good. Not only is it good but it is the kind of thing that will provide the answer to failing private pension plans.
I completely support the position that is being taken by the Public Service Alliance of Canada in the advertising it has been spreading across the country these last few days to the effect that it is the private plans generally which are unfair to Canadians. Those who receive pensions from private pension plans represent only 40 per cent of the population of Canada. But who pays for them? The entire population.
We have a pension situation in Canada today in which everybody pays, but only some get good pensions. It would be far better to have everybody pay on an ability to pay basis, and everybody get adequate old age security under the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan. I plead very strongly that we move in that direction and that we move fairly soon. These things can move faster than one believes.
I suppose I have said this before, but I can remember when 1 was a new, young member sitting in the back row advocating the removal of the means tests, advocating pensions of $30 a month when it was $20, and advocating a lowering of the age. Some of my Conservative friends who sat nearby would say to me, "You have a good and bright idea, Stanley, but it will never come about; you are too futuristic". We have gone beyond even my dreams when I first came here, Mr. Speaker. However, I am not dreaming now but I am being very realistic when I say that the kind of economy we have today, the whole business of pension funds and indexing, is such that the real challenge is for government to improve old age security, to extend the Canada Pension Plan, and to let these two be the main basis for retirement security for all our peoples.
I had better not forget to look at the clock now and again, Mr. Speaker, because there is something I do want to do before my time runs out. Again I want to thank the minister for one improvement which was put into the legislation, and that has to do with grandparents who are drawing OAS and GIS and also getting family allowance because they are bringing up their grandchildren. That has been taken care of in the legislation, but I still do not know why the minister could not have made this provision retroactive to cover the situation as of today. Here's hoping that somehow this will be done.

I welcome too his announcement today that the regulations respecting the right to have one's GIS based on the current year's income instead of the last year's will be revised so that most forms of income which cease will not have the effect of delaying an increase or causing a decrease in the guaranteed income supplement. I am glad that these steps have been taken.
This brings me to the last point, and by some strange coincidence it is the same subject the hon. member for Hamilton West spoke of at the end of his remarks this afternoon, namely, the spouse's allowance. I am glad to see the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni) in her seat this afternoon because I felt very encouraged by the stand she took on the spouse's allowance in a number of respects when we were dealing with this matter in the committee the other day. I noticed that the Minister of National Health and Welfare referred to one Liberal by name. He accepted his idea, but he referred to another Liberal member without giving her name because he had obviously not accepted her idea. When I say "his" and "her" that straightens it out, does it not?
The minister did answer one of the points made by the hon. member from York South, but I thought he brushed it aside with his usual capacity for not getting the point. My hon. friend from York South does not like the fact, because she is a woman and thinks that women should have equal rights, that a woman has to have her husband sign the application for spouse's allowance. I know it works both ways and the husband might have to ask the wife, but in most cases the wife is the younger spouse, and in practical terms this is the way it works out.
The minister says today that he has had his officials look at the matter and out of 75,000 applications there was only one case, says he, where spouse's allowance was not granted because the elder spouse would not sign the application. But the minister missed the point completely. It is not whether the couple gets the spouse's allowance; it is the indignity that the woman has to go through to get her husband, ornery though he may be, to sign the application.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I tried to make this point yesterday in a motion under Standing Order 43, to which the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo) said "Hear, hear" but to which others over there said "No", when I complained that it is contrary to the principles of equal rights and human justice, and all the rest of it, to say to a woman between the age of 60 and 65 that she cannot get a pension unless she produces a husband. In other words, neither a spinster nor a widow qualifies.
This whole set-up is totally wrong. I am delighted that the hon. member for Hamilton West concentrated on it as he did in the latter part of his speech, and I was pleased with the stand which the hon. member for York South took on the matter in committee the other day. But no matter how you slice it, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the government is saying to persons between 60 and 65 that, in
March 9, 1977

addition to a means test, they have to undergo a marital test. If you have a husband or a wife and you meet the other two conditions, you get the allowance; if you do not have a husband, or if you are a man and you do not have a wife, you do not get it.
The minister says that his aim was to solve the problem of two people trying to live on one pension. When we come back and tell him that if that is impossible, how can he expect one person to live on no pension, his reply is that social assistance is also a right. I hope that we made our point in committee. This is the line that can be taken in the comfort of the House of Commons, or in the comfort of the committee room or the minister's office, but out there in Canada people who have to apply for social assistance, relief, or welfare, feel it is a stigma, that there is shame attached to it. What they want is a pension as of right.
The minister also says that I am trying to use the back door to get pensions at 60. I do not care whether it is the back door, the side door, the front door, or coming down the chimney, the fact is that I do want pensions available at 60. I am satisfied to have them available between the age of 60 and 65 for those out of the labour market. I think that is a reasonable test. But to have a marital test and to say to a woman that she does not qualify for a pension unless she has a husband is completely contrary to the Bill of Rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I am enjoying the help. I am not so concerned about pensions that are paid in common law situations because in many cases there are explanations. But if the allowance is paid to both spouses, under common law, surely it can be paid to spinsters and widows.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member for York South got into this question the other day. My hon. friend from Hamilton West raised the question, where was she in 1975? Most Canadians did not realize this in 1975. We did. The hon. member for Hamilton West, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), and some of the rest of us fought hard several years ago to try to get something done. As months went on and people became aware of it, they were horrified. Even newspapers now carry editorials expressing horror at this sort of thing. I think the whole question ought to be reviewed, and before I sit down I shall give the House a chance to vote on a motion that would call for the whole question of the spouse's allowance to be reviewed.
It is wrong to deny the spouse's allowance to a spinster or widow. I would give it to everyone in that bracket who is out of the labour market. That is my position, and everyone knows it. But it seems to me that it is the ultimate in cruelty and meanness to say to a wife who is 62 or 63 and is on the
Old Age Security
spouse's allowance that, when her 67 or 68 year old husband dies, her spouse's allowance will be cut off. According to statistics, that is happening to about 200 Canadians a month. There is no defence for it at all. That phase of the matter should be reviewed, and reviewed seriously right away.
The minister is quite right when he says I want to go further. I want pensions available to all at age 60 who are out of the labour market. As a lifetime opponent of means tests, it will be hard for me to say that I will accept some kind of income test for anyone between 60 and 65. However, the test I cannot accept is a marital test. It is just not fitting and I feel that this House should say so.
After all the kind things I have said about my friend from York South, and I appreciate what she did in committee the other day, I hope that she will get into this and give her support at this stage.


An hon. Member:: And that she won't get axed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the hon. member says, she should not get axed. As I said, I thought it very interesting that the minister named the Liberal whose suggestion he accepted but did not name the Liberal whose suggestion he rejected.
I have made it quite clear, as I hope I have a good many times, that what we have done in the social security field in the years I have been here is tremendous, comparing what it is today-


Mr. Caccia:: All Liberal legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Tories did a little, but most of it has been Liberal legislation. However, every last bit of it was because the Liberals were prodded from this side of the House right from the beginning. The reason we on this side are still prodding is because we believe it will work. We believe we will yet get pensions at 60, certainly between 60 and 65 for all those out of the labour market. If that cannot be done in this session, we will have to go a step at a time. If, for example, when we bring down the pension age we have to do it from 65 to 64, to 63, to 62, to 61, to 60, that is fine. However, there is one thing we can surely bring an end to right away, that is, cutting off the pension and the allowance of the spouse who becomes a widow before she reaches 65.
When we were debating veterans affairs the other day, I told the story of the wife of a veteran in New Brunswick. The veteran is on a 15 per cent disability pension, old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, and war veterans allowance. As she is about to turn 60, she has been told she must apply for the spouse's allowance. That is the way the law reads. She will get the spouse's allowance, the veteran's allowance will be cut off and they will be right where they were in terms of dollars.
This woman has asked what will happen if her husband dies before she is 65. She will be out of everything. His disability pension drops because it is less than 48 per cent, the old age security drops, the guaranteed income supplement drops, and
sooio-as'A

March 9, 1977
Old Age Security
the spouse's allowance drops. She can apply for war veteran's allowance under a means test. She can apply for welfare. The Minister of National Health and Welfare says that is a right because it is in the law. I say it has stigma and shame attached to it so it is not good enough.
That is a potential case. That woman's husband is at an age and his health is such that this is likely to happen to her. It is now happening to 200 people a month, most of whom are women. The least this House can do is put an end to that. This is why I want the matter to be reviewed.
Bill C-35 has two clauses which deal with the spouse's allowance, Clauses 8 and 9. They have to be there because the spouse's allowance is being recast to fit the new rules. That is what Clause 8 does. Clause 9 makes it doubly sure that when a spouse becomes a widow, her spouse's allowance stops.
Clauses 8 and 9 of this bill should be reviewed by the committee. There is no hurry. The minister said that the intended proclamation date is July 1. It would not delay getting this legislation into effect. It would not detract from our readiness to support the legislation as a whole to support the review I am asking. I insist that what we are doing to women between 60 and 65 ought to be reconsidered and changed. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that", and by substituting therefor the following words:
"Bill C-35 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the
Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs for the purpose of
reconsidering Clauses 8 and 9 thereof."
As I have already said, Clauses 8 and 9 deal with the spouse's allowance. If the committee is worth its salt, it will recommend that a change be made in the provision of spouse's allowances. If we will do that, then Bill C-35 would be one that, as amended, we could pass with great pride.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to deprive my colleague of the opportunity to make some comments, so if you would allow me I could speak after him.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought because of the motion that was introduced we would have an opportunity to make some reply with regard to the substantive part of that motion. I will not be long.
I am surprised. I have said that my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre was my friend. He is still my friend. However, in light of the fact we have been working so well together, I thought he could have given me a little notice. I say this with a great deal of respect. It is a good thing we happen to be on the same side of the fence this time.

I hope that in the future the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who certainly knows his stuff, will not be so devious, and I say this with great respect, and at least give this side some indication. In the conversation we had around the corner and back of the curtain he gave me no idea that he was going to move this motion.
Having said that, having registered our concern, and having indicated that we object most adamantly, strenuously, and vigorously to the position the minister takes with regard to the death of a pensioner wiping out the income of the surviving spouse, and we cannot forgive the minister for this, we intend to support the motion of which we should have received some little notice. I just thought I would let you know what we think of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I would just like to say that the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) rose first and that is the reason I recognized him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) may I say to him that I am glad to know, but I am not surprised, that he will support my amendment. May I just say to him that there is no requirement for giving notice of amendments which occur like this and, quite frankly, I thought that my friend might move the same amendment. To be brutally frank, I felt that if I told any members of the Conservative party what I was going to do, it would put the idea into their heads; so I just decided it was my right and that I would do it myself. But I am glad the hon. member will support my amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member he is getting into a debate, and I will recognize the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert). [Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, now that the matter is settled between the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), I would like to add a few words about that amendment to the Old Age Security Act. I am convinced that hon. members will not show any partisanship. I would not want for any reason whatever to make a political football out of our senior citizens. It does not matter whether the legislation is amended under a Liberal, Progressive Conservative, New Democractic or Social Credit government. What matters is for parliament to assume its responsibilities and give senior citizens this right to security. Moreover, if we consider mankind, we will realize that any human being seeks security from birth till death. Consider a baby in his crib, he is concerned for his security. He cries when he is apprehensive.
Most of the time, since it is the mother who looks after the children, the child will turn to her and call out: Mother! This means that something is bothering him and that he feels insecure.

Let us also observe, a little later, the student. When children start attending school, whether it be kindergarten, primary or secondary school, college or university, at all levels, they worry about security. They want some security. They want to be assured that their life will be trouble free and that their needs will be met.
Let us look a little later at teenagers, when they begin to feel a responsible part of society. Then they want absolute security. They work to secure it for themselves. And when they become adults and enter the labour market, let us consider all the labour demands and everything the unions will do to obtain security for their membership. This is further evidence that everybody is concerned with security.
All through his life, Mr. Speaker, a person works to ensure his security and to make sure that in his old age, when he is no longer able to work and earn a living, he will have the money and the income required to support himself. It is in this respect, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) so rightly said a while ago, that Canada has a social security scheme which is quite advanced and provides eligible senior citizens with the security they need. One only has to look to the south at the United States, and extremely powerful nation, to realize that our old age security pension scheme is superior to theirs. Which does not mean that we must rest on our laurels and show complacency instead of trying to improve this scheme within the possibilities available in Canada.
Again last weekend, I received representations from senior citizens, from people who are not yet 60 but who are having a hard time finding a job so as to be self-sufficient. I was told by the way that the most difficult time in life is between 50 and 65, because there is no quaranteed security. One cannot be sure of having a job or a guaranteed monthly or yearly income. So this is a period of insecurity, the most difficult period in life.
Mr. Speaker, even though I support the principle of the bill, even though I am pleased with the amendments designed to make the act more equitable for a larger number of people, whether they be immigrants or people who had to leave the country and return after a number of years, I feel such improvements are desirable and deserve to be supported, promoted and implemented. But the fact remains that under the act as it is now, Mr. Speaker, the pension is granted to people of 60 who are living with another person of 65 or more.
When this legislation was passed, 1 recall very well making comments in the Elouse and urging the Minister of National Health and Welfare to amend the bill so as to respect the sacredness of marriage. Under this legislation, ever since its enactment there is no need to be married to be eligible for old age security. You only need to be 60 years of age, to live with a person of 65 without necessarily being married-to shack up-but to have been seen with an older person aged 65 or more. As I said then, I think this flies in the face of the divine institution that is family.
Old Age Security
In fact, a family is composed of a husband, a wife and finally, when the circumstances are favourable, of children. But at 65, being husband and wife is just the same as on the day of marriage at age 20. The unfortunate thing in all this are representations, for example, like those made to me again last weekend, namely that when someone is aged 60, 62 or 63 and his spouse in wedlock or otherwise is 65, 66 or 68 and the later dies, the surviving spouse is left without a pension. That person loses everything and has to rely on welfare, a worse situation than before. Mr. Speaker, I submit to the minister that we should amend the act once more to authorize payment of the spouse's allowance to persons under 65 even where the qualifying pensioner has died, so as to prevent difficult situations.
This often has serious consequences not only for the person involved but also for his or her family. Because when someone has been counting on a guaranteed income and that income suddenly disappears, this creates very serious difficulties. That person must go on welfare and God knows, Mr. Speaker, it is not an easy matter these days to need welfare because regulations get tougher and tougher, they are implemented in a much tighter way than they used to be. It seems that the tougher the situation, the more stringently regulations are applied. A very great number of people are now in almost destitute circumstances, and it is an anomaly that in Canada we should be imposing in 1977 impossible circumstances on people in that age group.
It must be recognized that in general people 60 and over have been doing hard work all their lives, they have tried to earn a living, they contributed to Canada's development, building parishes, towns, cities and industries, day after day, through their work with their fellow citizens, in the hope that when they became disabled or older, society would recognize their contribution to Canada as a whole and that well-earned security would be generously forthcoming. Work is the reason for our being on earth, it is a gift of Providence. Working is fine, working is rewarding: that is what makes us achieve something, provided we get something out of it not only for today but also for tomorrow when there will be fewer paydays and as physical strength will start going down.
Mr. Speaker, I think the government is moving gradually in the right direction, but they should proceed much more quickly because the more they wait, the worse it gets. When changes are made, it is very often too late; the damage is done, the conditions have changed and our solutions are obsolete, because we live in a sick society.
My hon. friend opposite is smiling at me, as if I were telling him a cock-eyed story. However, I know that in a constituency like mine, just as in all the other ridings in Canada, there are hardship cases which give the shivers to those responsible for running a large and beautiful country like Canada, a country able to provide those of 60 and over with some security without their having to go through all kinds of procedures they know practically nothing about.
A few days ago, I met people who were looking for that kind of information, and yet I must commend the Minister of

March 9, 1977
Old Age Security
National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) or his officials-


Mr. Fox:: The minister of health!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Yes, the minister of health or his officials; they work hand in hand, I believe. Information is enclosed in the envelopes with the pension cheques. I would ask him to see to it that this information is more explicit, more specific and detailed, so that these people may know where and to whom they should write to have a situation corrected.
I have already said it and I repeat it today. In the province of Quebec, in the district office for the Quebec area, at least those responsible for the old age security pensions and family allowances are competent. They get busy whenever you show them that a situation needs to be corrected.
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could pay the same compliment to all departments, all civil servants. Unfortunately, that is impossible. In some departments, the minister's instructions are completely ignored, civil servants could not care less about the authorities and the recommendations of hon. members who are delegated and elected by their fellow citizens; all these things are overlooked, ignored, those people could not care less.
That is why in Canada, at the present time, there exists in some groups a dissatisfaction which makes us shudder, which annoys and worries us; we should all together take a serious look into what is going on and work together, so that our fellow citizens, Canadians, both Francophones and Anglophones, can say that in Canada the administration is responsible and does everything in its power to give equal opportunities to all Canadians from all parts of the country.
Mr. Speaker, if we give ourselves the trouble of doing this all together, we will have made much progress and will make even more in coming months: time is of the essence. Mr. Speaker, it makes me boil to see ministers, civil servants and senators go on television on the French network of the CBC and say they are concerned about national unity, about the fate of Canada. But they are the ones who got us into this mess, by their laissez-faire, free and easy attitude. And now, throwing their arms up in the air, they cry out: Something must be done, the ship is going to sink.
Mr. Speaker, the time to act is not after the ship has been abandoned but while we are still aboard so we can row and get the ship in to port. Mr. Speaker, no wonder the ship of Canadian unity is drifting and many serious people are showing great concern about this. It is because we did not take our responsibilities when it was time to do so. Two or three weeks ago I raised a point during the adjournment motion at ten o'clock.
I submitted the idea that we should consider the possibility of granting pensions at 60, of lowering the age of early retirement for all those who want to leave the labour market and would then receive the OAS pension. The minister answered-which was quite expectable-by saying that there

are thousands of unemployed people, housewives and forcibly retired people who are without work but who would still want to have this pension.
Mr. Speaker, to that I say they should sit down and seriously consider the appropriate statistics so as to figure out just how many people of 60 are on a payroll-men or women-and how many of those people pay into a retirement fund of any kind. Let them find out how many people would be willing to retire voluntarily to be able to do something else. And I do know that at 65 they are not all finished, I know there are still people able to work, to be efficient and useful in their environment, in their country, and that is why I want them to have that freedom to continue to work or retire. I am not thinking of something autocratic, dictatorial, but a voluntary thing.
Mr. Speaker, I think that after considering all those figures I am convinced you will find that Canada would be in a much better position to give them that security and allow young people who want to work to do so. There are still young people who want to work-my office is flooded every week with young people who come to my office to ask their member of parliament to help them find a job because they want to work-and I would much rather help them find a job than help them get unemployment insurance or social welfare benefits. Before 25, 30, 40, it is not time to live on pensions, it is time to build. But at 60 it is time to reap, to benefit from one's effort.
The government, the state, all together we should make an effort considering the rate of unemployment and the great number of unemployed who do not produce anything but to whom we must pay unemployment insurance or social welfare benefits to allow them to live. I think it would be right to tell older people: at 60, you have earned it, you have worked hard, the government is amending its legislation and is going to allow you to retire voluntarily at 60. And each of those people could be given a well deserved old age security. Mr. Speaker, in three or four months you would notice the change in this country because I know from my experience there are in my underdeveloped area of the south shore many people who find it rough, who barely make it, who do not have all the necessary income to allow them to face their daily needs and who would like very much to be able to enjoy the advantages of their country.
However, there are many young men and young women who have nothing to do and who would like to make some contribution. Mr. Speaker, it is not difficult to speak to young people, they are people like everyone else. I raised twelve of them and I never hesitated to speak to them and reprimand them when need be. They did not hate me for all that, and all the members who have children know it. We must make young people understand that in society they have both rights and obligations and that they must accept them if they really want their rights to be respected. They must start by doing their duty, and then demand that their rights be respected.
When we tell this to young people, they understand us and they end up by recognizing that we are right and by understanding that there must be a time in life to build, a time to
March 9, 1977

develop, a time to sow and a time to reap, and that the time to reap is not when you are 20. It comes many years later. This is why I say that the time to reap has come for the people aged 60, and I am glad to hear serious people like the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and all hon. members, whatever their party, who have the same ideas and who want to work towards the same end so that we may pass a legislation which will respect the sacred character of the family and of marriage and which will still grant the right to security to any single person. It is not necessary to be married; people should receive old age security at 60 instead of having to live hypocritically with someone else to qualify immediately for old age security. The present legislation is terrible if we think about this and if we want to go to the bottom of things.
Mr. Speaker, I make this plea once again with all the strength that I have and with all the heart that God has given me. I urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and all members of parliament to allow this legislation to be amended to make it as good as it can possibly be. Moreover, I believe that the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is intelligent and logical. It is not a matter of thinking about things which do not exist and I would not like to see tomorrow's newspapers reporting to Canadians that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has moved an amendment to kill the bill. This is not the case and it is not in this spirit that the amendment has been moved. What is the substance of the amendment? That the bill be referred to the committee to be studied again and amended so that it truly meets the needs of this category of persons, whether they be married, widowed, bachelors or whatever; the only important requirement is to be 60 years of age.
Mr. Speaker, nobody can give us a guarantee that in two, three or five years, the legislation will not be amended again so that the age of eligibility for old age pension will again be reduced by a few years. That is evolution, evolution in the right direction, evolution toward ever better social, economic and financial benefits based on work and on a common will to work toward progress from one year to another.
Now, Mr. Speaker, while I accept the underlying principle of this bill, there are some improvements which I think should be made. By the way, if you would allow me to make my point I think that by tomorrow most members would share my view on the matter. It often happens here that motions are moved under Standing Order 43 which requires the unanimous consent of the House to have them put and although 264 members, that is 262 excluding the Chair may agree, if one shakes his head in dissent, the Speaker sees him and forgets all the others. Such are our standing orders! It is that much out-of-date.
It is not necessary to hear someone say no, he only has to shake his head in dissent and the motion cannot be put. However, under Standing Order 28, it is provided that any member who wants to speak in the House must rise and ask the permission of the Chair. To say no to a motion is saying something. So why not observe the rules? Why not rise and
Old Age Security
say: I object to this so that one's name will be recorded in the official report?
Mr. Speaker, I think that those few remarks that I made in good faith, in all honesty, in the interest of my country, will be favourably received and that the committee responsible for changing the procedures will take them into account, as it is an obsolete rule, and one should have the courage of one's convictions. If you do not want to give your unanimous consent, you should rise and say no. I think that all members would be pleased if we abided by the decision of the hon. member who said no.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I ask again the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), whom I consider as a gentleman, as a man aware of his responsibilities, to reflect further on the modest remarks I made on behalf of those people who truly deserve well of their country, who are in need, who are worried in the most difficult period of their life because they lose their strength, they still have the same needs but they get no income. Those people are worried and have difficult years when we could offer them a much happier life.
I think it should be the contribution of young people to those persons who built roads, schools, industries which allow them to have a better standard of living. It is for young people that we have devoted our life and it is the same process from one generation to the next. If the following generation succeeds better than we did we shall be very happy. I shall be the first to say: You achieved more than we did. But as we did everything we could, give us at least the chance in our old age to do more without worrying about our vital needs.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. Obviously all members of the House would like to improve social benefits in all areas. That is understandable, easy to propose and to push for when you are in opposition and do not have responsibility for spending public funds.


Mr. Epp:: Oh, boy!


Marc Lalonde: The House has heard the proposal for lowering the eligibility age to 60. This would mean an additional expenditure in 1977 alone for OAS, GIS and the CPP retirement program of some $2,035 million. That sum would be made up as follows: roughly $1.5 billion would be spent on OAS, $450 million on GIS, and $86 million on the Canada Pension Plan. That is the kind of money we are discussing.
We made certain proposals to the provinces in the course of the social security review. The House has been asked to consider the difficulties of those between the age of 60 and 65 only. I suggest that the problem of poverty in this country is far broader than that. At present, those in need in this country can be looked after by provincial assistance programs, to which the government contributes 50 per cent of the cost under the Canada Assistance Plan.

March 9, 1977
Old Age Security
In the course of the social security review, we have proposed to the provinces a form of guaranteed income which would cover income support for those unable to work, whatever their age. It would cover those unable to work, whatever their age. It would cover those who are 59, 58, and 57 years old, as well as those between the ages of 60 and 65. We have proposed a program of income supplementation, a program to supplement the incomes of those still able to work and earn a living even though forced to downgrade their activities and earn a lower income than when they were active and in the prime of life. The provinces support this broad concept. We are looking at methods of implementing such a program. I hope that by the end of this year we shall have concluded reviews of techniques for administering such an approach. The provinces endorse this concept in principle. However, several provinces have indicated that they may not have the resources in the next few years with which to provide such a program to their citizens.
We are considering if in any way we can speed up the implementation of this program, either by the provinces or through the federally administered income tax system. I suggest that this proposal would be the best solution to poverty in this country. It has the advantage of being flexible, in the sense that those who want to continue working and are able to work will see their incomes improved. At the same time it is a characteristic of the program that it will be able to answer the needs of people, whatever their age.
I suggest that the patchwork proposal put forward this afternoon by the opposition is merely another band-aid; it will not deal broadly enough with the general poverty problem in this country. We, on my side of the House, are just as concerned as any hon. members opposite about poverty in this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Show us.


Marc Lalonde: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said that he recognized that most of the social legislation of this country has been brought in at the initiative of Liberal governments. That has been the case in the past, and I am convinced it will remain so in years to come. We have no lesson to learn from anybody. I think our record in this respect bears examination by the citizens of this country, and that is exactly what the citizens of this country have been examining regularly, at election times.
If the amendment comes to a vote, I shall vote against it. I think that it is not a progressive suggestion. The proposal is just another piece of patchwork. I think the answer clearly lies in the area of a general program of income support and supplementation.
The whole question of retirement has become much more complex than some hon. members this afternoon have indicated. People in this country are living longer and longer, and more and more people would like to keep on working. At present there is pressure in many areas from people over 65 who have been forced to retire. They complain that they are forced to retire at 65, but would like to continue working and earning a living. They do not want to be forced to retire as

they are forced to do at present, thanks to the provisions of private and public pension plans which make pensions available at 65. Many academics and specialists in old people's problems argue that we should consider introducing greater flexibility to our private and public pension systems.
The fact is that if we lower pensions to age 60, we shall see a repetition of what happened when we lowered the pension age to 65. Hon. members may remember that the universal pension was paid at age 70. When we began paying pensions on a selective basis to those aged 65, there was so much pressure from the public and private sectors to retire people at 65 that we ended up paying the universal pension at age 65. Employers and organizers of private pension schemes then made sure people retired at age 65, and they were forced out of the labour market. There is no reason to think that people will not be forced out of the labour market at age 60 in years to come, if we pay the old age pension at age 60 strictly on a universal basis. These factors must be considered independently of the additional $2 billion and increasing annual additional expenditure which would be necessary if the proposal were implemented. It is our responsibility to tell the Canadian public how and where we shall raise the money. Frankly, the opposition has not justified the argument on either ground.
I think the wave of the future will be a form of guaranteed income for the citizens of this country. It will be a two-tier system of income support for those unable to work, and a system of income supplementation for those who can work but do not earn enough to meet their needs. The government has proposed this, is working on it, and will bring it before the House in due course.
I suggest that the proposal of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is a reactionary approach to this particular issue, and not worthy of support.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, will the minister permit a question?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister mentioned how much it would cost to pay universal pensions at age 60. We have not been asking for that. Would he tell us how much it would cost to pay pensions to those between the ages of 60 and 65 who are out of the labour market? Would he also give what it would cost to extend to spouses who become widowed their pensions until age 65?


Marc Lalonde: I do not have the figure for the latter part and it would be difficult to give because those 200 people the hon. member has mentioned, who would be losing the spouse's allowance every month are growing older. We must realize that some of these people will reach 65, and get the regular pension. I do not have those figures. As far as people out of the work force are concerned, the hon. member realizes, I hope that he is talking about spouses at home and many more. I do not have exact figures, but I can tell him that only for the GIS
March 9, 1977

on top of OAS it would require $450 million, and that is the GIS part. The hon. member would have to add for these cases the OAS part to bring them up to the level of the maximum. So he is probably talking about a billion dollars.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So you don't have the answer.


Marc Lalonde: I will provide the figures.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, being the member of parliament from Victoria where I have 19,600 old age pensioners in my constituency gives me more than a passing interest in this subject.
I listened with interest to the minister's remarks and I noticed the same omission as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when the minister wished to point out how expensive old age pensions were. He included CPP, OAS, GIS and everybody over 60, and said how much it would cost. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rightly pointed out that these were not the people we were talking about in this amendment. What we are talking about are the spouses, or the so-called spouses mentioned in the act, particularly in Clauses 8 and 9. A quick estimation is that if there are 200 who come on at the median age of 62'/2, each month they lose about $200 a month, which comes to about $40,000, and if you multiply that by 2Vi years you get a fairly reasonable figure, nothing like $2 billion, not even a tenth of $2 billion. It is rather misleading to pretend when speaking to this amendment that we are talking about a $2 billion load on the taxpayer. The minister had the gall, I suppose that would be the word, to say the opposition was taking a band-aid approach and that these were patchwork amendments. This is not so at all. I suspect the minister speaks with a great deal of knowledge when he talks about band-aid approaches.
It is interesting to follow the history of Bill C-35. It has come from an announcement made almost a year ago by the minister that he intended to bring in a bill to make reciprocity of pensions possible in Canada. He made that statement last April. It takes a while to get used to the habit the government has of making announcements, and I suppose every time government ministers think they are going to bring in a good bill you can usually count on four or five special announcements about it. First, they announce they are going to bring it in, and then a month or so later they announce they are going to bring it in fairly quickly. And a couple of months later you get another announcement, with more and more fanfare with each announcement, and the third one will probably say they are going to bring it in almost immediately and it is already printed and waiting for the proper time. Then they start announcing they are trying to get it on their own order paper. Eventually, after ten months of prodding by the opposition to produce this bill, the minister finally produced it.
The bill is divided roughly into two main parts, the part dealing with partial pensions, and the part dealing with reciprocal pensions.
Old Age Security
The part dealing with partial pensions is so complicated that I can hardly see how any ordinary person could forecast some of the questions that the bill will provoke. He will certainly not be able to tell the answers to some of the questions the bill will raise by way of partial pensions.
My hon. friend from Hamilton West and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre have drawn attention to the difficulties which will arise in making a sound financial judgment when a prospective pensioner reaches the age of 65 and qualifies under one or more of these schemes to draw a pension or a partial pension. It may well be there will be cases, as has been pointed out in committee, when a would-be recipient reaches the age of 65 and qualifies for a partial pension, that if he waits another year or two years he could qualify for a full pension. This is probably a simple matter for a person of private means, a retired member of parliament or cabinet minister, or anyone who is able to manage his own affairs successfully in the cut and thrust world we live in. He could soon work out how much he would be likely to draw if he waited for the full pension. He could then determine whether it was a good move to wait for the pension or to draw the partial pension.
It is interesting to think about what will happen to a person drawing a partial pension. You reach age 65 and are qualified for the minimum partial pension; you get a pension in 1977 dollars of $35 a month. It is as simple as that. It is a quarter of what you would get if you had a full pension, which at the present time is $140 a month. The granting of a partial pension is going to cause severe problems. It is going to lock in a new class of poverty-stricken pensioners. The minister knows full well that giving them a partial pension and the full guaranteed income supplement will not be a complete answer. We will have a couple drawing full pension and full GIS, getting $424 a month, but if another couple are drawing a quarter pension they get much less than that. If they draw a quarter of a pension, how are they to survive, because the figure of $424 is arrived at for a couple to enable them to sustain life and be sheltered? It is not there to permit any luxuries at all. It represents a basic pension.
The Ministry of National Health and Welfare has worked it out that it takes $424.74 to sustain the life of a couple. Now we are to have a new class who come in and instead of getting $141 a month each they are to get a much lower figure. They will get a quarter of the basic pension, $70, plus $160, which is $230 a month, on which to live. These people will go through our social assistance programs and welfare programs and be checked out very thoroughly. Remember, the government has already decided the basic necessity level of couples at $424. Yet this couple are expected to live on considerably less. This will create an additional problem.
The second part of the bill covers reciprocal pensions. This is a move in the right direction. For several years we have been asking for reciprocal pensions with other nations. Many of our friends and nations around the world have entered into agreements with each other providing for reciprocal pensions. Up until recently the only answer we could get from the Minister
3826

March 9, 1977
Old Age Security
of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) was that Canada was quite willing but we could not find any other countries which would agree, and this was holding us up. If that was truly the case there would be no need for this bill at all. The minister now says that we need this bill to make this possible and I am glad to oblige him, if he can manage to get the bill through the House.
There are a couple of points I want to make concerning reciprocal pensions. Those in desperate need of reciprocal pensions are people who live in countries whose currency has recently been devalued in terms of purchasing power. I think particularly of people from the United Kingdom. Consider the fate of a couple who came here, say, five years ago with a pension income of 100 pounds sterling a month each, which in those days would have been a respectable amount on which to retire. Every month their pound becomes worth less, it seems, and every month the cost of Canadian food increases. The result of these two factors is that their standard of living declines at twice the rate. We have to think of these people, and we welcome the move toward reciprocal pensions as provided in this bill.
We hope that reciprocal pensions will come into effect as quickly as possible. The minister assured us in committee that some other countries are quite interested. France, Britain and Italy have already inquired about setting up a reciprocal agreement. One would hope that the minister will pursue these agreements without waiting until the date of July 1, and perhaps have the agreements made effective the day the bill is proclaimed.
Another matter respecting reciprocal pensions about which I worry considerably is the narrow group to which they apply. 1 am speaking, of course, of old age security pensions. The bill does not make provision for veterans pensions to be made reciprocal, nor for war disability pensions immigrants receive from their home country. I hope that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) will take note of this and to his best to bring in a bill similar to this making it possible for veterans of forces in other countries who come to Canada to bring their pensions with them.
Another aspect concerning this bill which has not been discussed relates to the number of countries from whom we have received immigrants over the years, particularly in the last two years, which have no pension system at all. These people will not, of course, benefit from this bill. This means we will have a class of people who qualify for reciprocal pensions, mainly people coming from western Europe and the United States, and those who cannot bring any pension with them. Here I think particularly of people from the sub-continent and from Asia where pensions appear to be unknown.
Finally, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has moved an amendment to this bill. I suggest our party would have presented the same amendment, except we were a little more worried than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre about delaying the bill. We understand that the bill

will be back here tomorrow if it is not passed today, and under those circumstances it removes the last reason, really the only reason, that we might have had to vote against the amendment.
Certainly we take second place to no one in our dislike of Clauses 8 and 10. These amendments would authorize the payment of partial spouse's allowances, based on the number of years that a spouse has resided in Canada after age 18, and would replace the present "all or nothing" system over a 40 year transitional period. The new sub-section will render ineligible for a spouse's allowance a person who is in Canada illegally.
For the benefit of those interested in women's rights and women's liberation, I notice on page 8 of the bill reference to the spouse as a "he". Proposed Section 17.1 requires the spouse of a pensioner to reside in Canada, and "if he does not reside in Canada", is not separated from the pensioner. Perhaps we will have to use impersonal pronouns rather than personal pronouns because it does make the situation a little confusing in regard to whether a pensioner or a spouse is not required to be separated from the pensioner.
This is a peculiar provision which is causing the government a great deal of trouble. The trouble is self-inflicted. When the original bill was brought in permitting spouse's allowances, the government did what my colleague from Hamilton West described as a dastardly act in providing that while a husband and a wife, one of whom was over 65, needed $282.68 plus $160.06, for a total of $442.74, to live on, as soon as one died the survivor would need no money at all. This is a peculiar kind of arithmetic, the sort I suppose you get into in cabinet when you are dealing with nothing less than $1 million for a while. I am sure it is difficult for them to understand that while it is easy to get the computer to work it all out, it is impossible for a survivor to survive on nothing.
I realize that there are a lot of regulations which will result from the passage of this bill, and members of parliament and the general public are not able to wade through them all. But the bill itself has some very peculiar omissions. For example, since a person must not be separated from the pensioner, I am curious as to what happens if a pensioner sets up a menage a trois and then kicks his wife out of the home, or vice versa, and cohabits with the survivor of the three. Then after a period of time the interloper in this household starts drawing spouse's allowance while the duly married wife is out in the cold, unable to make an application because she is separated from the pensioner. It seems to me that this is the way the bill presently reads. It is no wonder that the minister gets a little upset when we try to discuss this particular provision.
This is another reason why we want to discuss the bill and the clauses dealing with spouses. We want to discuss the outrageous attitude taken toward a widow or widower who not only has to go through the traumatic experience of losing husband or wife, but who then has the minister's bill telling him or her immediately after the funeral that the survivor needs no money and will get none from the federal government. This will be a shock, and is an affront to all of us. For
March 9, 1977

sheer meanness, Mr. Speaker, it can only be classed with the action of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who managed to bring in a bill to pay an annual gratuity to ex-prisoners of war in World War II but who denies the same thing to veterans of World War I. I guess they are getting pretty old now; there are not too many of them left so the government does not worry about their votes.
When we were discussing this bill in committee, two things stood out. I asked the minister if poor people who needed money through a partial pension, and who really would be much better off waiting a further period of time until they qualified for a full pension, would have sufficient counselling to the effect that they would be advised to wait. Such people may need the money desperately. If they succumb to the temptation of a partial pension, what happens two years later when they come back and say that they made a terrible mistake and desperately need the full pension? The minister in his rather authoritarian manner said absolutely not, no retroactive choice will be permitted. This will cause nothing but trouble. It may not happen to somebody in the economic bracket in which the minister finds himself, but it will happen. People at age 65 are not going to be able to resist getting further income if they have a need.
When I asked the minister about this, he said they could go on welfare. There have been euphemisms for welfare for centuries. It was first called charity, then the dole and relief during the thirties and forties. It then became welfare, and is now called social assistance. It does not fool anyone. As far as the recipient is concerned, it is still welfare. The recipient knows that if you can get a pension, you can hold up your head. If you go on welfare, it is rather more difficult to do that.
This reminds me of the story of the school teacher who teaches singing. By the end of the day the children are separated into three groups, canaries, robins, and magpies. The kids know what is wrong with the magpies, they cannot sing well. The minister who speaks kindly of social assistance knows that it is a heck of a lot different than getting a pension to which everyone knows they are entitled.
I do not want to take much time. I am pleased that the bill has finally made it here. I hope we will soon see it put through. I ask the minister to bear in mind that we have taken this unusual action at this stage of the proceedings, supporting a motion to send the bill back to committee, because clauses 8 and 9 are so abhorrent. We are willing to wait an extra bit of time to see that they are removed or replaced with something that does not pick at the widow or widower, which this bill seems to do.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the debate this afternoon has revealed two things. The first is the lack of trust between two of the opposition parties. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) got up on a point of order to complain that he had not been informed by the spokesman for the NDP of their intention to move an amendment.
Old Age Security


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) on a question of privilege.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to say one thing. I am very pleased that the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) did get to his feet. However, I can say this. The only people in this House whom 1 do not trust are those who sit on the government side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I submit that rather than a question of privilege that is a point of debate. It does not take away from the observation made by my colleagues and myself, and perhaps even some of those across the way. It appeared as though there was a lack of trust between two parties in this debate. One party complained that it had not been given the confidence of the other with regard to the intention of the NDP to move a motion. That is a legitimate observation, and it will be seen on the record tomorrow.
There is a second observation or conclusion one has to make when sitting on this side of the House. It is with regard to the contradictory policies of the opposition parties, particularly Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Today the spokesman for the official opposition asked for more and better pensions. But almost every second day their financial critic asks the government to reduce taxes. How can that kind of an approach be reconciled? I suggest that the hon. member for Hamilton West get together with the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) and decide on an approach.
It does not take a financial genius to realize that if you want to improve pensions, social security programs, and do more for Canadians, you cannot ask Canadians to pay less taxes. Even a child in grade five would understand that elementary principle of arithmetic.
Today we have another typical example of the Official Opposition speaking from both sides of their mouths. During the question period the hon. member for York-Simcoe asked for a reduction in taxes. During the debate on Bill C-35, another hon. member asked for more and better pensions. How can you possibly reconcile this forked-tongued approach on the part of the Official Opposition?
I will not develop this theme any further because we all respect the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the fine contribution he has made over the decades he has been here. He was here one hundred years before me, and he will be here one hundred years after me!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles L. Caccia: When it comes to pensions, we all know that the hon. member has his heart in the right place, even though in some cases his arithmetic may not be the strongest. In any event, we love him and think that he has fine qualities.
This bill has several elements. It introduces an element whereby a resident of Canada can gradually earn his pension through a period of residence in this country. This is welcomed
80010-36V2

March 9, 1977
Old Age Security
and supported by Canadians in general. It has another element which is a positive feature. It gives the minister power to enter into negotiations with other nations from whom we receive immigrants, and nations to which Canadians sometime emigrate. This is good.
I suppose that Canadians in other nations will benefit as well as immigrants to Canada from countries such as Italy, Portugal, Greece, the West Indies, South America, Asia, Africa, and other parts of the world. As a result of this bill the minister and the government will be empowered to enter into negotiations with those countries. We will have an element that already exists in western European countries, namely, the totalization of pensions.
A worker may have contributed for a few years as an immigrant in Brazil, a few years as an immigrant in France, a few years in Great Britain, Scandinavia, the United States, and finally comes to Canada. He will at last have an opportunity to see the contributions that he made in those countries throughout his working life recognized in the form of a pension that will be paid to him as a result of his contributions. This is something that does not exist today in North America. It does exist at least within the European Common Market countries as a result of reciprocal arrangements. This is a good, positive, fine Liberal measure.
Therefore, in connection with this bill, I am concerned with only one aspect, and some hon. members who have spoken before me have addressed themselves to this question-and that is the case of those people who have not earned credits in other countries before coming to Canada and who may well come here when the new law will be in full effect, when, years from now, some of us will no longer be around, people who, on coming to Canada, may seek employment for the first time when they are in their forties or their fifties and may not therefore have contributed to the Canada Pension Plan until late in life. At the age of retirement, whatever it may be at that time, they will not qualify except for the amount corresponding to the number of years that they will have resided in Canada.
Let us say an immigrant who will come here at the age of 50 will, at the age of 65, have been 15 years in the labour market and have contributed for that number of years out of the total 40 years required to receive a full pension. If that immigrant has no other income, he will qualify for a guaranteed income supplement. What I would like to make sure, through this intervention, Mr. Speaker, is whether he will qualify, in the case, for instance, of the program called Gains in Ontario which is under the Canada Assistance Plan, for the additional income that may be provided under that program.
What I would like to make sure is that ten, 15, or 20 years from now the totality of old age security, plus the guaranteed income supplement, plus the provincial supplement-which may vary from province to province such as Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia, just to name the provinces with the largest number of immigrants-will be equal to, not lower

than, the amount that will be received by other pensioners in Canada who qualify for the full old age security pension or for the pension plus the guaranteed income supplement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Charles L. Caccia: If that was the thrust of the intervention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I am in full accord with him that now is the time to express this concern looking into the future and to make sure that the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, and British Columbia will complement this legislation and provide those amounts that will be needed to protect those pensioners who immigrate to this country at an older age and have no other income. This has suddenly caught my imagination and it is an issue to which we should address ourselves at this stage in the debate.
I have listened with great interest to the interventions of other hon. members on the question of bringing the pensionable age down to 60. I must say that a number of people have spoken to me over the years of the desirability, now that we have made the first important step of reducing the pensionable age from 70 to 65, of bringing it gradually down to 60. It is mainly a concern expressed by people who work in occupations that are physically demanding. This is the case of groups such as miners, construction workers, and people who have heavy jobs in factories. They feel that by the time they are in their late fifties, they are physically worn out and they cannot continue working in jobs which they have held all their lives. Also, at that time in their lives it is extremely difficult for them to switch to another job, a so-called light job, for which there is immense demand on the labour market and a very limited supply, in order to continue to work until the magic age of 65.1 do not know whether the answer lies in providing a universal pension at the age of 65 or in providing, as the minister has indicated, a guaranteed income and a form of income supplement at whatever the pensionable age may be.
If we reduce the pensionable age to 60, we will still have to address ourselves to those who are 59, 58, and so forth. I would prefer it if we were to think in terms of coming to grips with the problem of people with limited or very low incomes, regardless of their age, through the implementation of a program that we on this side of the House have spoken about for some years, namely, the guaranteed income program plus an income supplement, because by doing so we would not limit ourselves to the pensionable age.
The minister was correct when in his previous intervention he indicated that there are people who are still vigorous and want to continue working after they reach the age of 65, and this is desirable, I suppose. Therefore we should address ourselves to meeting the needs of those who wish to retire at an earlier age because of physical conditions at work, health reasons, or the fact that after 30, 35 or even 40 years of work, if you have started working on a heavy job at the age of 15 or 16, your body cannot carry you until the age of 65 in a heavy kind of job, and it is extremely difficult, particularly if you live in rural areas, to find a light kind of job which would perhaps
March 9, 1977

permit you to carry on working until you reach the pensionable age.
It seems to me that the route indicated by the minister, which is aimed at implementing a guaranteed income and an income supplement program in the near future, is one we should all be striving to follow. I believe that members in the NDP at least have addressed themselves to this question in recent years.
Keeping in mind this principle, it was made very clear this afternoon-and I see the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) smiling-that you cannot have it both ways. You cannot ask for increased social security, increased pensions, and at the same time have someone in your party shoot you in the back by asking for a reduction in taxes. That is not what a fair and responsible government can do, and we will not have it on this side of the ITouse.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles L. Caccia: I believe it was the hon. member for Hamilton West who spoke about the desirability of the government providing all possible information in the next few months and years about the availability of two options, namely, the one under the present act, and the one which will be available under the new act, and that the onus should be on the government to provide this information through its offices and through civil servants.
I thought the intervention of the hon. member for Hamilton West was useful. I am sorry he is not here when I praise him and that he is here when I do not praise him. 1 suppose that is his tough luck. In the committee proceedings of Tuesday, February 22, at page 19:15 there is a passage which seems to meet the requirement of the hon. member. A Mr. Parker, who is an official of the Department of National Health and Welfare-


Stanley Howard Knowles: And a very good one, too.


Charles L. Caccia: -indicated at the committee stage the following:
These people will be particularly trained to deal with the case in point, particularly the question of option. It is our intent to discuss each case with the individual where he has an option and to confirm the decision in writing with the individual that it is in fact his decision, and he may yet then come back to us and say: that is not my agreement, in which case we would go back to him to get final confirmation.
In terms of dealing with cases outside of Canada, it becomes somewhat more difficult because of the fact that the individual cannot be contacted personally. What we are doing is giving thought at the present time to establishing a special unit which will handle all outside Canada cases, and this unit will be skilled not only in documentation aspects but in terms of making the choice absolutely clear, if there is one, to the pensioner residing outside of Canada.
So from the proceedings it seems that this aspect is well under control and well in hand as far as the department is concerned, and we hope that what is here on record will also be implemented and become a reality.
Old Age Security
I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to intervene in this debate. I have outlined very briefly the positive features of this bill. It seems to take a very positive approach. It introduces an element of fairness. It allows the government of Canada to enter into negotiations with countries to which Canadians migrate or from which we receive immigrants. The only concern I have is the one I expressed earlier, namely, the provision which may affect immigrants years from now if they come to Canada in their later years, if they do not join the labour force here, and particularly if they have not contributed to pension schemes in prior countries of residence.
This is something which will perhaps become clearer as the law is implemented. I certainly agree with those who spoke before me that we should make sure, either through provincial participation, under the Canada Assistance Plan or through other means, that we in Canada will not have two different standards for pensions.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) because I want to make some comments regarding some of his arguments. He said that we in the Conservative party cannot have it both ways, that we should not be asking for tax cuts and at the same time talk about giving more to senior citizens. I could not agree with the hon. member more. That is a very reasonable thing to say, but we are not asking for it both ways, and I will demonstrate that to him at this time.
It is not a case of suggesting to the people of this country that giving money to people and taking it away from them after the death of a spouse is in some way changing the financial situation in this country. The minister told us that that cost would be $2 billion, but he failed to recognize that in his own committee he said that it may be $2 billion if we paid everybody down to the age of 60, but that it would be $700,000 if we continue to pay those on spouse's allowances. The hon. member for Davenport says we cannot have it both ways, and I agree with him.
We do not like to see things such as the Lockheed situation, the cost of the Mirabel airport, the $2 million in fees for some kinds of sales which the government cannot find, the $40 million for Argentinian nuclear plants or the $15 million lost to Eisenberg which the government cannot find, and they tell us we cannot have it both ways.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arnold John Malone: We do want to see retirement with dignity for senior citizens. That is the only way we want it. We go along with the Auditor General of this country; we want to see the government managed better. We want to see a government which knows where the money is and which does not have an auditor general saying that it has lost control of the public purse. It was no surprise when our former leader said that the government spills more money than it is able to find.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 9, 1977
Old Age Security


Arnold John Malone: With regard to spouses between the ages of 60 and 65 who are married to spouses receiving the old age pension, the government says that when the older spouse dies, the money should be taken away. To say that that is equitable when the minister in committee says it is only going to cost $700,000 is a sham. That is one of the things this country should be ashamed of, and the government should be taking a stronger position on it.
We have to treat our senior citizens as human resources who have contributed and who will continue to contribute to this country. It is important that we view them as people who ought to have retirement with dignity. Canada's OAS program is interesting. We on this side feel that there is much in this bill to be commended. The old situation, which was an all or nothing situation, has been withdrawn. The new bill enables an equitable correlation between a person's contributions and his reward. There is, however, one mechanical piece of administrative detail which ought to be reviewed in terms of how this legilsation is implemented. I agree in principle that we should pay one fortieth of the total eligible pension to a person who is here one year up to a maximum of full pension to those who have been in Canada and working for 40 years. However, I do not think it is logical to suggest that a person who has been here one year should receive a cheque each month. I say this because if we take one fortieth of the present maximum pension, which is $3.55, it seems to me that it would not be economical to send out a $3.55 cheque every month.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You don't get it unless you have had ten years.


Arnold John Malone: When I was working with the Alberta government seven or eight years ago, that government would not issue a cheque for less than five dollars because it cost more than five dollars to write cheques. What the government ought to be doing is paying these pensions on an annual basis. For example, if a person has only one year's residence in Canada, instead of paying $3.55 every month, the government should simply pay a lump sum annually of $42.60. That ought to be worked out so that it does not cost extra money. I return to what the Auditor General said: let us tighten up the purse strings and manage the country a little bit better.
This bill has provisions allowing Canada to make reciprocal agreements with other countries and to share in OAS payments. I believe that is a fairly sound principle. It is particularly good in that people from other countries who come to Canada will have the advantage of a reciprocal pension agreement for those over age 65. I think, however, that those who draw up the regulations should be cautioned against writing in incentives for Canadians to work a certain period of time in this country and then move-presumably to a warmer country-where there is a reciprocal agreement and where they could draw the two pensions which would be equal to what they would receive in Canada. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out that some people will do this for health reasons, and there is justification for that. I just say that an incentive should not be built into the regula-

tions that will encourage people to move to warmer climates for their retirement years. Our senior citizens are a human resource and can continue to make a contribution to this country, so they should be enticed to remain.
While we recognize that a lot of this bill is good, Mr. Speaker, a lot has been left out. At the present time we have the concept of forced retirement in Canada, and the minister referred to this in his remarks. Labour unions, big business, and governments are all saying in effect that people are capable of working at age 64 but at age 65 they are not wanted. With modern medical technology people are living longer, as we know. I have had the honour and pleasure of travelling across this country with the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), and we found that great numbers of senior citizens were saying that they did not want various agencies telling them that they no longer have anything to contribute, and should retire. I do not think there is any agency in this country that should determine when a person has to retire. I know the argument that older people have to be retired to make room for younger people in the work force. There is some truth in that in the area of unskilled labour and perhaps some trades, but in many areas of business the opposite is true. People with experience and knowledge in their professions or line of business are often able to generate new employment for young people, yet sometimes when they are able to give the most they are asked to retire.
The government has congratulated itself for indexing the pensions of senior citizens and for extending assistance to those who are now in the "all or nothing" situation. The fact is that at the present time the indexing relates to the consumer price index which is not necessarily consistent with the needs of senior citizens. The aged spend their money on energy, food and housing, and the indexing system in use is not correlated to these major needs. If the government had any heart at all it should look at this system. I think it is an insult to our senior citizens to receive a computerized sheet with their pension cheque telling them it is going to be increased according to the cost of living, and then find that the next month's cheque is only increased by, say, 90 cents. That does not relate or correlate to their specific needs.
The hon. member for Hamilton West mentioned the need for advertising this new bill so that senior citizens may know what it will do for them. He pointed out that the onus ought to rest with the government and not with senior citizens to find out the options open to them. I hope the minister will follow this advice. The information ought to be readily available and clear without having to-


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock!


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I see that some hon. members are more hungry than interested in aged people. They call it six o'clock and I am about to do that fairly soon, but first I
March 9, 1977

want to say that while they leave for their supper they might think about the government's position on the point that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not know who the House leader is now but I should like to ask what the order of business will be tomorrow and if the gods smile kindly, and Bill C-35 is passed, what would follow?
Business of the House


Mr. MacFarlane:: Mr. Speaker, I would presume that we all heard the same report by the government House leader this afternoon who said we would continue with this bill tomorrow and it would be followed by the Immigration Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.01 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, March 10, 1977