1977-02-08

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of Statistics Canada's press release of today showing the highest number of Canadians unemployed, ever and since many new programs initiated by the government, especially the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), to create jobs are based on a formula which uses Statistics Canada figures, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald):
That the new method of measuring unemployment which was adopted by Statistics Canada in February, 1976, be discontinued as experience has shown that it is not a more precise method of measurement in that it does not truly reflect the actual rate of unemployment both nationally and regionally, seasonal factors notwithstanding.


Mr. Broadbent:: It's good to have you with us.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to the Standing Order, the presentation of such motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the same standing order, on the same subject as that raised by the previous hon. member. I shall come directly to the point. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House calls upon the government to bring forward at the earliest possible date a program designed to deal with the human and economic disaster that is entailed in the fact that at the official figure level we now have 900,000 Canadians unemployed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such motion cannot be presented for debate without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED MAILING OF DAILY HANSARD TO CANADIANS WHO REQUEST IT-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with a very important matter.
In view of the fact that public information on the proceedings in the House of Commons is essential so that the government will obtain better cooperation from the public and that Hansard is the best tool to inform the public, and considering that before making huge expenditures to organize the television of proceedings it would be advisable to know to what extent the public is interested in them, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House authorize the daily dispatch of Hansard to each Canadian citizen asking for it.


Mr. Speaker:: 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. It there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


INDUSTRY
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Increases in the numbers unemployed suggest the urgent necessity to pinpoint

February 8, 1977
The Economy
and direct efforts to prevent deterioration of potentially sound industries by government intervention and assistance available. A glaring example of this situation relates to Labrador Liner-board Mill in Stephenville, Newfoundland, which employs some 2,000 and which is suffering from high cost of the available resource and marketing, problems that can be overcome by federal government attention. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That this House orders that the government immediately enter into consultation with the provincial government of Newfoundland with the objective of providing assistance to prevent a threatening closure of Linerboard Mill.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) has not appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs since November last year, and with today's shocking figures revealing that a record number of Canadians are out of work, up 10 per cent over last January, while the minister stalls on the introduction of needed budgetary measures including a tax cut to stimulate the economy and ensure more jobs for Canadians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke):
That there be an immediate reference on the state of our economy to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and that the Minister of Finance be required to appear before such committee to explain his lassitude in not introducing a budget that will more effectively grapple with today's economic realities.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing, Order 43 such motion cannot be presented for debate without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. With 105,000 persons in Atlantic Canada out of work in January, a rise in one month of a staggering 17 per cent in the ranks of the unemployed, and in view of the large losses this means to productivity and well-being in the Atlantic provinces, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion take action today to get Atlantic Canadians back to work, that he call meetings in those communities hardest hit by unemployment to find out how large numbers of labour intensive jobs can be created, and that he give forceful direction to such departments as Transport, Public Works, Supply and Services, etc. to ensure that those jobs are available within the month.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED DELAY OF DECISION ON KITIMAT PIPELINE PENDING PUBLIC HEARINGS AND PUBLICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I wish to
[Mr. Marshall.1
February 8, 1977

raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely the environmental hazards inherent in allowing oil tankers of up to
350,000	tons to ply the dangerous 60 mile channel leading to Kitimat, B.C. in order to deliver crude oil from Alaska, Indonesia and the Middle East to supply the proposed pipeline from Kitimat to Edmonton and from there to refineries in the United States. 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urges the federal government
1.	To delay any decision on the Kitimat pipeline project until an environmental impact study has been completed and made available to the public.
2.	To hold public hearings in the area likely to be affected by possible oil spills before allowing the National Energy Board and the Department of Transport to make any final decision with respect to the two applications submitted by the Kitimat Pipeline Company.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order No. 43 to move a motion of pressing and urgent necessity. In view of reports that buried arsenic wastes in Yellowknife pose a potentially great environmental hazard and in view of reports indicating that the Department of the Environment has been urging the Department of Northern Affairs to correct the situation for a number of years, but as yet no action has been taken, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk):
That the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Northern Affairs or the Minister of National Health and Welfare explain the lack of co-operation between these two departments and, in a full and complete statement, tell the House whether any environment studies were conducted into the effect of waste burial before this action was taken, and explain what further action he intends to take this time in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can only be presented with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. With 889,000 Canadians out of work last month, a record figure and up an alarming
89.000	compared to January of last year, and noting that only
70.000	new jobs were created in Canada between January 1976 and January of this year, a fact which indicates that job creation has slowed considerably, will the minister tell the House why he has chosen to delay budgetary measures designed to stimulate job creation, bearing in mind that his last budget missed its job creation targets so badly?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we have just concluded a series of consultations with the provincial governments on the question of the economic framework for the current year. Those consultations will be taken into account along with studies now under way in the department for the presentation of the budget in an orderly way within the next several months.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As it is generally conceded that it takes six to nine months for the economy to feel the effect of a budgetary change, for example we are only now feeling the results of the minister's May 25 budget, and certainly the 889,000 who are out of work are feeling the effect of that budget, will the minister indicate if he agrees that upon the presentation of his next budget, it will take a further six to nine months for relief to be felt from any stimulative measures such as tax cuts which may be included and, if so, is it fair for us to assume that the minister is more concerned with his political timing than the economic realities of today?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker, not at all. I would point out to the hon. member that as of the first of this year there were tax cuts the equivalent of $1,250 million as a result of indexing. Also, there was a cut in the rate of contributions to unemployment insurance which has further increased personal disposable income. The re-institution of indexing family allowances has also added substantially to those incomes, particularly at the lower income scale. On that basis, there has been, effective as of the first of this year, a substantial transfer of funds from the federal government to the private sector tantamount in percentage terms to those brought into effect by President Carter in his recently announced tax proposals.


HIGH LEVELS OF UNEMPLOYMENT IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES- GOVERNMENT ACTION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: While unemployment
is a national problem, it is a tragedy in our five eastern
provinces. Will the minister indicate if he or his government

February 8, 1977
Oral Questions
has instituted any study to determine why since the present government took power in 1968, unemployment levels in Quebec have been one third higher than the national rate and in the Atlantic provinces the unemployment level has been approximately 50 per cent higher than the national average? If there is such a study, will the minister indicate why this unfortunate situation must continue.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The
obvious first step would be to make some studies to ascertain whether there is any truth in the figures the hon. gentleman has cited.


FINANCE
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Minister of Finance.
Since the number of jobs has decreased by 9,000 in Quebec since January 1976, while the number of unemployed has gone up by 39,000 during the same period, and since 17 per cent of people between 15 and 24 are now unemployed and 50 per cent of those who became unemployed during the last year live in Quebec, can the minister tell the House whether this dramatic situation will be taken into consideration in his budget?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I take into consideration the fact that the unemployment rate in Quebec has decreased during the last month.


Jacques Lavoie: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question.
Since more than 50 per cent of the new unemployed due to the social and economic situation of the last year are in Quebec, can the minister assure the House that his job creation program, if any jobs are eventually created, will be implemented for 50 per cent in Quebec? Will the minister include in his budget policies which will be to the advantage of the underdeveloped regions of Canada, not only Quebec, but also the Atlantic provinces, which suffered much the same situation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member, as I reminded the hon. member for York-Simcoe, that by reducing taxes substantially through indexation and by raising family allowances, we made significant transfer payments to all the provinces of Canada but particularly to the five eastern provinces.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Now that the official level of unemployment has reached 900,000 and the actual figure is likely to be well in excess of a million if one includes people who have voluntarily left the labour force because they were not able to find jobs, would the Prime Minister not agree that we now face a human and economic crisis in the country?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Even if the figures were much lower I would think there is a human crisis for every person who is unemployed and looking for a job. I think the hon. member would agree with that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister's sentiments are truly touching. If he agrees, as I do, this situation is a human tragedy for all those who are directly involved, can he tell the House why the government has not announced one single new program since before the Christmas recess to bring down the level of unemployment?


Some hon. Members:: Where have you been?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member had been listening a couple of minutes ago rather than preparing his question, he would have heard that more than a billion dollars in tax reductions were transferred to the people of Canada since January plus a couple of hundred million in other payments.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the fact that the tax deductions to which he has referred go overwhelmingly to upper income people because of the nature of the legislation, and since the Minister of Finance has indicated it may be many months before a budget comes down, would the Prime Minister not undertake to get in touch with the provincial premiers and set up a first ministers conference at which either he or the Minister of Finance would be instructed to bring forward proposals to create full employment over the next couple of years in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question is based on the assumption that we could get the premiers to Ottawa and that they, and we, could achieve a more satisfactory result than could a budget. I do not think such a premise is necessarily well-founded.
February 8, 1977


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, my question is partially for the Minister of Agriculture and partially for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Could the minister tell the House whether he intends to make early and definite changes to the import policy passed last year whereby dairy product imports would go up by at least 10 per cent of domestic needs and, if so, when does he intend to announce them?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we have made a statement to the effect that at the present time the government has no intention of increasing the importation into Canada of specialty cheeses.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary. Can the minister tell the House whether there were any recent discussions and meetings on that matter with the management of the Canadian Federation of Dairy Products?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed this matter on several occasions. We discussed it at the annual meeting of the dairy farmers of Canada. We will be making an announcement regarding the new program for the whole of the dairy industry for the dairy year 1977-78 as soon as possible, and hope to announce it several weeks before the end of this dairy year, which is at the end of March.


ARSENIC POLLUTION IN DRINKING WATER IN YELLOWKNIFE AREA-SUGGEST REASSESSMENT OF 1975 REPORT
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and arises out of a report presented to the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario last week, in which the suggestion was made that arsenic levels in the hair of more than one part per million, or in drinking water of more than one part per million, are of great significance, contrary to the accepted standards of the federal government up until now. In view of the possibility that levels above one part per million in drinking water, as reported in the hair studies, could suggest nerve damage in humans, I wonder whether the minister would care to indicate if he will revise or reassess the report on which he commented in October, 1975 when a study of 700 residents of Yellowknife was carried out?
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the doctor who made this statement subsequently said that he had been misquoted by the press.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. The minister is hiding behind the facts. I happen to know that the parts which were misquoted were not related to the question that I am putting to the minister. In view of the fact that the report to which I refer throws into question the report the minister tabled in October, 1975, which at that time indicated that detailed studies had been carried out further to the hair studies only on those individuals who had arsenic levels in the hair of more than 10 parts per million, and in view of the fact that those studies did not include electromyographic studies for nerve damage, would the minister agree that further studies should be conducted, including electromyographic studies, on all those whose hair arsenic levels were between one part and 10 parts per million, as well as on a control group whose arsenic level was less than one part per million, in order to ascertain more accurately to what extent there may have been damage to humans as a result of arsenic pollution?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the hon. member recognizes that the doctor involved was indeed misquoted by the press. Second, as regards tests made from hair only, the hon. member is surely aware that all scientists in that field indicate that those tests are not sufficient and that urinalyses are necessary to determine if health is really damaged or likely to be. Third, the hon. member also knows that an independent committee established by the Canadian Public Health Association is now considering-


Mr. Forrestall:: If you are drinking arsenic, it is going to affect you. Our wells are full of arsenic; you tell me what to do about it.


Marc Lalonde: If the hon. member would be kind enough to listen to the small loudspeaker, he would understand what is going on and refrain from yelping right and left as he does.
So, there is an independent committee which was created by the Canadian Public Health Association to review the situation, particularly in the Yellowknife area, with a view to recommending appropriate corrective measures. I am sure that this committee which is made up of distinguished scientists will recommend any improvement required for current levels established for analysis techniques.


Paul Yewchuk: I wonder whether the minister could give the House his assurance that he will consider giving instructions that electromyographic examinations be done on a random sample of the population in Yellowknife, in accordance with

February 8, 1977
Oral Questions
the report which was presented, to ensure that further information will be elicited based on this new technique which has not been used before.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, an independent committee made up of distinguished scientists has been appointed and was given extremely broad terms of reference which include suggesting any studies it may deem necessary. Therefore I have no intention of giving orders to this committee which is represented by leading scientists and which is duly qualified to make the necessary decisions.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, and it is with respect to his responsibilities, particularly for the five eastern provinces, and more particularly for the situation in Atlantic Canada where unemployment has now passed the
100,000	mark. I wonder if the minister can indicate whether he is satisfied or feels that other federal departments are doing their utmost to re-orient their spending priorities with a view to creating the maximum number of jobs in the region for which he has basic responsibility. Second, can he indicate whether any new initiatives will soon be announced on behalf of his own department to deal with this very serious situation?
Finally, is he willing to have his Atlantic officials call together representatives from other departments in that area so that they can reorganize their priorities in an effort to see if some jobs can be created at the local level to deal with this very tragic situation?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, indeed some projects will be announced shortly. I intend to go to New Brunswick as early as this week, this Friday in fact, where I shall meet the premier of the province. I was in Newfoundland just a few weeks ago where we signed new agreements. I also intend to go to Prince Edward Island in the near future to meet the premier and his associates with a view to coming to an agreement on development and expense programs which will probably help, at least partly, to resolve a few problems, particularly that of the underemployment that exists almost everywhere in the maritimes.
As for the suggestion to call together the economic leaders in the four Atlantic provinces, there already are organizations doing precisely that work; they communicate with us regularly and transmit their best recommendations about the situations they have been able to analyze themselves. So I do intend to keep on cooperating with those organizations now existing in the maritimes.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for that travelogue from the minister, and I would like to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In a comment a moment ago to my colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe, the Prime Minister indicated that the area of greatest assistance might be in terms of the tax returns taking place this year with respect to job creation. I wonder if the Prime Minister could give some more specific indication of how this return of income will achieve further job creation rather than widening the disparity gap, which I know is of concern to the Prime Minister, and can he indicate whether any special instructions have been issued, particularly to the planning and priorities committees of cabinet or whether any special attempt is being made on the part of the federal government generally to deal with the very serious problem of job creation within the Five eastern provinces.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the return of income to individuals increases effective demand, and when you increase effective demand, you tend to reduce over-supply or over-capacity in the system.


MANPOWER
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the statistics released today showing further serious increases in unemployment, is the minister now prepared to accede to the request I made to him on January 26 which was supported by the Atlantic provinces chamber of commerce that the minister initiate meetings with the governments of the four provinces to co-ordinate existing job creation programs and to initiate new programs to meet the critical situation which could involve the four provincial governments?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will be going to Newfoundland and I will be meeting the official from the chamber of commerce. I have forgotten the individual's name. At the same time I will be meeting business people in the community there who might indicate if they have some ideas about what we might do and how we might better co-ordinate our efforts. In so far as calling governments together is concerned, I have not reached that decision yet.
February 8, 1977


UNEMPLOYMENT IN NEW BRUNSWICK-PROPOSED COMPARATIVE STUDY WITH STATE OF MAINE
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: My question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that New Brunswick has the unfortunate distinction of having the highest increase in unemployment last month-it now stands at 14.7 per cent-while the neighbouring state of Maine with a similar economy has an unemployment rate of 8 per cent, has the minister done any comparative studies of the two economies to ascertain the root causes for the difference and has he any new initiatives to improve the situation?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because we are aware of high unemployment in that area that we have heavily weighted all grants and funds made available from this department in the interest of helping these areas of high unemployment. I suggest that the hon. member would find that people in the state of Maine, in the rest of the United States and in other countries, are looking into our job creation projects, because we have shown some initiative there, and are prepared to adopt them.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
J. Robert Howie: My question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. One year has now elapsed since a question, still unanswered, relating to such studies was placed on the order paper. Will the minister now expedite the answer to that question so that all members can look at the alternatives that are available to assault the unemployment problem in Atlantic Canada?


INDUSTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the minister well knows, the Gulf Oil Company has announced plans to close down this large operation in Shawinigan in Quebec, and the Holmes Foundry Company of Sarnia has announced it expects to make large scale lay-offs in the near future, both because of a serious slack in the economy. Has the minister been in touch with these two companies to see what assistance the government can give them in order to try to avert these large scale lay-offs and, if so, what is that assistance to be?
2823
Oral Questions


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to Gulf, in Shawinigan, I was in touch with the president of Gulf Canada and the president of Gulf International to discuss those problems. Of course, the problem is very difficult since we are dealing here with chemical products that go back to 1906 and since the cost of electricity in that field has increased by 20 per cent annually in the last few years. Naturally, I can do nothing about Hydro-Quebec. I offered the help of my department to the Gulf Company but so far have yet to get a definite answer from them. As to the other question, I shall look into the matter and give an answer to the hon. member when I have received more information.


HAWKER SIDDELEY, TRENTON-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ENABLE EMPLOYEES TO RETURN TO WORK
George Harris Hees: As we did
not get much hope out of that answer, I will ask the minister another question and hope he can do a little better on this. Would the minister advise the House what he is doing to make it possible for the majority of the 2,000 workers at the Hawker Siddeley plant in Trenton, Nova Scotia who have been laid off since well before Christmas to enable them to get back to work?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member followed the news a bit more closely, I think he would know that the Minister of Transport recently announced that the government will give work to that industry.


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ENSURE CROWN AGENCIES DO NOT COMPLY WITH ARAB BOYCOTT OF ISRAEL
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In the interest of justice and international peace, will the minister use his influence to ensure that no Crown agency, such as the Export Development Corporation, will grant any incentives to firms which resort to Arab or indeed any other kind of boycott not sanctioned by the United Nations?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, following the announcement made by my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I myself and my deputy minister gave very specific instructions to our department not to give any help to companies endorsing the Arab boycott. In addition, I contacted the chairman of EDC personally and gave him the same instructions.

February 8, 1977
Oral Questions


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: 
ARSENIC POLLUTION IN YELLOWKNIFE AREA-REQUEST THAT ALL REPORTS BE MADE PUBLIC
Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The people of Yellowknife are becoming quite pessimistic about getting straight answers after the failure of the government to release these concerns and after the failure to release at least three previous studies until after they had been leaked to the press. Will the minister undertake to ensure that any remaining studies, reports and correspondence pertaining to the health of Yellowknife residents are made public immediately, and will he undertake to discuss this with his colleagues, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of the Environment and report

back on the possibility of setting up an interdepartmental committee to ensure long-term co-ordination of the government's efforts in this area?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I challenge the hon. member to specify which reports were made public only after they were leaked to the press. To the best of my knowledge, this information is completely wrong. All health reports in question were released before the eastern Canada press discovered them. As far as I know, there are no reports, confidential, secret or otherwise, that have not been released to the press or to the public as soon as possible after they were completed.
So far as the second part of the question is concerned, the hon. member knows that the CPHA, the Canadian Public Health Association, has a task force currently looking at the whole situation of arsenic contamination in Yellowknife. As far as the question of arsenic in Yellowknife is concerned, there have been close and constant consultations between the federal departments concerned and the territorial government. I fail to see, therefore, what another interdepartmental committee will achieve at present. But I will be happy to receive the report of the CPHA, and if they recommend specific steps such as this, I will look into them.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and it has to do with the plight in which the electronics industry in Canada finds itself. I am particularly concerned about the eroding employment opportunities and the best example I can give is that at RCA Ltd. in Prescott, where employment has fallen from 1,300 jobs to 335 jobs and that industry is in jeopardy. In terms of the problem presented by the statistics pulished today, what is the minister doing to assist the electronics industry in Canada as well as the others that have been mentioned to him?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that there are problems in some sectors of Canadian industry, and the government policy to help industry is still the same. We are trying to help as much as possible, hoping that the anti-inflation policies of the government are going to bring along in the shortest possible time, the results we are expecting from them. If there is to be any explicit announcement concerning changes in our financial policies, this will be done at the proper time and place by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald).
February 8, 1977


Walter David Baker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the policies of the government have raised the unemployment level in that area of eastern Ontario to some 12 per cent, does the minister have any new initiatives in mind to help the electronics industry, the food industry, the textile industry and the host of other industries in this part of Ontario that are suffering under similar unemployment levels?


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS STUDIES TO DEMONSTRATE BENEFITS OF FEDERAL SYSTEM-DATE OF COMPLETION AND PUBLICATION
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Prime Minister is a follow-up to one I placed the other day as to what specific studies, what new initiatives, are being taken by the federal government to demonstrate the benefits that accrue from a federal system? Given Mr. Paul Tellier's appointment to head a new unit on matters of national unity in the federal-provincial relations office, will the Prime Minister say what specific studies are being undertaken as a priority, what is the planned timetable for completion of these studies and most important, will this information be made available to all members of parliament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have nothing to announce in that regard today but I would be willing to sit down with the hon. lady or her leader and see if she has any ideas in mind that would be worth pursuing.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to say to the Prime Minister that my party will take up that offer at any time. While I recognize that the case for federal-


An hon. Member:: Where is Joe?


Mr. Fairweather:: Speaking on confederation in Alberta.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -the case for federalism will not be made entirely on factual data or in economic terms, nevertheless would the Prime Minister give us the assurance that Mr. Tellier will have access to the wealth of information that already exists in so many of the federal departments so that the results of the early stages of his studies will be expedited?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is one of the main purposes in appointing Mr. Tellier, so that he can act as a co-ordinator to obtain from various departments any input they can supply to him, the rest of the government and the Canadian people.
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that unemployment statistics, particularly in the high unemployment regions of New Brunswick, Newfoundland and similar places are generally conceded to be an underestimate of the real situation, can the minister tell the House whether the government will amend Bill C-27 so that regional differences in unemployment can be recognized to provide that in areas of unemployment higher than the national average, the eight-week eligibility period will not be changed to 12 weeks at the discretion of the cabinet and will the same principle apply to the extended benefit section?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: No to both questions, Mr. Speaker.


TRANSPORT
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the government will not amend Bill C-27, can the minister tell the House what steps he had taken to alleviate lay-offs in the dockyards of St. John's, Newfoundland? I wrote to the minister about this eight or ten days ago. Will he be able to put some CN vessels in there for repairs or take other steps to avert lay-offs in that area?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Canadian National for a report about its plan.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the policy statement made by the government of British Columbia to the effect that if it can be recognized that there are five different regions in Canada, that different solutions are required in these regions and if working relationships can be developed between these regions Canada will be a stronger not a weaker country, does the Prime Minister agree in principle with this? Is he willing to broaden the terms of reference for a federal-provincial constitutional conference to allow enough flexibility for discussion of the British Columbia principle?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would agree that a stronger and more united Canada
80008 a\'A

February 8, 1977
Oral Questions
would come from greater understanding between the regions, both between themselves and in their relationship with the federal government. Whether this presupposes four regions or five or ten or twelve is a matter of opinion, I suppose. I think the principle as stated by the hon. member will be stated differently by different provinces.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can the minister advise the House whether it is still the policy and the practice of the Department of Immigration to require visas for visitors to Canada from Communist bloc countries?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That information ought to be sought in another way.


MANPOWER
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who is responsible for the LIP program. It was desirable, on the basis of statistics on unemployment then available, to make a supplementary allocation for LIP purposes to New Brunswick. According to news in this House it has since been deemed advisable to take some of that money from New Brunswick and allocate it to other regions, in spite of the fact that the statistics which justified the additional allocation now show it was not then big enough. Can the minister explain or justify the removal of LIP allocations from New Brunswick to any other jurisdiction?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the allocation is a global one and we endeavoured to weight it as we did. New Brunswick's allocation was $17 million.


An hon. Member:: Today Canada, tomorrow the world.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I hardly think that is niggardly. It seems to me if that money could not be used it was appropriate that it be put back in an area where it could be used.


Fred Alward McCain: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that some members were not consulted as to whether or not it was usable it becomes questionable if the facts justify the answer. May I ask the minister, in view of having taken this money away from New Brunswick, if he will increase the allocation which has been used for training so that the province of New Brunswick may increase and not decrease its training capability in the various trades and expertise which are required of any work force?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, we have a very close working relationship with my opposite number in the province of New Brunswick who we are working with on on-the-job training programs. As I have indicated before, under LIP and under the Canada Works program and the Young Canada Works program the funds are heavily weighted in favour of areas of high unemployment. I think the hon. member should check the figures.


Fred Alward McCain: When unemployment went up the grants went down.
* *
*


TRANSPORT
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Transport? Since spokesmen for the potato shipping community down east are not at all happy and are rather discouraged by the lack of action and decision on the part of governments for not proceeding now with the construction in Canada of badly needed refrigerated railway cars, can the minister inform the House if he was able to achieve a consensus on this matter with his maritime counterparts when he met with them yesterday in Charlottetown and if so, what was decided?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, this matter was discussed, particularly with Premier Campbell and Mr. Maloney of the government of Prince Edward Island so we have consensus on the need for steps to improve and assure facilities for the shipment of potatoes in the future, but there is not yet consensus on the exact type of equipment or facilities required. These discussions will certainly continue.


POSSIBILITY OF CONTINUED ASSISTANCE TO FLOUR SHIPMENTS THROUGH ATLANTIC PORTS
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister of Transport also arises from the meeting held yesterday in Charlottetown. Did he discuss Bill C-31, which would move flour and grain traffic from Halifax, Saint John and some St. Lawrence River ports; and, if so, with what result?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we discussed the bill, of course, but not the bill as described by the hon. member, because it would not remove flour from those ports.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the minister back from his conference with maritime premiers, including the Premier of Newfoundland. Is the minister now indicating to us that his brief statement on the user-pay policy, a statement which has given us heart since it seems that the policy will be laid to rest for the indefinite future, will not be of such a nature as to cause the minister to

February 8, 1977

reconsider the clause in Bill C-31 which would remove the so-called restraint. Is the minister saying to us that the user-pay policy could not be extended to that?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. member is asking. Does he want a full-blown description of our transport policy? I would refer him to a document of June, 1975. In it our whole approach to applying transportation as effectively as possible, while taking developmental and other questions into consideration, is laid out. I had indicated previously in the House that there is a variety of measures, including specific flour assistance measures, which will be considered in conjunction with that bill, and my comment would be that flour shipments there would continue.


MANPOWER
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It is in connection with the allocation of funds to constituencies under the provisions of the Canada Works program which makes specific allocations for Indian projects, presumably for those Indians living on reserves. Since an increasingly large number of registered Indians are living in cities like Winnipeg, where a large percentage of Indians are unemployed, would the minister give consideration to making funds available for native projects in urban constituencies in which large numbers of native people now reside.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to learn that the hon. member supports the allocation for status Indians and sees that as a step forward. I have indicated and given instructions to the ministerial advisory groups to this effect: that for projects, special consideration and priority is to be given to status Indians and those who live in cities such as the hon. member mentioned. So far as setting up a special category is concerned, I would prefer not to do it. These individuals are included in our survey statistics.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since in the constituency of Churchill there are some 25,000 native people from whom $900,000 has been specifically allocated-I have no complaint about that, Mr. Speaker-and since a city like Winnipeg which contains 10,000 native people, many of whom are unemployed, receives no money for that kind of project, and allocations in general are very small, would the minister consider allocating money to cities like Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary and Vancouver in which there are large numbers of unemployed native people?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, we are endeavouring to cope with that situation as best we can, given the administrative difficulties which have arisen as a result of circumstances the hon. member mentioned. I think we have taken proper initiatives.
Oral Questions
Our stance with respect to status Indians on reserves is a step forward. There is no reason in the world why Indians in those areas could not get together, formulate a project and have it approved by an advisory group.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT SEND DRUGS TO DENIS NAUD WHO SUFFERS FROM DIABETES
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and I have given him notice of it.
Last January 27 I sent the minister a letter regarding the case of a'young citizen of my constituency, Mr. Denis Naud, who has been suffering from a very uncommon disease called diabetes insipidus. According to the attending physician, the needed medicine is being held by laboratories in Ottawa, therefore preventing this young man from getting the urgent treatment required by his condition. I know that the minister is getting a lot of letters and that we have to allow a certain delay before expecting an answer. But, in view of the urgency of the situation, I would like to ask the minister whether he is prepared to do something to have this medicine forwarded as soon as possible to the attending physician of this young man?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. I can assure him that I am going to look into this matter today and check whether my officials have not already taken the necessary steps to have this medicine forwarded in order that this young man can get them as soon as possible.


FINANCE
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In December a brief was presented to the Department of Agriculture by both processors and producers of tomatoes, asking for support. I understand that a recommendation concerning tariffs on offshore tomatoes has been made to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister say what the recommendation was and when it might be implemented?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to ask his question. I confirm to him that I am at present giving active consideration to the question of the import of Taiwanese tomatoes to Canada and possible action under the jurisdiction of my department which might restore a fair balance and the competitive position of those tomatoes in the Canadian market.

February 8, 1977
Oral Questions


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a brief supplementary question? Can the minister tell us when action will be taken? Many jobs are involved and timing is critical.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am getting lots of pressure from the Minister of Agriculture in this regard and expect to be able to make an announcement at an early date.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the extension by Canada on January 1, 1977, of our jurisdiction over fishing operations, a similar extension being planned by the United States on March 1, 1977 which will result in fishermen of each country fishing in areas which are now or soon will be within the zone of the other country, I ask the minister what progress has been made in finalizing the boundary disputes between Canada and the United States, as it relates to Georges Bank on the east coast, as well as between Canada and France as it relates to St. Pierre and Miquelon, and also the boundary disputes between Canada and Denmark?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I can dispose of the latter parts of the question first, if I may. There is an arrangement in place with the government of France which provides for an interim solution during 1977, or an interim agreement during 1977, which should not cause any disruption in historic fishing patterns. This will be in place while further negotiations are carried on. Virtually the same situation applies with regard to the Denmark-Canada delineation.
With regard to the United States, a series of meetings were held last week in Los Angeles. We have had reports of some progress and will be resuming those meetings before our Prime Minister meets with President Carter. Hopefully at that time there will be further discussion on this point. The objective is to obtain for 1977 a similar form of interim agreement which will ensure that there is no disruption of fishing activity while discussion, which will be of much longer term, on a final settlement of the boundaries continues.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Since the minister and his department have supposedly been in consultation with the province of Ontario about a joint venture, a general development agreement for the county of Renfrew since 1973, and promised in 1974 that Renfrew

county would be in line for the next joint venture following the $17 million for Cornwall, and since in 1976 Ontario, because it could not get the co-operation and agreement of the federal government, had to do it alone and pump $2 million into Renfrew county, 1 ask the minister, when will the federal government honour its commitment and sign an agreement with the province of Ontario to help with infrastructure and other basic developments needed in this high unemployment county?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, negotiations are still going on between the two levels of government and I trust that we can reach an agreement that will enable us to meet at least in part some of the priorities particular to this area of Ontario, but we have not reached that stage yet.


Paul Wyatt Dick: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the expansion that is taking place, as announced last night, in the industrial park in the area, owing to the provincial funding of infrastructure, does the minister expect that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion will negotiate for another four years, or does he expect an announcement to be made within the next six months?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I have to inform the hon. member and the House that I receive representations from a number of provinces of Canada and, in particular, from Ontario. There are several areas in Ontario where both the federal and provincial governments feel they should have higher priorities, and I hope this part of the province will have its turn.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the World Health Organization set a rate of one veterinarian for three primary product inspectors for the purpose of maintaining good beef inspection services and as the ratio in the Health of Animals Branch is now one veterinarian to five PPI, a ratio which could be having a detrimental effect on our inspection service and export market, will the minister advise what progress has been made by his department to hire more veterinarians to lower this ratio to the acceptable standard, taking into consideration that the salary schedule for veterinarians in the civil service is still pretty low.
February 8, 1977


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker,
I want to state before answering the hon. member's question that the meat inspection service in Canada is second to none in any nation, regardless of how many veterinarians they have. We have technicians who are better trained than technicians in any other country. I just want to point out that some veterinarians are telling us, and I am sure the hon. member is aware of this, that we are educating too many veterinarians. All veterinarians educated in our schools in Canada last year received jobs. We are competing with the private sector. We are putting millions of dollars into veterinary schools to educate more veterinarians. We hope that our department will be increasing the number of veterinarians to the tune of about 5,000 in the next five years.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister answered my question. In view of what the minister said about all the aid he is supposedly giving to veterinarians and veterinary schools, how is it that we cannot get these graduates to offer their services to the Health of Animals Branch?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have to compete with the private sector. Some of the hon. member's colleagues in this House are the severest critics of government spending. This affects government spending with regard to providing this type of service. We are competing with the private sector. We are being very successful in our discussions with Treasury Board with regard to veterinarians.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which affects the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I am sorry to detain him, but I think it might be useful for him to stay. It concerns a statement he made to the press last Friday, a question he answered in the House on Friday, and the continuation of those questions yesterday. This involves a statement by the Prime Minister in response to a question by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) on Friday. The Prime Minister said, referring to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments:
I do know of the work of this committee and I hope it will report to the House so we are able to study the matter in more depth.
That is referring to the question of freedom of information. I recognize very well that it is not a matter of privilege for the government to make statements which may be inaccurate. If so, we would be up every day. Also, it is not a question of privilege for us to be able to demand that the government take some action. However, I suggest that the sort of statements made by the Prime Minister on Friday, and carried on yesterday, which contain a clear inference that we have a strong, courageous government straining at the leash to bring in a freedom of information bill and is being hampered by the fact that a joint committee of this parliament is failing to do its duty, must be brought to the attention of this House.
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: This is not the first time: if it were, I would be inclined to let it go. I think the right hon. member has to be nailed on this one. I cannot put this matter before Your Honour and the House without a very brief chronicle of the facts leading up to this situation. One year ago this House passed unanimously a motion adopting the report of the committee that there be a freedom of information bill. Nine months ago the then House leader indicated in response to a question that the government was preparing freedom of information legislation and was giving it some priority. Four months ago the government brought in a very wispy statement in the Speech from the Throne with regard to this matter.
On November 15 I asked the House leader what the government was going to do about this particular issue. The hon. gentleman replied that they were going to wait until the joint committee made its report and then they proposed to do something about it. Three days later I rose and pointed out to the minister that the committee could not do anything because it had no terms of reference. The hon. gentleman should have known that, as the Prime Minister should have known it. The committee reference fell to the ground at the end of last session. We have been waiting patiently for four months to have a chance to deal with this issue. The Prime Minister's statement on Friday is a clear indication that either it was a statement made with deliberation, or gross negligence, without the knowledge of what the Prime Minister should have done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I recognize that the government is not interested in passing workable freedom of information legislation. The events of the last year or so have chronicled scandal, near-scandal and incompetence which have hung over this government, brought about by-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Until now, at least, I have exercised considerable generosity in allowing the hon. member, who has considerable experience in this House, to develop a question of privilege. I am prepared to wait for that, but I certainly think the remarks ought to be relevant to the question of privilege only.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, this is background material to indicate why the government failed to bring in a bill. However, I will leave that aspect of it.


Marc Lalonde: Follow the rules.

February 8, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin


Gerald William Baldwin: The hon. minister, who is one of the most secretive ministers in this House, should not worry about the rules. I have established that it is within the knowledge of the government that this committee has not been given the terms of reference which would make it able to deal with this issue. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) knows it; the Prime Minister should know it. The right hon. member said on Friday that the government is not acting because it is waiting for this committee to make its report. I suggest that constitutes libel of the members of that committee who are anxious to complete their job. To suggest by innuendo that they are not doing their duty, and are not bringing in a report, when they do not have the terms of reference, is most improper.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I leave it at that, Mr. Speaker. I have not moved a motion because I do not think I could discharge the onus which I would have. However, this is a very serious breach of privilege. The only way the Prime Minister can purge himself is to indicate that he is going to bring in a freedom of information bill. If the government is afraid or is unwilling to do so, they should use Standing Order 68 and instruct a committee of this House to do it through parliament so that we can get on with this issue.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have noticed that when the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has a weak case he usually states it in a very excited and emotional way. I think he has either forgotten what I said-it is on the record-or else he is unconsciously changing the sense of it. The reality is very simple. The standing committee has been actively and, I think, creatively engaged in this task for many months. It only reported toward the end of last week. In other words, it terminated its task in recent days. Now, apparently, it is chafing at the bit because it wants to get on with something else. What I said last week was that very soon we would put a government statement before the House on this whole matter of freedom of information and ask hon. members to get on with the task. All I ask of the hon. member is that he rest on his laurels for a day or two and not get excited, and everything will turn out the way it should.


Mr. Speaker:: There being no motion attached to the intervention of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), no decision is called for by the Chair.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to lay on the table, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), a document which records the agreement in principle reached by myself, the Premier of Nova Scotia, the Premier of New Brunswick and the Premier of Prince Edward Island on the establishment of a maritime energy corporation.


MOTION TO REFER TO COMMITTEE SUBJECT OF ENERGY COST, CONSERVATION AND ANNUAL REPORT OF DEPARTMENT
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, with consent I should like to move and have accepted without debate a reference to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. I understand there is agreement to make this reference and have it accepted without debate. The motion is:
That the subject of energy cost and conservation and the annual report of the Department of Energy, Mines an Resources be referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If such a motion is to be presented now, without notice, there would have to be unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent.


INCOME TAX ACT
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I am advised it has not been possible to reach agreement under the provisions of Standing Order 75A or 75B in respect to proceedings at the third reading and passage stage of Bill C-22, an act to amend that statute law relating to income tax, and that I shall propose tomorrow a motion pursuant to Standing Order 75C to allocate one additional sitting day to that state of the proceedings.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) on a point of order.
February 8, 1977


Mr. Jones:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the motion is not tabled. I gave no consent to the motion read by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen).


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[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: 354, 691, 759, 880, 920, 987, 1,002, 1,059, 1,262 and 1,293.
Order Paper Questions
flexible vehicle which can be readily used for estate planning and the orderly transfer of property from one generation to another. Moreover, it would be hard to justify special rollover treatment for farm corporations and not for other family businesses or perhaps the whole range of capital properties passing between generations on death.


Mr. Coates: What is the present estimate of total equalization grants which will be paid to the Province of Nova Scotia for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977?


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What proportion of total sales were the sales of the four largest firms in the dairy 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)?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports: 1. The proportion of total sales earned by the four largest firms in the dairy products industry was 25.1 per cent in 1965, 29.2 per cent in 1970 and 33.0 per cent in 1972. Data for 1960 are not available.
2.	The proportion of total sales earned by the eight largest firms in the industry was 34.8 per cent in 1965, 42.3 per cent in 1970 and 45.8 per cent in 1972. Data for 1960 are not available.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is the government giving consideration to changing the income tax legislation to assist in the transfer of multiple-owned farm land from one generation to the next thereby giving them the same tax status as single-owner operations?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: While the Income Tax Act permits the transfer of farm property to a second generation on a tax-deferred basis from individual to individual, this treatment has not been extended to farms owned by corporations or partnerships. The deferral of capital gains tax on individually-owned farms is a very special exception to the general framework of income tax legislation. It was introduced only for very compelling reasons which stem from the continuing importance of the small family farm to our country and the disruptive effect which this feature of the income tax system could have where the family was not organized to deal with it. Most of the farms in Canada are still relatively small, unincorporated operations, i.e. in 1971 out of a total of 366,128 farms over 98 per cent of them were unincorporated. Farm corporations are typically larger operations and the corporation provides among other things a


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Total equalization payments to Nova Scotia in respect of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977 are currrently estimated to be $293,044,000.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Does the Post Office Department lease trucks from private firms for the delivery of mail and, if so, by province and territory (a) what are the names and addresses of such firms (b) how many trucks are leased from each and at what cost?
2.	Does the Department demand exclusive use of all such trucks to carry mail only or are they allowed to carry other goods?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: 1. (a) and (b)
Name and address
Five Wheel Truck Rental
Montreal, Quebec
Arrow Leasing 25 Comstock Road Scarborough, Ontario
Provincial Trailers Ltd. 1611 Brittania Rd. Mississauga, Ontario
North Queen Transport Ltd.
60 North Queen St. Toronto, Ontario
Quantity and cost
1	tractor
$800 per month plus 22 cents per mile
2	5-Ton Vans $400 per month plus 15 cents per mile
15 45-foot trailers $250 per month
1 shunt vehicle
$6 per hour used $3 per hour standby
Remarks
2. While under lease to the Post Office Department the vehicles are used exclusively for the transportation of mail or to train postal drivers.
2832

Order Paper Questions


Mr. Howie: 1.	Have any projects been initiated under the five-year strategy for international development co-operation that focus on lower-income developing countries and, if so, what are they?
2.	Are there any indications that such projects have begun to improve the living and working conditions in the countries?
3.	What other major developments now underway, or in the planning stages, are the result of the government's endorsement of the five-year strategy?


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. In the fiscal year ending on March 31, 1976, Canada disbursed 334 million dollars to those developing countries with an annual GNP per capita of less than 200 dollars. This represented 65 per cent of the Canadian bilateral aid disbursements. In the period from September 1, 1975 to October 31, 1976, CIDA initiated 9 projects with a total commitment of 176 million dollars to these poorest of the developing countries. The 39 projects were in the following sectors: 10 in agriculture, 10 in transportation, six in potable water, two in small industry development, two in energy, two in forestry, two in telecommunications, two in education, and one each in health, fisheries and topographical mapping.
2.	Yes, according to all the evidence, these projects and each individual one according to its particular objectives, normally contribute directly to the satisfaction of basic individual needs and thus have improved living and working conditions by relieving hunger, providing safe drinking water, increasing the nutritional value of basic foods, providing protective clothing and personal hygiene. Moreover, these projects contribute toward the satisfaction of social needs such as education, public health and community development. Some of these projects contribute indirectly to the improvement of conditions of life and work in disadvantaged countries by providing for the necessary infrastructure for economic development and for equipment essential for production for the satisfaction of individual and collective needs.
3.	In addition to the increased focus on the poorest people described in the answers to (1) and (2) above, the Canadian International Development Agency is currently engaged in various major initiatives, among which are the following: (i) The Agency has embarked upon a programme to identify methods to bring about increased cooperation primarily with middle-income LDC's in the industrial sector. It is expected that the completed preliminary studies, undertaken by consultants on CIDA's behalf in a selected cross-section of recipients, will lead to further more detailed investigation of some of the proposals made by the consultants. At the same time the Agency is about to launch an experimental programme aimed at identifying a broader spectrum of new avenues of co-operation with Latin America countries, such as twinning arrangements between Canadian and Latin American institutions for cooperation in science and technology, (ii) The Canadian International Development Agency had made considerable progress in implementing the policy of untying development loans to suppliers in LDC's with the objective of helping the

LDC's to develop their capacity to respond to the needs of both other LDC's and of themselves. Intensive interdepartmental consultation has taken place as well as consultation with industry representatives, (iii) Working groups in CIDA are well advanced in studying ways to improve both Canada's food aid programme and the Canadian response to disasters in the Third World, the former in conjunction with Treasury Board, the latter within CIDA. It is expected that recommendations will be submitted to the appropriate decision-making authorities in the near future. Apart from the above-mentioned major initiatives, CIDA is also pursuing the implementation of the other points of the strategy.


Mr. Howie: Are any small, highly automated, super maximum prisons planned for construction start before March 31 (a) 1977 (b) 1978 (c) 1979 and, if so (i) how many (ii) what is the estimated cost (iii) how many inmates would be accommodated in each (iv) what is the estimated cost of each one?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: The Canadian Penitentiary Service has no plans for the construction of small, highly automated, super maximum prisons. However, three Special Handling Units are being planned at the Correctional Development Centre in Laval, Quebec, at the Millhaven Institution, in Millhaven, Ontario and at the Saskatchewan Penitentiary, in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, for the incarceration of very dangerous inmates.


Mr. Herbert: What is the percentage of total assets controlled by US companies in the following Canadian industries (a) primary metals (b) metal fabricating (c) electrical products (d) mineral fuels (e) chemicals?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Statistics Canada reports: The following information has been extracted from Table 3 of the 1973 Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act Report Part I.
		U.S. Controlled	Percent
Total Assets	Assets	U.S.($000,000)	($000,000)	ControlledPrimary Metals	5,199	376	7.2Metal Fabricating	3,354	1,243	37.1Electrical Products	3,060	1,758	57.5Mineral Fuels Chemical and	7,816	4,877	62.4Chemical Products	3,818	2,099	55.0
February 8, 1977


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What items, buildings or other equipment were repaired or maintained by the Administration Section, Department of the Secretary of State in the fiscal year(a) 1974-75 (b) 1975-76?
2.	In each case, what was the nature of the breakdown, malfunction or condition of the item and what were the repairs or maintenance?
3.	In each case, what was the original value of the item?
4.	In each case, what was the expected life span of the item before the repairs or maintenance and what is the expected life of the item subsequent to the repairs or maintenance?
5.	For what reason was the repair or maintenance not foreseen at the time of the presentation of the 1975-76 main estimates, resulting in an expenditure of 57,200 per cent over the estimates and also the previous year?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: 1. (a) and (b) All
such items in use in the Department.
2, 3 and 4. Records have not been maintained in a manner which would enable the Department to extract the required information readily and without an inordinate amount of work, time and cost.
5. The difference between the 1975-76 Main Estimates for Purchased Repair and Upkeep and the Forecast Expenditures for 1975-76 for these items, as shown in the 1976-77 Main Estimates, is due entirely to the inclusion of an item for $1,700,000 for Tenant Services in the Department's 1975-76 Supplementary Estimates "A" which had previously been provided in the Estimates of the Department of Public Works. This change was to reflect the Treasury Board's policy decision requiring departments to account for such services in their own Estimates rather than in those of the Department of Public Works.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	How much accommodation (stores, quarters and married quarters) is available at CFB (a) Uplands (b) Rockcliffe for No. One Commando Unit of the Airborne Regiment?
2.	Is such accommodation sufficient and, if not (a) who is to be moved to make room (b) what amount will new construction cost and on what date will it be ready?
3.	Based on the present plan (a) what will be the savings in personnel (b) will there be any savings in money and (i) if so, how much and where will the savings come from (ii) if not, how much will the move cost?
4.	What amount will be spent on the airport at Petawawa to give it all-weather instrument flight rules (IFR) capability?
5.	Was the Chief of the Defence Staff present when the announcement was made and, if not, is he available now?
6.	Is there a threat which requires an infantry unit in Ottawa and, if so, what is it?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. There is sufficient hangar space at CFB Ottawa South (Uplands) to meet the needs of 1 CDO. Married personnel will' compete according to current regulations for some of the about 800 married quarters of CFB Ottawa.
Order Paper Questions
2.	Yes.
3.	Administrative support establishment positions formerly required to maintain 1 CDO at CFB Edmonton will no longer be required nor will they be required in Ottawa where they already exist and therefore shall be converted to operation positions. This relocation is expected to effect some economies but principally will improve the land force operational deployment. The move is expected to cost $500,000 on a one-time basis for personnel and equipment relocation.
4.	None as this capability is not currently required.
5.	No, but he is available now.
6.	No.


Mr. McKinley: What was the final cost and the completion date for the contract to reconstruct the Riding Mountain Parkway from mile 15.86 to mile 24.0 in Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba?


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Contract was awarded in the Spring of 1975 in the amount of $1,062,000. The Interim Certificate of Completion has been issued in the amount of $1,215,965.20; however, the final contract amount will not be known pending completion of the final quantity calculations now under way. The original completion date specified in the contract was 1975-10-31. This Department on 1976-05-14, authorized an extended completion date of 1976-09-30, and, in fact, the work was accepted from the contractor on 1976-09-28.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if question number 56 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many persons are employed at the Headquarters of the Unemployment Insurance Commission located at 222 Nepean Street, Ottawa (a) what is the number of persons in each classification and what is the salary range (b) what are the total salaries per year paid to all persons employed there (c) what is the total amount of overtime paid to all persons who are working or who have worked at 222 Nepean Street in each of the past three calendar years for which figures are available?
2.	Has any survey been made by the government to determine whether the Unemployment Insurance Commission Headquarters at 222 Nepean Street is overstaffed and (a) if so, on what date and what were the results (b) if not, will such a survey be undertaken to determine whether any staff cut-backs or transfers to other jobs in the Public Service are warranted?
Return tabled.
80008-42%

February 8, 1977
Unemployment


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) is not here. Question No. 56 is his question. I wonder why the reply has been made an order for return. Is there a reason for it?


Ralph Goodale: I should have mentioned that the answer to that particular question involves eight pages of documentation. That is why it is being answered in this way.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the revelation this morning that the continuing chronic level of unemployment has now reached critical proportions, with 889,000 persons officially unemployed, the highest level since the great depression and the highest level in the history of Statistics Canada.
It is to be noted that as bad as these figures are, they do not include an additional 100,000 unemployed who have withdrawn completely from the labour force in recent months. It should also be noted in this connection that the government has failed to announce any new initiatives to alleviate unemployment and will not do so until its budget which may be as late as June of this year. I submit this constitutes a crisis and an emergency situation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made applications on previous occasions and the Chair has made rulings on previous occasions relating to the suitability of the use of Standing Order 26 in relation to a subject such as unemployment. I have made my position clear on the matter on previous occasions and, in turn, I have referred to precedents which seem to me to be applicable. I do not propose to read the whole of Standing Order 26 because it contains a number of subclauses, but I would draw attention to subclause 16(a) which provides:
The matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency, calling for immediate and urgent consideration.
I have said in the past that the matter referred to by the hon. member is one of extreme importance. As the situation becomes more severe, as was made evident by the questions put forward during the question period today and the answers

thereto, it becomes an even more serious matter. However, this does not change its continuing nature or affect its eligibility for inclusion under Standing Order 26. In other words, no matter how important a subject, and while it might well be a proper one for consideration by this House in many other ways-and, indeed, it should be-this is a matter of ongoing concern and therefore is not a proper subject for debate under Standing Order 26.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Marc Lalonde: that Bill C-35, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that on April 14 last I tabled in the House of Commons proposals to amend the Old Age Security Act. It is with pride today that I speak on the fruition of those proposals, Bill C-35. The amendments contained in the bill mean that over half a million residents of Canada may eventually gain access to the social security credits they have acquired overseas. They will also ensure greater equity of treatment among old age security pensioners by relating the basic old age security pension more directly to actual participation in Canadian society, and will bring greater consistency between this program and the other components of the Canadian retirement income system which are directly related to it.
I should stress that the proposed amendments will not alter three essential ingredients in the old age security program. Firstly, it is universal and non-contributory, based exclusively on residence in Canada; secondly, the pensions it provides become payable at age 65 at the earliest; and thirdly, it is the building block of the Canadian retirement income system.
The amending legislation improves the program in three important ways. First, it authorizes the inclusion of the OAS program in reciprocal agreements, which is not now the case; second, it proposes one single eligibility criterion instead of the three current ones; and third, it establishes partial pensions, which do not exist at present. In order that the retirement plans of current residents of this country not be jeopardized by the amending legislation, Bill C-35 further provides for a transition period of 40 years before the same, single eligibility requirement applies to everyone.
I should like, first of all, to comment on the OAS proposals and the reciprocal agreements. The amendments would
February 8, 1977

authorize inclusion of the old age security program in international agreements which would make benefits portable to and from countries with which Canada may negotiate agreements. Such agreements would directly benefit a large number of immigrants to this country, especially those who have chosen to retire in Canada to be near their children and grandchildren, many of whom find their foreign pensions frozen at the level at which they were on the day they left their country of origin, and eroded by inflation and devaluation. The central purpose of reciprocal international agreements is to protect migrants who spend portions of their working lives in more than one country. Such people cannot always meet the minimum eligibility requirements of the mandatory social security programs to which they have contributed.
Such countries as France, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States, from which a large number of Canadian immigrants have come in recent years, have expressed interest in having reciprocal social security agreements with us and in preliminary discussions among officials have formulated proposals involving varying combinations of Canadian programs. Until now Canada has had no adequate response to such proposals since OAS, the building block of our retirement income system, could not be taken to the bargaining table.
The great majority of social security benefits of other countries are tied to participation in the labour force and, in a few cases, to periods of residence in the country concerned. The amount of individual pensions payable by such countries is usually a function of the number of years of contributions or residence which the applicant has accumulated at the time he or she reaches pensionable age.
In addition, most countries place explicit restrictions on the payment of social security benefits outside their national boundaries. Some pay their benefits only to beneficiaries having accumulated a certain minimum period of contributions or residence. Others do not pay them abroad to anyone, or restrict such payments to their own nationals, or do not pay adjustments in their benefits unless they have a social security agreement with the country to which their beneficiaries migrate.
Both the current OAS legislation and Bill C-35 have a restriction of the first type I have mentioned, that is to say, the requirement that the beneficiary must have lived in Canada for a minimum of 10 years after age 18 to receive the pension of Canada, or 20 years before it can be exported. In much the same manner as Canada would want to protect the benefits which as many as half a million of its current residents have acquired abroad, so would other countries wish to provide, through reciprocal agreements, for the easing of restrictions which Canada places on its own benefits, such as the 20-year rule for export of the OAS pension.
Even if the current OAS program could be taken to the bargaining table, it would be unusable in reciprocal agreements because of the "all or nothing" principle embodied in it and the different weight which attaches to the same number of years of residence in Canada. In contrast, the corresponding
Old Age Security Act
programs of other countries yield benefits which are prorated to periods of contributions or residence.
Under international social security agreements of the standard type, the restriction which governments place on the payment of their benefits outside national boundaries is overcome by adding together periods of contributions or residence in each of the contracting states to determine eligibility under the programs of one or both countries. Once eligibility is established, each party to the agreement calculates, under its own rules, its share of the composite benefit payable and pays it direct to the beneficiary. By such techniques, contracting states can make social security benefits portable across their boundaries and thereby protect the social security credits of their residents who work in the other country for part of their lives.
International agreements also provide for the removal of duplicate coverage. Hon. members will be familiar with the difficulties experienced by Canadian residents working in the United States and, conversely, with the situation of United States citizens working in Canada. For the time being, most people in this situation have to contribute both to the Canada Pension Plan and to the United States social security scheme. A reciprocal agreement with the United States government would resolve such anomalies.
I would caution all hon. members that Bill C-35, while it authorizes inclusion of the old age security program in international agreements, will not, in and of itself, give automatic access by residents of Canada to the social security credits acquired in foreign countries. It takes two to negotiate. The precise terms which other countries will be prepared to offer under agreements, and the details of what they will require of Canada in return, will of course become known only when negotiations begin.
For its part, the government of Canada will be prepared to enter into formal negotiations with other interested governments as soon as Bill C-35 becomes law and we can take the OAS program to the bargaining table. I might note in passing that international agreements on social security exclude all income-tested programs. The guaranteed income supplement will therefore never be part of international agreements.
Secondly, I should like to say a few words about the single eligibility requirement which is found in the proposed bill. Forty years hence, the same, single eligibility requirement will apply to every resident of Canada: the OAS pension will be acquired a year at a time, through residence in Canada after age 18, over a maximum 40-year period. Partial pensions will be available for those with less than 40 years' residence based on one-fortieth of a full pension for each year of residence in Canada. A minimum ten years of residence will be required for any pension to be payable in Canada, and a minimum 20 years for it to be payable outside the country.
At present, residents of Canada can qualify for their old age pension at age 65 in one of three ways. First, by living here for a full 40 years after age 18. This produces a pension for which you can apply from anywhere in the world and which is payable anywhere in the world. Secondly, one can qualify by

February 8, 1977
Old Age Security Act
living here without interruption for the ten years immediately preceding application for the pension, normally from age 55 to age 65. This produces a pension payable in Canada for which you must apply from Canada and which becomes exportable after the pensioner has completed 20 years of residence here.
Finally, if an applicant has been absent from the country during the ten years preceding application for the pension, he or she can make up each year of absence by three years of residence between ages 18 and 54. This produces a pension payable in Canada only, unless the applicant can meet the 20-year export rule. The point to bear in mind, however, is that in order to qualify under this "three for one" provision the applicant must live in Canada for a full year before applying for the pension.
Unfortunately, the application of these eligibility criteria frequently results in inequitable treatment of beneficiaries. Let us take the case of someone who was born in Canada, lived and worked here and, say for health reasons, left the country at age 55. The 37 years of residence in Canada after age 18 which such a person had completed would not entitled the applicant to anything unless he or she were to re-establish residence in Canada for a full year before applying for the pension. On the other hand, a non-Canadian, say, again, for health reasons, can choose to come to Canada at age 55, live here until age 65, claim and get a full pension.
It will be clear from the foregoing that the current eligibility criteria, combined with the "all or nothing" principle, can favour applicants having had as little as ten years association with Canada over others who spent most of their working lives here. The amendments which the government has put forward will resolve this anomaly by giving each year of residence in Canada exactly the same value for OAS purposes and by establishing partial pensions. After the transition period, 40 years will draw a full forty-fortieths pension. Twenty years will be worth half as much as a full pension, and ten years a quarter as much.
In preparing the amendments which are now before us, one of the government's concerns was to ensure that no one currently in receipt of the pension, or in the process of building up their entitlement to it, would be affected by the changes in the rules. The OAS target population is composed of current and former residents of Canada. Within this group, those under the age of 25 when Bill C-35 becomes law and who have 40 years ahead of them to build up their entitlement to a forty-fortieths pensions will be governed by the new rules.
Current or former residents of Canada who are 25 and over when Bill C-35 comes into force will have the choice of the most beneficial set of rules when they apply for their OAS pension at age 65. Thus, no one-absolutely no one-who has some claim to an OAS entitlement by virtue of current or former residence in Canada will be deprived of the opportunity to earn a full pension. For the purposes of the act, current residents include those holding a valid immigrant visa when the amendments become law. They, too, could choose which-

ever set of rules is more advantageous to their particular circumstances.
It should be noted, as well, that receipt of a partial OAS pension will give access to the income-tested guaranteed income supplement, as the full pension currently does, and will be adjusted quarterly to the consumer price index, as is the case for the full pension now. Similarly, the younger spouse of an OAS pensioner will continue to be entitled to consideration for the spouses' allowance benefits; the OAS equivalent portion of such benefits will be calculated in the same manner as the OAS pension itself.
People who have never resided in Canada and who do not hold an immigrant visa will henceforth be governed by the new rules and earn their pension a year at a time, as will every other legal resident of Canada. Others-current and former residents of Canada-may qualify for pensions under the new law, while they have no entitlement at all under current legislation, or can receive a partial pension earlier than they could have received a full one.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment on other features of the amending legislation. Bill C-35 also includes an amendment which will exempt family allowance benefits as income for the purpose of calculating entitlement to GIS and spouse's allowances.
When the GIS program was developed in 1966, family allowances were not taxable; consequently, they were not considered part of a GIS applicant's income and had no effect on the amount of the supplement payable. However, when family allowances became taxable in 1974, the benefits automatically counted as part of one's income in calculating eligibility for GIS. Henceforth, family allowances will not be counted as income for calculation of benefits under the guaranteed income supplement or the spouses' allowance programs. Approximately 10,000 pensioners, it is estimated, will benefit from this change.
A number of other amendments have been introduced in the bill to facilitate the proper administration of the program and to prevent abuse of the legislation originally passed by parliament. As an example, the amending legislation will prevent the payment abroad, for more than six months, of OAS benefits to persons who have ceased to reside in Canada and who do not meet the 20-year export rule. Technically, such persons can now defeat the 20-year rule for export of the pension by returning to Canada for one day every six months. Bill C-35 corrects this situation.
Provision is also made in the legislation for the granting of commissioner of oath authority to departmental officers to expedite the administration of certain provisions of the act, notably those relating to proof of marriage.
Finally, in order that parliament may fully exercise its authority over the use of public funds, Bill C-35 describes the procedure to be used for the ratification, by both Houses of Parliament, of reciprocal social security agreements which the government of Canada may negotiate with foreign govern-
February 8, 1977

ments under the authority of the governor-in-council. This ratification procedure is the same as that which applies to income tax agreements with which members of this House are familiar.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, Canadians have reason to be proud of the retirement income system which has been built over the years. It can stand comparison with the best in the world. We can be prouder yet when the amendments become law, because there will be more equity in the treatment of OAS beneficiaries, more consistency within the system itself, and the possibility of negotiating international agreements to protect the social security credits of people migrating into and out of Canada.
Let me emphasize that we have taken great care in the phasing in of the new residence requirements. No one in receipt of a pension will have that pension reduced. People under 25, who have 40 years ahead of them before retirement, will have the opportunity to qualify for a 40/40ths pension under the new rules.
Those 25 and over, current or former residents of Canada, will be able to claim their pension at age 65 under the most beneficial set of rules. Current residents, for this purpose, include people holding immigrant visas when the act is enforced.
Older immigrants to our country will earn their pension one year at a time, as will every other resident of Canada.
Pensions (partial and full) will be adjusted quarterly in line with increases in the consumer price index. Partial pensioners will be able to receive the full guaranteed income supplement, if their other income is low enough to qualify them for this. And in the small proportion of cases where there may still be a deficiency in income to meet basic living requirements, the individuals concerned will have access to the income support programs administered by provincial governments and funded jointly by the provinces and the federal government.
We are improving the equity of the program in future years, and relating the basic old age security pension more directly to actual participation in Canadian society. And we must remember that, in doing so, we also make this program more consistent with the programs of other countries, thereby facilitating the negotiation of bilateral agreements covering pensions. This, in turn, should make it possible for many immigrants to improve their retirement income position.
Mr. Speaker, those are the comments I wanted to make in introducing the bill. I thank hon. members for their kind attention.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say, first, that we on this side of the House consider that the steps the minister has taken are worthy of very serious consideration. The minister, on April 4, 1976, announced the
Old Age Security Act
government's proposed amendments to the Old Age Security Act which would-
-address the inequities which are rising because of the increasing number of persons whose active working life and retirement are not all spent in Canada.
Actually, as has been pointed out by the minister, there were two proposals. One will affect every Canadian through the change in residence rules and, of course, those who recently arrived in Canada, and the other will affect Canadians living abroad and older persons who have come to Canada. With particular reference to the last point, as has been stated by the minister there are some 500,000 people living in Canada who-I will not use the word "neglect" because I do not think it is fair-because of the foot-dragging, and perhaps, procrastination of this government have been denied benefits simply because this government was unable, with all its wisdom-


An hon. Member:: Wisdom?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -yes, wisdom and all its support staff, was unable to come up with legislation which would enable it to enter into reciprocal agreements with such countries as the United Kingdom, Italy and France. Therefore, these people have been deprived of benefits. I will not dwell on that too long, but let me say that we on this side of the House take a very dim view of that. I have here much correspondence between the High Commission of the United Kingdom and this government dating back to 1970. Proposals have been submitted. It is now February 8, 1977. The minister smiles. Perhaps he anticipates that I will clap him on the back, but it is not my role to clap ministers on the back for anything, because they are getting paid enough to bring forward legislation sufficiently early to benefit Canadians.
In the last Speech from the Throne we read the government's announced intention to address itself to inequities. There is more to that than residence requirements and reciprocal agreements. I should like to make a few comments on this without speaking at any great length. My colleague, the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone), and myself have been out on a quality of life tour to determine the quality of life of our senior citizens, whether they have any grievances, and so forth. Our governments-notice how I say "governments" so as to be purely objective-are doing the right thing with respect to our senior citizens. There are some two million Canadians who are at present entitled to old age security, but because of medical advances and improvement of the quality of life-my life and that of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde)-will live longer in the golden years of their lives. Therefore, we must be concerned about those people because of the attitude of some of us in the country that older people should be shipped out to pasture at the age of 65 to fend for themselves. I heard that comment on many occasions as I travelled from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and back. There seems to be an attitude in Canada that once you are 65, you are useless; there is no purpose to your life, and therefore you should be institutionalized.


Mr. Sharp:: Be kind to me.

February 8, 1977
Old Age Security Act


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: There is a role for the institution to play, but we should concern ourselves with improving this situation. The reason I am so much in favour of immigrants and immigration to Canada is that the type of person we are bringing here respects and appreciates the worthiness of his elders. You do not find too many new immigrants sending their parents and grandparents to institutions. I see the minister nodding his head in affirmation. We Canadians have been sloppy in this respect.


Mr. Francis:: Or worse.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: "Or worse", as the hon. member says. I want to let the minister know that there is concern about that matter. When we talk about inequities, let me point out that senior citizens are concerned about the rising cost of living. We found on our tour that they are concerned about food, clothing, housing and fuel. Yet the cost of living index, as the minister knows, is based on a multiplicity of factors, some of which do not affect senior citizens. So they want us to try to devise a new formula so that the indexing will relate more to their needs.
They were angry about the minister forcing senior citizens into retirement at age 65. The minister knows what I am talking about. His colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), introduced amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act which denied benefits to people after age 65. In other words, this is forced retirement. Under the present Unemployment Insurance Act, after age 65 you cannot pay premiums and you are not entitled to benefits.


Marc Lalonde: But you may get your Canada pension benefits without retirement.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, when the minister was speaking I did not interrupt him. He says they can get their Canada pension, but I am not talking about the Canada pension. I am talking about the work ethic and those who are aged 65 but do not want to collect the Canada pension because they are still energetic enough and have the strength to work. As I look to my left, and I will not mention names-


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Why not?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I think the hon. member knows what I am getting at, Mr. Speaker. If we were to force retirement in this House, some of the greatest parliamentarians would have to vacate the premises.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Some people over 65 want to work, not because it is a great joy but because they have commitments, and the cost of living is high. Due to this government's ineptness in solving the many problems that are destroying our economy, however, people find it necessary to work in order to help themselves, those they brought into the world, and their children. But the government says that at age 65 they are not
now eligible for unemployment insurance. It has been said they are ripping off the system. Why pick on these people who have contributed so much to the country? Surely it would be easy to find the few in this age group who are ripping off the system compared to the number between, say, age 20 and 25 who are said to be doing the same thing.
This bill is part and parcel of the whole mess in which we find ourselves as a result of this government and, in particular, this minister. The provisions regarding spouse's allowance are also cause for concern and we have fought them tooth and nail. The minister did not have the decency to define "spouse"-he did not even put "married" in the bill. "Spouse" could mean someone with whom you are living. But that is another problem, although it shows the direction in which this government is moving.


An hon. Member:: Permissive.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: My point is that when one spouse is 65 and the other is between 60 and 64, their costs for housing and the necessities of life keep on and, indeed, sometimes increase. If the one who is age 65 dies, the other one does not collect old age security. If these people live in a senior citizens' home or nursing home, however, the person under 65 does get something, as does the one over 65; but when the one drawing old age security dies, the other one does not collect. Those are just some of the inequities, Mr. Speaker. The provision regarding the spouse's allowance excludes widows, widowers, spinsters, bachelors and divorcees: it encourages living in sin.
The New Horizons program is another matter of concern. The senior citizens to whom I speak are unhappy about the criteria set for projects. I think these criteria come from academics and eggheads who are fortunate enough to work in Ottawa. They are young people who have no idea of the needs of senior citizens. They can only see the obvious, and that is the type of program of which they approve. If it is in any way aesthetic or intangible, they rule that it does not meet the criteria. The criteria of people aged 25 or 30? With all due respect, I think some civil servants should get out of their offices occasionally and see what is going on in the country. Perhaps they would realize that some of the policies they conceive and pass along to ministers are ill-considered. I know they work hard on these things-almost as hard as members of parliament. We are all working together for a common cause.
Senior citizens are also concerned about not being able to live in their own homes. They, naturally, want to stay in the home they saved and suffered to pay for, and live in an environment they know amongst their friends and children. Perhaps there could be some form of incentive offered to keep senior citizens in the homes they now occupy. In the long run it might be even cheaper than building senior citizens' homes, although these are needed too. Perhaps some sort of incentive could be given to children to maintain parents in their homes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, these people who have brought Canada to where it is today feel left out of the

February 8, 1977

mainstream of Canadian life in many ways. They believe they have been kicked out to pasture, are forgotten, useless and are not in a position to make any further contribution. I reject that philosophy, but it seems to be the thinking behind many things.
The formula proposed for the residence requirement is better than the present one because it simplifies the eligibility provision. This is a complex bill and worthy of our very serious consideration, so a lot of questions have to be asked, and I hope we will get the answers. As I said before, we are not going to chastise the minister; we will let the bill go to committee so that hon. members will be able to discuss it and understand it thoroughly. There are a few things that concern members on both sides who represent large cities. I hope the publicity concerning the residence amendment will make clear just who will be affected and that those collecting pensions will not suffer any loss of benefits.
I witnessed the government spend about $1 million publicizing the merits of the Anti-Inflation Board, how well it was working and telling us of the impact of wage and price controls on the economy. I hope consideration has been given to bringing information about this bill to the people who will be affected. I have no idea how this can be done, but surely if the government can spend $1 million in an effort to con people about the anti-inflation program and wage and price controls, it can find a few dollars to tell people about amendments to the Old Age Security Act.
At present, to qualify for the old age security pension a person must be 65 years of age and, (a) have resided in Canada for 40 years after the age of 18-that is the 40-year rule; or (b), have resided in Canada for ten consecutive years after age 55-that is the ten-year rule; or (c), if a person has resided less than ten years in Canada after age 55, or if the ten years of residence after age 55 have not been continuous, the difference can be made up at the rate of three years of residence in Canada, accumulated between the age of 18 and 55, for every year missing.
Each person must, also, live in Canada for the year immediately prior to the initial year of benefit, under that old age security rule. Therefore, one must consider the 40-year rule, the 10-year rule, the "three years for one"rule and the "last year of residency rule." All these rules are messy. The situation at present is full of inequities as different years of residence have different weights with regard to OAS. For example, if a person has lived in Canada for 38 years but leaves the year before his OAS benefits begin, he will not qualify for OAS.
Allow me now to allude to the situation of a man now living in Florida who does mind being referred to by name in this House. I brought this chap to the minister's attention. I know the minister reads most of the letters he gets. I think he must have read the letter I sent because it dealt with a matter of some significance. I am referring to the situation of Mr. William Cranston. Mr. Cranston left Canada in 1965. His
Old Age Security Act
period of residence in Canada after age 18 totalled 37 years, 11 months. I now quote from the minister's letter dated January 13, 1977, and signed, apparently, by the minister himself. The minister said in part in his letter:
My officials inform me that Mr. Cranston left Canada in December, 1965. His period of residence in Canada after age 18 totals 37 years, 11 months. Mr. Cranston would not, therefore, qualify for the pension under any of the methods outlined above.
The minister was referring to conditions I put on the record a few minutes ago. Is it not strange that after being a resident of Canada for 37 years, 11 months, Mr. Cranston was not entitled to a pension? I continue quoting from the minister's letter, part of which deals with the legislation before us. He said in part:
This proposal would remove inequities in the "all or nothing" feature of the present legislation under which residents of Canada may be entitled to a full old age security pension after ten years residence in Canada between the ages of 55 and 65-
Unfortunately, even though a person may have lived in this country for 39 years after his eighteenth birthday, under the present law he would not be entitled to a pension. Is this not strange? This bill addresses itself to situations of that kind. We do not know how many people are affected, but we intend to find out. The present arrangement is an "all or nothing" format which often does not give due recognition to the years of productivity and contribution a citizen has given to Canada over his years of residence. In light of this fact, we are now dealing with proposals saying that OAS should become payable in direct proportion to the person's years of residence. One year of residence will earn the person one-fortieth of his OAS pension, with a maximum of 40 years to receive a full pension.
It should be noted that the minimum residence requirement of ten years will be retained, but will refer to any ten years of residence in Canada after age 18. As well, a minimum of 20 years residence will still be required to collect OAS from abroad. Once again, any 20 years of residence after age 18 will qualify. This will essentially solve most, if not all, of the inequity problem which I have discussed. Since each year of residence will receive the same weight, the proposed provision will eliminate the "all or nothing" nature of the present OAS plan and it will become possible to collect a partial pension.
For the benefit of those who subscribe to Hansard, let me put on record the new criteria the minister has proposed under this bill. Although I do not like flattering our ministers, I think we ought to recognize what the minister has done in this instance. I hope I did not sound too flowery.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: In other words, you are not all bad.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am not concerned about whether the minister is good or bad; I could not care less, since we intend to sit on the government side of the House. But I want to show our people how this country should be governed in a responsible and responsive fashion for the benefit of Canadians. Let me put on record some questions and answers concerning the proposed legislation to amend the Old Age Security Act. They read as follows:

February 8, 1977
Old Age Security Act
Q. What would the new residence rules be?
A. Under the new rules, the Old Age Security pension would be "earned" by residents of Canada a year at a time, that is, at the rate of one-fortieth of the eventual full pension for each year of residence here after age 18.
Receipt of the pension in Canada would continue to be subject to a minimum residence period of ten years after age 18 and receipt of the pension abroad, to a minimum residence period of 20 years.
40 years of residence after age 18-a full OAS pension, in Canada or abroad; 20 years (or more) of residence after age 18 (but less than 40)-half a pension (or more) in Canada or abroad; ten years of residence after age 18 (but less than 20)-a quarter of a pension (or more, up to nineteen-fortieths) payable in Canada only.
The last part of that answer could create problems-which are not insurmountable, I might add. We ought to let it be known that the intention of this bill is to cut the pensions of the recently arrived. The minister has not said anything; therefore I assume I am right.


Marc Lalonde: That is not the case.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the last part of the answer reads:
Ten years of residence after age 18 (but less than 20)-a quarter of a pension (or more, up to nineteen-fortieths) payable in Canada only.


Marc Lalonde: If you reside in Canada at the time of passage of the bill, you have the choice of the best way of obtaining a pension.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We ought to publicize that; most people are not aware of it. We should like to say that we like what the minister is doing. Unfortunately, we cannot keep abreast of much of what is happening in the government. In this connection I wish to pay tribute to my parliamentary intern, the brilliant Miss Lillian Wong.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We must give credit where credit is due. I favour our system of parliamentary internship and hope we can expand it. Our parliamentary interns assist significantly those of us who, by virtue of the pressure of business, find it difficult to know everything ministers are doing. Ministers have at their disposal considerable resources. They employ speechwriters, some of whom are paid $1,500 for writing one speech.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You have got to be kidding. Let us get back to flattery.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I now raise the difficulty of those who arrive here from other countries in their later years of life, say when they are 50 years old or more. Under the newly-proposed legislation, they would receive only a proportion of the maximum possible pension because, apparently, now you must earn your pension. If the immigrants come from a country where social assistance is not available or with which a bilateral agreement has not been negotiated, will their partial pensions be adequate to support them if they have no other means of income? I ask this since I, as a member of parliament concerned about the welfare of Canadians, have some responsibili-
(Mr. Alexander.]
ty in this matter. That is why we must examine this bill carefully in committee to determine if my fears are valid or not.
I ask, will these people entering our country in their later years become burdens on the families which may have brought them over? Will this provision simply increase payments from other forms of social assistance so that the amounts saved from the new legislation will be cancelled out by increases in other payments? This concern was raised especially with regard to the new immigration legislation which will allow the immigration of parents of Canadian citizens or landed immigrants regardless of age.


An hon. Member:: You don't know what you are talking about.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I hear an hon. member suggesting that I do not know what I am talking about. Because the minister brought this bill forward so quickly, we have not had the opportunity to consider in depth the provisions of this complicated legislation. The fact that it was brought forward so quickly shows how poor is the government's legislative program. It is not the usual deal where you have a couple of weeks to look into it and have it researched. I was away looking after the interests of our senior citizens. I left last Wednesday. At that time there was no intention of bringing in this bill at this early stage. Back I came, and all hell broke loose. They are bringing in amendments to the Old Age Security Act. I hope the provinces are happy. I hope the consultative machinery which was required has been pursued, and that they believe we are moving in the right direction, particularly when I raised my concern about immigrants.
Here is another question. As I said before, the minister's kit is not bad. However, I want to put some of these questions and answers on the record of Hansard. They are as follows:
Question: Could the amount of a partial pension be increased if the beneficiary resided for additional years in Canada?
Answer: Once in pay, the amount of a pension could not be increased by virtue of additional residence in Canada.
I think people would like to know that.
Question: Once the proposed legislation comes into effect, would persons already in receipt of the full OAS pension, or who subsequently qualify for it under the present rules, be able to take it abroad?
Answer: Yes, If they have resided in Canada for 20 years, after the age of 18, as the present rules require. The same 20-year minimum for export of the pension abroad would be retained under the new rules. In other words, you could export a half-pension under the new rules. Currently, of course, this is not possible since there are no partial pensions.
Question: How are former residents of Canada treated under present rules, and how would the new rules affect them?
Answer: If they have resided here for a full 40 years after age 18, former residents can receive their full pension abroad at age 65. If they have less than 40 years residence in Canada, however, they may qualify under the "three for one" rule-but they have to return to Canada and reside here during the year preceding commencement of the pension. Under the new rules, a former resident of Canada with at least 20 years of prior legal residence here after age 18 would be entitled to receive a portion of the full pension abroad at age 65, without returning to Canada.
February 8, 1977

Question: To whom would the new residence rules apply?
Answer: After a transition period of 40 years, to everybody.
That is something I will have to look into. This is an example where we do not know what the minister is talking about. It seems obvious, but we will have to ask quite a few questions.
During the transition period, however, only to residents of Canada under the age of 25 when the new rules come into force, and to anyone, irrespective of age, who at that time, is not residing in Canada, has not had prior legal residence here after the age of 18, or does not hold an immigrant visa.
Persons 25 and over residing in Canada, having had prior legal residence here after the age of 18 or holding an immigrant visa when the new rules come into force, will have the opportunity, as they have now, to qualify for a full pension under the existing residence requirements. 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 is the part I am talking about regarding the immigrant.
Question:. Would the new rules affect pensions already in pay?
Answer: The proposed amendments would not affect OAS pensions currently in pay nor would they apply to persons who, when the proposed new rules come into force, are 25 years of age or over and are residents of Canada, have had prior legal residence here after the age of 18, or hold an immigrant visa, unless those persons so elect.
It is with regard to these types of matters that the minister should ensure sufficient publicity is given, because at first blush it is extremely complicated. Let us get into the other matter which of course is of some importance. This question affects some 500,000 people in this country as well as those who intend to come here. It can be generally stated that all countries pay pensions, if available, to all within their own respective territories, but there is a difference if the person begins to reside abroad. We are now getting into the reciprocal agreement matter which I believe is important. It is necessary, and we should ensure that it is implemented as soon as possible. The differences to which I have referred include things such as some pay abroad under certain conditions, and some pay abroad to eligible nationals. For example, Canada and the United Kingdom pay abroad to nationals and aliens, but the United States pays aliens abroad if they are nationals of countries which pay social security benefits abroad in full to beneficiaries who are United States' nationalists. That is important. It will be seen that there are a lot of "if' and "but" approaches to security in terms of who gets what, depending on where you were born and what you contributed before you left the country.
There are problems with regard to increases, particularly as this system applies to those who live in the United Kingdom, France and Italy. Adjustments to Canada old age security, etc., are paid abroad because of our present legislation. The United Kingdom pays such increases abroad only to countries which have reciprocal agreements or arrangements on social security. It is interesting to note that there is such an agreement with the United States and the United Kingdom, but lo and behold, the same, necessary agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom is not yet in effect. That is what we are dealing with now.
Old Age Security Act
Since 1959, the United Kingdom, with the consent of Canada, pays its pensions to persons returning from Canada who have failed the residence test. This is a unilateral arrangement, no obligation being incurred on the Canadian side and it confers no advantage on persons moving from the United Kingdom. If you live in some parts of the United Kingdom, you may get an increase or the possibility of indexing, but once you are here you do not get that. That is what this bill will allow people to acquire, if I understand it correctly.
At present, the United Kingdom feels that the cost of increases falls on contributors and employers in the United Kingdom, and therefore it is unreasonable and unfair to pay such increases to those outside the country. However, this policy can be modified by reciprocal agreements covering matters of the social security of people moving between these two countries and effecting avoidance of dual liability for contributions, the combining of periods of residence and labour force attachment in countries for benefit purposes, and a transfer of benefits of all kinds from one country to another. Under this type of reciprocal agreement, they usually include a provision enabling increases to be paid in either country.
In the meantime, a limited social security agreement exists between the United Kingdom and Canada designed to benefit persons returning to Britain from Canada after substantial periods of residence in Canada who fail to qualify for the Canadian old age security pension. I am using the United Kingdom as an example because I was able to get more information on it than others. The United Kingdom, in an exchange of letters with the Canadian government in 1959, undertook to pay United Kingdom pensions to such persons if they satisfied the same conditions as to age and United Kingdom residence as are applied by the Canadian law in Canada. At present, because of the lack of legislative initiative, Canada is unable to negotiate bilateral agreements involving old age security in order to make pension benefits portable across territories.
The new amendments seek the authority to negotiate such agreements so that credits from the various countries will become collectable. Therefore, on the international level proposals are now being introduced to protect the acquired social security credits of our residents who migrate across international borders during their active years, by negotiating reciprocal agreements with other countries. 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. They will close the gaps in social security coverage. For example, if one country has a retirement plan based on employment, and another country has one based on residence, the person migrating will have problems receiving adequate coverage unless some arrangements are made between the countries to recognize his contributions to both. Therefore, we are going in the right direction; there is no question about that.

February 8, 1977
Old Age Security Act
Another point is that by simple agreement we will remove duplicate social security coverage. Some countries require persons to contribute to their social security programs while in the country, though not resident: for example, the United States. Another point is that we shall be using the procedures of totalizing and prorating in determining an applicant's eligibility for benefit. Totalizing allows periods of residence or contribution in each of the contracting states to be combined for the purpose of determining the person's eligibility in one or both states. As the minister said, periods in country A are considered to be periods in country B as well.
Prorating involves the calculation of the amount of benefits payable by each contracting state in proportion to the periods of residence of contribution in them. Each contracting state is responsible for calculating its portion of the benefit payable under its legislation and for paying its fraction of the composite benefit. I should like to point out that the combination of the new residency requirement and the reciprocal agreements will make the old age security program consistent with the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan. At present those programs are related to actual earnings and are prorated over the time during which a person has contributed. Old age security payments are at present not prorated over the time of Canadian residency. Further, the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan are obtainable from anywhere, whereas old age security benefits can be obtained only after one year of residency immediately prior to the beginning of benefits unless one has lived in Canada for 40 years after the age of 18. I might add that at present the Canada and Quebec pension plans may be included in international social security agreements by legislative authority.
Once the bill before us is proclaimed, the federal government can begin to negotiate agreements with countries such as Italy, the United States and the United Kingdom which have expressed a desire for reciprocal agreements many times in the past. I understand other countries such as Belgium, Bermuda, Guyana, Jamaica, Malta, Norway, France and Turkey would definitely be interested.
In conclusion, I have certain questions and answers which I should like to put on record in Hansard for the edification of my colleagues and people across Canada. These are questions relating to reciprocal agreements which have been both posed and answered by the officials:
Question: Would Canada and Canadian residents be net gainers under such agreements or would the other countries and their residents?
Answer: There can only be a complete answer to this question after we have entered into agreements, since total benefit flows between countries depend upon such factors as the number of beneficiairies who qualify, their age and length of connection to the labour force, the number of immigrants remaining in Canada and the programs included in individual agreements. Because a greater number of people come here to live than leave Canada, the balance of expenditures is likely to be in Canada's favour.
We shall have to look in some depth at that question and the answer given, Mr. Speaker. Here is the other question and answer:
Question: If enacted, will the proposed legislation increase or reduce the total cost of the old age security program?
Answer: The proposed amendments will not alter the cost of the program to any significant degree.
That is a phrase which I do not altogether understand. It depends, I suppose, on what one means by "significant". I know the minister has touched on this aspect, but I want to put these matters on record so we shall know what answer is given at this time and compare it with the answer which might be given in the future when we ask the same question. The answer continues:
As a matter of fact, the amendments may result in a marginal reduction in the total cost of the OAS program after, say, the first ten years of operation. What will happen, however, under reciprocal social security agreements, is that a significant amount of foreign benefits which are not presently payable in Canada will become so.
Mr. Speaker, I have tried to put before the House the import of the legislation and indicate the aspects to which some thought ought to be given. I would hope that the details of the legislation meet the criteria of, in the first instance, Italy, the United States and the United Kingdom, the countries which have been pressing hard for arrangements of this kind. I do not know how we can be sure of this. Possibly our ambassadors abroad keep those countries informed, or perhaps they have already seen the legislation. Are high level discussions carried on between Canadian officials and officials of those countries?
I make these comments in the hope that once this legislation is given royal assent it will not be long before we can put the old "John Henry" on the respective agreements. I hope it will not be a matter of months or years before we can bring these arrangements into operation. Let me emphasize that in the absence of reciprocal agreements immigrants will continue to be deprived of benefits earned in their former countries of residence. Other speakers from my party will touch on these matters in more detail, but you can rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that we will give this bill top priority to see that those who have been denied for so long will at last be given benefits they so richly deserve.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the things this bill does are good. We shall therefore give it not only our consideration but our support. A sentence like that carries with it the implication that there are some things which the bill fails to do, and before I end my remarks I shall refer to some of those shortcomings and urge the government to give consideration to those matters as well. However, I should first deal with the bill which is before us.
We welcome the proposed changes. As I was listening to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), I went through two or three cycles of trying to decide what to say to him. At times he annoyed me, but I thought: No, this is not a time to be critical. I finally decided that instead of trying to answer him or attack him for some of the things he said, I would make an appeal to him. My appeal is based on the fact that what is most needed in Canada with respect to this bill is an understanding of it. My appeal to the hon. member and to his colleagues in the Progressive Conservative party is that

February 8, 1977

they join with all of us in the House in helping to explain this measure to the people of Canada, instead of nitpicking at it, as 1 am afraid he did in much of his speech this afternoon.
This is not a bill which has been thrown at us out of the blue. I know it did not get first reading until January 31, which is eight days ago, not three, but I also know that ideas such as those expressed in this legislation were first discussed in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs some three or four years ago.
I also know that on April 14, 1976, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) made a statement in the House as to the government's intentions, and this bill is practically in line with those intentions. There was also a briefing session a few days ago to which all of us could go. So I suggest that we are not taken by surprise today; we knew what was coming. Furthermore, many of the provisions that are in this bill answer problems and questions that we have raised from time to time. So because what is mainly needed is an explanatory role, I hope that all of us in the House of Commons will join in that role.
1 might take just a moment to say that 1 do smile at a piece of legislation which puts in it a proposal for its maturity not to be reached for 40 years. The suggestion is that somehow the arrangements set in this bill will be there intact for 40 years. Sir, the first old age pension act agreed to by both Houses of Parliament was passed in 1926, and old age pensions under the original regime came into effect in Canada in 1927, just about 50 years ago this very month. I have not taken the trouble to count how many changes we have made in our pension legislation in those 50 years, but I would say it is in the order of 25 to 30 times that we have amended our pension legislation. So I suspect that this new legislation will not stay just as it is for 40 years; there will be lots of changes down the road. I take it from the minister's smile that he takes the same attitude that I take in this regard.


An hon. Member:: You will still be here then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, Mr. Speaker, I was aware of the beginnings of old age pensions. I was aware of the battle that was put up by the former member for Winnipeg North Centre, the late J. S. Woodsworth. I have been here through most of the changes that have been made, so I thank my hon. friend for his invitation that I continue to be a member of this House until this bill has reached its full maturity.
1 have indicated that my general response to this bill is favourable. For, after all, it is, in what it does, a housekeeping matter; it sorts out technical problems rather than changing any policy. Even at the risk of repeating what the minister said, may I indicate some of the things that it does which I think are good. First of all, it solves in a rational way the problem of Canadians who have lived here before they reached the age of 65 and who feel they have some entitlement to a pension from the country they have lived in, even though they
Old Age Security Act
have moved away. At the moment, the rules requiring residence for the last ten years, or coming back for a year, or the "three for one" rule, are indeed complicated, but the new legislation will put it on a very simple basis. Anyone who has been in Canada since the age of 18, no matter when he goes away, will be able to get that many fortieths of the pension that there are years he was here following the age of 18. So it solves that particular problem for many Canadians.
We have all had the experience of hearing about many Canadians who have gone abroad and who would like to get a pension. We write to them and say that there is a way they can do so, but it means coming back to Canada for a certain length of time. This is impossible in some cases, and costly in others, so it is not very practical. This is a practical, sensible way to solve this problem, and we welcome it.
Secondly, it does something for a great many Canadians who are here now, particularly persons who have come here from the United Kingdom. I have noticed the interest with which the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) have been following this legislation. If the correspondence I get from their constituents is an indication of the correspondence that they get, then they know, as I know, that there are many persons in that part of Canada as well as in other parts who came here from the United Kingdom and other countries who have pensions from those countries which are frozen because there is no basis for a reciprocal agreement respecting pensions between Canada and their country of origin.
Once this bill is passed and the agreements have been drawn up, this particular problem will be solved. People from the United Kingdom and from other countries who are living in Canada and whose pensions from their country of origin are frozen will have their pensions from their homelands escalated, so for them this legislation is good.
It will also do something for many persons in Canada who have come from a number of countries where they earned pension rights that they are not getting at all. Never mind getting a pension on a frozen basis, Mr. Speaker; many of them are not getting a pension at all because they have come to a different land and there is no reciprocal agreement. As the minister said in his introductory remarks, there are probably 500,000 people in these two categories living in Canada who will see an improvement in the amount of the pension they are receiving once this legislation goes through and the reciprocal agreements which are made possible under it are put into effect. This is good, and I think we should say so.
The only persons about whom there is any question as to what is going to happen are those persons not yet here, who do not have visas, and may not even be planning to come. These are people who come here, after this legislation is in effect, at the age of 45, 50, 55, and who will not be able to get, in the space of ten years, the full pension that such persons now here are able to get. What we should say to them, apart from the element of fairness which the minister, I thought, dealt with quite adequately, is that the reciprocal arrangements which are possible mean that these people may well be able to get,

February 8, 1977
Old Age Security Act
when they do come to Canada, a pension that they have earned in their original place of residence-or original places, if they have been in two or three countries-together with a portion of the Canadian old age security pension. In the end, they can probably be just as well off, perhaps even better off. The total amount of pensions they have earned in various countries could well amount to more than the basic old age security pension in this country.
It must also be said with respect to these people, despite the criticisms that I still register against the means test which applies to the guaranteed income supplement, that it is available to them in full. Therefore, the only people who can have any doubts about their being treated fairly under this legislation are, as I say, immigrants who come to Canada after the legislation is in effect, people in the 50 to 55 age bracket. But the fact is that when the whole package is put in place these people can be just as well off as they are now, or even better. Let me emphasize the fact that the legislation makes it very clear that there are no changes for any persons who are in Canada now and who are over 25 years of age. There are no changes for persons who have visas to get here now, or by the time this legislation comes into effect.
Some remarks were made a while ago about public servants. I am getting tired of these attacks that are made on public servants on the floor of this House. If there is one place where we ought to appreciate public servants, Mr. Speaker, it is here, where we know the work that they do for us. As one who raised questions on this kind of thing three or four years ago in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, I applaud the work that some hard working public servants have obviously done with respect to working out these details. Perhaps the minister would like me to give him all the credit for it, but I am not going to do so. He has to lay down policies. But I suggest that the detailed work done in order to see that there is fairness down the line was work that was done by these public servants.
There was the suggestion that they should get out of their offices and go out into the country and see what things are like. I do not worry about public servants going out of their offices. I wish that more members of the House would talk to old age pensioners and would realize how urgent are their needs-and I will be coming to them a little later when I talk about aspects that are not included in this bill. In any case, I am making it clear, without any question, that in so far as this bill is a housekeeping measure, in so far as it makes certain changes to the structure of the legislation, I think it is good and should have our support.
Yes, we have to take the bill into committee. Yes, we have to ask questions and get them answered, although our questions have been pretty well answered already in the material we have had in the last ten months. This was not thrown at us overnight, and much of the material which has been given to us in the last ten months has been given to us because over the years we have been asking for this kind of thing. So I urge very

strongly that in respect of this piece of legislation we display co-operation amongst the members of the various parties in this House in explaining to the country and to the people concerned that what we are really doing is improving our old age security legislation.
I would like to turn to a few of the details-if I have not already been referring to details-and make a comment or two. I do so because of some of the strange things I have heard in radio and television announcements. It is really startling how they get things twisted. I heard a report one night that there was to be a new rule requiring ten years' residence in Canada before a person can get the old age pension. That rule has been there since the beginning of time. There is nothing new about a ten-year rule. It was always there. I heard references to the 20-year rule in order to take the pension away from Canada. That has been the rule for a long time. It used to be 25 years, but it was reduced to 20 years. As a matter of fact, it used to be that no pension was paid outside of Canada at all, so there is certainly no detraction in that from the rights which are now enjoyed.
Then there is another line I hear from some of these commentators, who know it all once they have heard a newscast or two, to the effect that the new rules are going to be discriminatory and that we are going to have two or three classes of Canadians. Well, one thing has to be said about this bill: it puts everybody on an equal basis whether he was born here and stays, born here and goes away, born here, goes away and comes back, or comes as an immigrant. No matter what the basis is, citizen or not, it puts everyone on the same basis. The amount of basic old age security a person will get at age 65 depends on the number of years that person has resided in the country after age 18. It is far from being discriminatory, in my view, because it puts everyone on an equal basis.
Speaking of these criticisms which are made, like other hon. members in the House I am called sometimes by radio stations for comment. I was called one day a while ago by a hotliner who wanted my views on this new bill. I could tell from the initial questions that the MC of that show wanted critical appraisal, but to his amazement I began to say a few good things about it, before I got to the things which are missing. But he broke in and said "Well, Mr. Knowles, it is obvious that you favour the bill, so may I ask you a question about something else?" If I was not going to attack something brought in by the government of the day, he wanted to change the subject.


Marc Lalonde: He did not phone me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should say that I said "Well, just a minute. What I have said, I stand by; but I also want to tell you what is wrong about the bill, mainly because of some things which are not there". However, in saying that I suppose I was saying the same thing I am saying to my friends to the right, that since what we have here is a housekeeping bill which tries to make the rules more fair, let us do our best as members of parliament in all parties to help the people of Canada understand it.
February 8, 1977


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Speaking of details,
I warmly welcome-in fact, the minister noted that I applauded him when he was talking about it-the inclusion of clause 7 in this bill. It removes that ridiculous situation under which grandparents, in particular, when receiving the family allowance for grandchildren they might be caring for had that counted as income against their guaranteed income supplement. When I raised this with the minister both in the House and privately, I admitted to him that I did not think there were very many cases, but because it was wrong I contended it should be corrected. I was interested today when he told us that there are about 10,000 such cases. At any rate, I am pleased that this is being corrected.
One detail which bothered me a bit when I was studying the bill line by line and comma by comma was the requirement that only a full year would count toward the number of years against the 40, and that there would be no fractional years. As I thought about that, it struck me that it could be quite unfair for a person at age 65 to have been in the country, say, 31 years and 11 months, when the next person had been here 32 years and 2 days and one gets thirty-one fortieths and the other gets thirty-two fortieths, despite the very slight difference.
I confess that at first thought I would have put it to the minister that there should be some fractionalizing of the years, but then I think I saw the answer to it myself, and I am giving it now so that if it is not right the minister can correct me at some stage. As I see it, there is no compulsion to apply for the pension at the exact time of a person's sixty-fifth birthday. In other words, if at age 65 a person has 34 years and 11 months, he could delay his application for a month until he has the full 35 years and get thirty-five fortieths. Let us go a little closer. If a person has 39 years and 10 or 11 months at age 65, he could wait a month or two and get the full amount.
I do not expect an answer today, but it is the kind of thing we might deal with in committee. I raise this matter mainly to emphasize my contention that what is needed principally with respect to this legislation is a widespread effort to publicize it so that people will understand it, and if what I have said about these full years as against the 40 years is correct, I think there has to be particularly helpful information given to people so that they will not make the mistake of applying a month too soon, when by applying a month later they might have got a pension of a larger size.
I noticed with interest that the guaranteed income supplement and, presumably, assistance under Canada Assistance Plan projects or things related to that will be available to those, when the plan gets into full force, who are here for only 10 or 15 years. I hope that fact will be widely publicized, along with the information about the totalizing of pensions earned in various countries, so that Canadians will realize in the years that lie ahead that in the total picture they are going to do just as well under this plan as they might have done under the old rules, and that many will do a great deal better.
Old Age Security Act
So it all adds up to the fact that many people are going to gain by this legislation. All those Canadians who feel the country has become too cold and that they have to leave it at age 55 or 60 are going to be able to get, if not the full then a partial pension abroad. United Kingdom pensioners and those from other countries who are here and are not getting an escalation of their pensions from back home, will get it here. People here from other countries who have been denied the pensions to which they have contributed and which they have earned in other countries are going to get them if the reciprocal agreements are put into effect. So the total picture, as 1 say, as provided under this legislation is good and I hope we will be prepared to say so and do our best to explain it to the people of this country.
I said at the start that what this bill does is good, and that therefore we support it, but I have to say that I am thoroughly disappointed in the things that it fails to do. For all the speeches the government can make about the improvements that have been made in pensions for the aged in the last 50 years-and it can be quite a story from the original $20 or from the $75 that it was not many years ago to the $141.34 which is the current basic amount-the fact is that the amounts given to our senior citizens still fall far below the poverty lines that are established by many social welfare bodies.
Talking about escalation keeping the pension up to the cost of living is meaningless to those who did not have enough in the first place, and I regret very much that at a time when the government is bringing in an over-all rewriting of the Old Age Security Act it is not at the same time increasing the basic amount of the pension.
I had a motion last Friday in the private members' hour which was talked out-that is the usual course-suggesting $250 for the basic pension, and I had in mind that the other amounts paid under the supplement could be on top of that. That would be a little closer to figures such as those which the Toronto social welfare people proposed not many weeks ago. At any rate, in my view something that ought to be in this bill is an increase in the basic amount of the pension. I know that these are not the best times to call for increases, when there is so much talk about restraint.
On a more personal note, I want to recount what happened to me around Christmas time. I see the public servants whom I was commending a moment ago-some of them, at any ratesitting up in the gallery. What they think is their business, but let me say that I received a Christmas card this year from one who used to sit up in the official gallery at times like this. Obviously, I will not name him, but of all the Christmas cards I received, it was one I particularly enjoyed. To paraphrase it, he said, "Thank you, Stanley, for keeping up the battle for improved social security in a hostile period." That is what it is. It is a difficult time in which to press for and expect to make gains in the old age pension legislation.

February 8, 1977
Old Age Security Act
So many people say that we have done enough for senior citizens, and the government boasts about all the changes that have been made. Despite the hostility of the times, the needs of our senior citizens are still very real, and when we get into committee the minister will find me completely on his side with regard to the housekeeping changes in this bill but he will find me fighting as hard as ever for what I think should be in the bill, namely, a substantial increase in the basic amount.
Also, I wish to express disappointment at the fact that there is nothing in the bill regarding a change in the formula for indexing. It is simply not good enough to have a formula that relates to the general cost of living instead of to the cost of living that applies to senior citizens as such. It is not good enough to have a formula that is always running two, three, four or five months behind. The time when pensioners need an increase in the amount they receive is when the costs are going up, and it does not help them to meet their former costs to get an increase three, four or five months later for the period that lies ahead.
In these days of modern computers, when just about anything can be sorted out, I contend that we should have an indexing system which keeps the levels of pensions on a current basis related to the current cost of living. I would go much further, as I have from the start of this whole question, and contend that pensioners should get their pensions indexed not just in relation to the cost of living but in relation to the standard of living; in relation, shall I say, to the gross national product. If our senior citizens have played their part in helping to make it possible for the country to produce the wealth that it can produce today, and if that process continues to improve after they retire, they should not be condemned just to the level of living at the point of retirement. They should share in the improvements, and I shall be arguing in the committee for improvements in the whole indexing arrangements in the Old Age Security Act.
I have my eye on the clock now and then, Mr. Speaker. I know that my 40 minutes will not be up by five o'clock, but I shall try to complete my remarks by that time so that whoever comes next will know he will have the floor at eight o'clock.
The other thing I have to say-and I will say it as strongly as I was arguing 35 years ago for lowering the age from 70 to 65-is that the time has come to lower the eligible age for old age security and for the Canada Pension Plan to age 60. My friend, the hon. member for Hamilton West, had a good deal to say about the work ethic and about people having the right to work, the right to be involved, and so on. Certainly, we old-timers like my friend, the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldi-mand (Mr. Knowles), myself and a few others around here who are in the category that was described a while ago, want to be involved; but the people I know who are older and who want to be involved are not asking to get back into the rat-race. They want the kind of security that will enable them to get involved in things that are interesting to them, things in which they can make a contribution.
(Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).]
What I am asking for is not compulsory retirement at age 60, not an insistence that everyone must get a pension at that age, but that it should be available to them, and the pensions that should be available are old age security and the Canada Pension Plan. For all the good things that I have said about this bill-because its housekeeping changes are good-I have to be as critical as I can that for all we have said on this matter there is no reference to it in the bill. But you cannot rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker, for talking about something that is not in the bill, because the bill confirms the age of 65 as the minimum age; it confirms the present figure of the basic old age security. But this is the time when both of these features should be changed.
I see my time is almost up; at least it is almost five o'clock. Let me say, however, that in conjunction with the insistence that there be a pension available at the age of 60, the time has come to put that kind of program into place instead of the spouse's allowance. Everything the hon. member for Hamilton West, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and others of us have said about this when it was before us a year and a half ago is still true, that it is most unfair to discriminate against spinsters, widows, bachelors and widowers, that it is unfair to deny them full benefits on the basis of a marital test. Persons who run into it now cannot understand how parliament ever passed such a law.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We tried our best.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The time has come to replace that unfair and discriminatory piece of legislation with what would be fair, namely, old age security and the Canada Pension Plan available on a voluntary basis at age 60 to all those who are out of the labour market.
So the minister will have our support for the bill for the good things that it does in straightening out the rules about old age security, but he will have our continuing campaign for the real improvements that need to be made, and in the main those real improvements are a substantial increase in the basic amounts of the pension and a lowering of the age to 60 for all those who are out of the labour market.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert)-Social Security-Suggested reduction to 60 of eligible age for retirement to create employment for young people; the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp)-Agriculture-Attitude of government towards marketing board for beef cattle with supply-management powers; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock
February 8, 1977

(Mr. Friesen)-Customs-Purchasing of groceries in United States by residents of British Columbia-Government action.
It being five o'clock, the House will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills and notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Shall all the orders preceding order No. 109 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: They stand at the request of the government.


MEASURE RESPECTING DOMESTIC AND INDUSTRIAL USE OF SOLAR ENERGY
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: that Bill C-309, respecting the domestic and industrial use of solar energy, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill before us today is to focus the attention of the House on the urgency of developing the potential of renewable energy resources and to suggest ways in which this can be achieved. But first let me thank, through you, sir, the leaders of the opposition parties for their permission to have this bill come up for debate today, replacing another bill of mine. May I also thank the government for having indicated its disposition, through the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) and the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Faulkner), to allow this bill to go to committee for further consideration.
When I introduced this bill for the first time in June, 1976, the concept of using the sun to produce power for the immediate benefit of mankind was known only to small groups of Canadians who were intrigued by the idea of harnessing the sun. But now, less than a year later, solar energy has become almost a household word; hardly a week goes by without seeing a newspaper in this country publish an article on the subject. It is clear that Canadians are interested in the solar option and that they are beginning to recognize its advantages as an environmentally safe and clean energy source.
As to the potential of solar energy, a number of estimates have been made. According to page 104 of the report entitled "An Energy Strategy For Canada", issued last year by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, by 1990 renewable resources could supply up to 6 per cent of Canada's primary energy requirements if backed by a vigorous development
Solar Energy
program. According to the Middleton report, also published last year, by the year 2020, close to 20 per cent of Canada's energy needs may be supplied by renewable resources. I believe that decisions taken this year by the government will determine how much of this potential will be realized.
At a time when energy shortages and the exhaustion of non-renewable resources are predicted, these estimates and forecasts tell us that the attention of mankind must turn to the alternative of renewable sources of energy, such as solar energy which includes wind, tidal, biomass and geothermal. For the sake of future generations, solar energy offers an option we must explore and develop to the fullest. By developing the potential offered by the solar option, for example, we may be able to reduce our dependence on nuclear power with its inherent and dangerous problem of the disposal of spent fuel. Reducing our dependence on nuclear power would be an important step, particularly because we know that nuclear power stations are likely to proliferate throughout the world in decades to come.
The development of solar energy is no longer a "pie in the sky" notion. At the present time we have in Canada some 35 houses partially or completely heated by solar energy which incorporate either air or water storage systems. Funds have been invested from both the public and private sector. The federal government, under the auspices of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and through the National Research Council, is currently sponsoring 21 solar-heated buildings, 12 of which utilize water storage. In the private sector, 14 houses have been built, including six which use water storage. These are by no means complete figures, but they show that Canadians already have become actively involved in developing and demonstrating solar energy technology. These efforts, of course, need to be taken a step further.
Bill C-309 proposes the creation of an institute-if you like, an agency-that would pursue a number of tasks aimed at the fullest exploitation of the solar option. The agency which would bring under one roof all responsibilities pertaining to the research and development of solar energy technology, as was done for nuclear energy a few decades ago, would (a) undertake research leading to the development of solar energy technology for domestic and industrial purposes. At present, responsibility for the renewable energy program is divided among the Department of Science and Technology, through the National Research Council, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Department of Fisheries and the Environment, and the Department of Agriculture. Then (b), it would actively stimulate and assist in the establishment of a Canadian industry producing solar energy equipment through programs like the new Enterprise Development Program sponsored by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. There is a good prospect that thousands of new jobs will be created if we undertake the development of solar technology, not only suitable to the Canadian climate but designed for use by developing countries as well. Then (c), it would inform the public about the uses of solar energy and encourage public

February 8, 1977
Solar Energy
participation in energy conservation; and (d), help developing nations interested in developing their own solar technology.
The establishment of an institution of solar application would help to encourage the development and utilization of solar energy in this country and abroad, but we must also take a number of other steps aimed at giving increased momentum to the development of the solar option in Canada. Here are the steps I would urge the federal government to take. First, reallocate energy research and development funds to stimulated the development of renewable resources, because close to 70 per cent of energy research and development funds are currently devoted to nuclear energy and only about 8 per cent to solar energy research.
It is important to note that the United States, in one fiscal year alone, is spending some $280 million for research and development in solar energy. But we must not be content to sit back and let the United States do the work for us. Solar energy technology suited to the Canadian climate is a Canadian concern. The development of a solar industry would create thousands of jobs in this country in years to come as a result of our efforts.
Second, I would urge the government to increase the development, within the research and development, of solar heating systems utilizing crushed stone rather than water storage. This would be less expensive and more within reach of the average home owner. Third, I would urge the government immediately to begin to define rights to light and wind-the legal ownership of the sun-and prepare model legislation which would guarantee the rights of solar consumers and investors. The assurance in law that due access rights to sunlight and wind are safeguarded is what is needed at the present time.
Fourth, I would urge the government to provide in the next budget tax credits for Canadians who retrofit or build new houses which include solar heating or wind energy equipment. Fifth, I would urge the government to establish next summer an employment program for students who have advanced architectural and engineering training to develop innovative uses of solar technology suited to the Canadian climate. Sixth,
I would urge the government to organize yearly a national award competition sponsored by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to stimulate the interest of the private sector in solar energy and to recognize Canadians who make an outstanding contribution to the development and utilization of solar technology in the broadest meaning of the term.
Seventh, I would urge the government to build in the national capital region a solar-heated house affordable by the average Canadian which would demonstrate the viability of solar heating to the millions of visitors who come to Ottawa each year. Eighth, I would urge the government to encourage Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to accelerate its development and demonstration of the mini-utility concept for urban centres. Finally, I would urge the government to participate actively in the International Energy Agency-IEA-in

Paris in efforts to arrive at a solar energy technology which will benefit developing nations.
Because of the nature of our country, any leadership given by the federal government-and here I want to commend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) for introducing in the last budget the exemption from federal sales tax for solar and energy conserving items-must be matched by provincial governments, by hydro commissions, by municipalities, by architects, builders and developers.
The following are recommendations I would urge these other jurisdictions to consider: hydro commissions could introduce hydro rates that would reward the careful consumer. At present, we have the absurd situation whereby the more energy one consumes, the lower the cost charged per kilowatt hour. Further, hydro commissions could make available lower hydro rates to homes which have solar heating systems installed. Provincial governments could follow the example set by the federal government and remove provincial taxes for the sale of solar and energy-conserving equipment. Municipalities could provide, for instance, a ten-year tax reduction on properties where there is a solar heated home. Large municipalities, such as Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, could pass a bylaw requiring that building plans should be approved according to the basic guidelines of energy conservation. Finally, builders and developers could co-operate in this common venture by designing homes which would have one or more of the following features: orientation with maximum exposure to the sun; optimal window orientation to south and southwest and minimal orientation to the north; insulation according to the highest energy conservation standards; and incorporation of solar heating systems.
Before concluding, may I say that since introducing this bill last June I have been encouraged by the many letters received from Canadians across the country. I am also encouraged by the fact that the government is well disposed to having this bill sent to committee, and to this end I today seek the co-operation of hon. members of this House.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me quote the inscription visitors see at the entrance of the Ark, the solar heated and operated building in Prince Edward Island inaugurated last fall by our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). It reads:
The Ark-an early exploration in weaving together the sun, winds, biology and architecture on behalf of humanity.
What was early exploration yesterday is already practical application today. We are witnessing in Prince Edward Island and across the country the shaping of a new facet in the ancient, many-sided relationship between man and nature for the betterment of mankind and with full respect to the environment.


Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, first, may I express my pleasure that Bill C-309 is before the House for debate. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) is proposing that efforts of the federal government toward the
February 8, 1977

development and application of renewable energy resources be carried out and co-ordinated by one agency, an institute of solar energy application. The job of the institute would be to guide research and development in the solar energy field, to encourage the growth in Canadian industry producing solar energy equipment and parts, and to increase public awareness of the uses of solar energy.
In days gone by this would probably have been considered a unique debate, a debate on the subject of a Canadian use and development of solar energy. As the former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), said:
Our own time has been caught up with its own ironies. Recent political developments have abruptly fractured the industrialized world's petroleum supply. Gaping cracks have been uncovered in the energy systems of most countries. We have been forced to realize how single-minded was our energy planning.
Rising costs of conventional energy production necessitates an interest in alternative, renewable energy technologies. We must provide the framework to determine which sources, technologies and applications may be appropriate in this country and when and under what conditions they may be technically and economically viable. Principal sources of renewable energy, solar radiation, wind and biomass, as well as waves and thermal gradients must be reviewed to establish in general terms their significance in the Canadian context. The technical characteristics, efficiency, costs and impact, must be delineated as an information base upon which to build an assessment potential.
Canada can claim a world leadership role in the following areas: longer term thermal storage, solar-powered air-conditioning, vertical axis wind generators, honeycomb solar collectors, and appropriate technology for developing countries. This suggests that significant opportunities exist in Canada for industrial development to serve indigenous and foreign markets.
We are aware of the problem and we must decide to do something about it. The potential of new energy technologies, for instance, cannot be neglected. If, as some predict, solar energy will provide about 1 per cent of our total energy supply in 15 years, there could be up to $11 billion for the sectors involved. In the long run, the use of renewable energy resources is inevitable. Studies for the Science Council of Canada indicate that by the year 2000 renewable energy will contribute between 5 per cent and 10 per cent of Canada's energy requirements. If one includes hydroelectricity, which is in itself a renewable resource, this rises to 20 per cent. By 2025 it will probably have increased to some 30 per cent. Our only real choice is whether these technologies will be Canadian or imported. Peter Middleton, for example, in his report entitled "Canada's Renewable Energy Resources: An Assessment of Potential", has calculated that over a 25-year period starting in 1979 the total cost of heating a house with a solar system providing 70 per cent of space heating requirements would only be 13 per cent higher than an all oil-heated home, but some 30 per cent less than a totally electrically heated home.
Solar Energy
His assumption takes into account an annual inflation rate of 5 per cent, mortgage costs, and a 5 per cent annual rise in oil and electricity prices. Considering that oil has risen by 40 per cent in the last two years, his assumptions are conservative and suggest that solar energy may soon cross the threshold of economic competitiveness.
The establishment of the solar energy application act will provide a base from which to cast about for new opportunities to fill a real national need for the technologies and systems that will eventually permit us to enjoy stability and a balance in energy supply. Renewable energies will be an important component of the next cycle of industrial development. Canada has either missed previous opportunities or allowed markets to be served by subsidiaries of multinational corporations primarily headquartered in the United States. We are in a position now to determine how much industrial activity should be located in Canada and to preserve and protect ownership and technological sovereignty.
We must consider that one of our most basic needs and largest undertakings is energy. The objective of current energy policy in the industrialized countries has been characterized as "strength through exhaustion". We must move away from depleting our capital of non-renewable reserves toward devising ways to live off the income of the sustained energy flows from sunshine, wind, the tides and the waves. Canada is not alone in the world. We do not have the expertise developed here, but we have the opportunity to develop it so that those who have been successful in Canada do not find it necessary to import certain of their requirements.
I say this as one who is strongly of the belief that a focal point should be established to encourage and promote the establishment in Canada of an intensive research capability leading to the development of a technology that will permit the use of solar energy for domestic and industrial purposes as a viable alternative to non-renewable resources. I therefore look forward to this bill going to committee.
I would like to conclude by mentioning that the scientific community recognizes the importance of the energy crisis and has set about to make sure that parliamentarians are aware of the scientific facts in this and other important scientific areas. The vehicle for this communication is the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee whose second meeting next Tuesday, February 15, will be dealing in detail with the question of renewable energy resources as it applies to Canada. I urge all hon. members to attend this meeting in order to update their knowledge on this most important question which will so seriously affect all mankind.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, the private member's bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) is commendable in many ways. I hope it will not suffer the fate of most other private members' bills and be talked out. About ten minutes before the hon. member's bill was called this afternoon I decided to look at its subject matter and then, without the opportunity to prepare a speech, decided to speak on it. I have studied alternate forms

February 8, 1977
Solar Energy
of energy and will propose, before my remarks are concluded, that this bill should be sent to committee. I have some things I would like to say about it.
The hon. member named the institute of solar energy application. The hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine) went quite a bit further. I do not think there is any reason for our restricting the institute, if that is what it is to be, strictly to solar energy. There is need for a good deal of research into the many other forms of energy which the hon. member for Wellington mentioned. They include tides, thermal, wind and perhaps others that do not come to mind. During the serious storm in Prince Edward county a week ago there was enough wind, if properly applied, to melt all the snow. The winds were 70 kilometres per hour. If that force had been properly harnessed, there would not have been that problem.
I have to ask the hon. member for Davenport: Why a new institute? He listed five or six agencies, I can recall a few that are now involved in looking at solar energy. I have a very strong suspicion that what we are getting into here might be just one more agency, as happened with Information Canada. When Information Canada was formed, it did not in any way reduce the public relations departments of any of the branches of government. In fact, there was just one more branch disseminating information, and not always in the most economical way.
I wonder why we need another institute. We already have the National Research Council. I have dealt with that institution in a number of capacities over the years. For a country as small as Canada, that council is exceptionally intelligent, well formed and capable of doing the job that is needed here. The one thing they frequently do not have is the financial support of the government. The last clause of the hon. member's bill reads:
Nothing in this act shall be construed so as to require an appropriation of public revenue or an expenditure-
This is a matter of the utmost priority, and we should not be afraid of spending some funds on it. If I had the time-and I do not, because some hon. members opposite are anxious to contribute to the debate-I would list all the things the government has spent money on which did not produce anything worth while. Surely, on a matter as important as this, we could spend a fair bit of money. The money that went into the Bonaventure would accomplish a lot with regard to solar energy. I had better not get carried away and list all the things on which the government has wasted money which would have been better spent on this project. Therefore, research without expenditure does not make sense: we should spend money on it.
What exactly does the hon. member for Davenport have in mind with this institute? There are a number of things that it or the National Research Council might do. One is to provide a forum for ideas. In the reading I have done, I have found all kinds of ideas for alternate forms of energy. I was recently at a gathering in the city of Belleville. A gentleman there indicated to me that he had what he felt was the finest idea to produce
[Mr. Ellis.)
solar energy that anyone could think of. He wanted to know whether the government could provide him with some help to develop it. I had to tell him that no agency of government would give him any help to develop that sort of thing. That is perhaps not too bad because in a country of free enterprise it should be incumbent upon an inventor to get his first-off copy ready and ask for a patent.
If the institute suggested by the hon. member, or the National Research Council, were to function properly, this could provide a forum whereby this man could come to Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, or wherever, to meet people with considerable knowledge in the field. He could discuss his idea in complete confidence. If he had something different, or better, they would assist him to patent it, rather than steal his idea. They could encourage him, or perhaps show him that his idea had been tried before and found wanting. It is very difficult in this day and age to find a brand new idea, one that has not been thought of before. If this institute were funded, it could assist to the production stage, if necessary, of an invention that was worth while.
I was intrigued to read in this morning's Globe and Mail that four Australian physicists claim a solar energy breakthrough. They claim that they can collect over 2'/2 times and deliver 2 times the temperature of the collector plates. That is indeed a remarkable breakthrough. It is something for which anyone interested in solar energy has been looking. In a northern climate such as ours, with the conventional solar plates in a field or on the roof of a house you can collect temperatures of up to 75 degrees to 100 degrees Celsius. However, to produce and deliver heat beyond that point to where it does a reasonable job is not an easy task. That is something these physicists claim they can do; they claim they can deliver heat energy up to 250 degrees Celsius. With that kind of delivery they are capable of generating other forms of energy such as electricity. They could heat major commercial or industrial buildings, as well as residential. With that kind of energy they would be capable of producing enough heat to allow for storage to carry through cloud or non-sun cycles.
Perhaps this institute, or a branch of the National Research Council, might discuss with their colleagues in Australia the method they have come up with. As I have said, it could be a forum for ideas that would ultimately come up with something we could use. The hon. member's bill reads in part:
-encourage and promote the establishment in Canada of an industry producing solar energy equipment and parts.
To a free enterprise Conservative, that sounds a little bit socialistic. I would prefer to think that the institute might bring the material to the design stage, patent it so that returns can be achieved for those who have created the design, and then leave it to private industry to take up the cudgel and do the job I know they can do. There are all kinds of innovative ideas. I recently talked with a firm in Georgia that is producing a black plastic pipe the interior surface of which is over twice the exterior surface. Its unique design permits the retention of the accumulated heat of the water in the pipe at a much greater rate than would a normal plastic pipe. This is
February 8, 1977

something which has not yet been made in Canada but they have been using it to heat swimming pools from California to Florida, and up into the central states as well. It is a development the institute should examine.
The hon. member for Davenport mentioned the problems associated with nuclear energy. I am certainly deeply involved in that subject at the present moment. Nuclear energy has been an accepted alternative to fossil fuel and hydro energy, but the waste disposal problems arising from its use are, of course, tremendous. In recent weeks there has been a furore in the central part of my riding because Atomic Energy of Canada said they wanted to dispose of, or store, depending on which term is used, the waste from the nuclear energy generating plant in Ontario at a point near Mount Moriah in the central part of my constituency. The disturbance caused among the people who live in that area was profound. The scientists who advised such a move say they cannot understand why anyone should be so disturbed. Sitting classically in their laboratories they do not appreciate the concern, the understandable concern, felt by these people-their fear of what nuclear energy can do.
The fact is that this waste has to be stored for between
100.000	and 200,000 years. This is no insignificant period when one reflects that civilization today is in the year 1977 of our Lord, and that we can only look back some 3,000 or 4,000 years before that. When we are talking about 100,000 or
150.000	years we are dealing with a time span far beyond the conception of the average individual.
It is time we began to look into alternative forms of energy. Had we not started in the nuclear energy field we would not be facing these problems today. We would not have built on the waterfront of Lake Ontario a generating plant, 50 miles from Toronto, which, if anything was damaged, could destroy a big chunk of our civilization. These are the fears our people have, and 1 share those fears. I am hoping to pursue this subject in a great deal more depth before I agree, if indeed I have an opportunity to agree or disagree, to the disposal of nuclear waste in Hastings county. I intend to take a good long look at this before I go much further.
There are many other developments taking place. There are the new designs in heat pumps. Now there are heat pumps that go from air to water and from water to air. This ties in with the collection of solar energy and, perhaps, energy from the wind which would give us not only the heat but the cooling we have come to expect in summertime. The same pump would serve for both operations using amounts of energy considerably less than we use now.
I have discussed the problems as I see them. I will sit down now and remind hon. members across the way that this will be the third time this session I have risen in this Chamber and agreed to allow a private member's bill to go through. I want to make that point clearly because it is something which does not happen often. It is a little humorous to find that in one
Solar Energy
case it was the government side which decided to talk a bill out even though the opposition was agreeable to letting it go through. Although I disagree with some of the proposals in the bill before us I believe the subject matter should go to the committee, at which stage I shall take a further part in the discussion. My colleagues may well be bringing in private members' bills during the balance of the session and we look forward to the same kind of reciprocal courtesy from those on the benches opposite.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to thank the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis) for suggesting that the bill should be referred to committee. We on this side have the same intention, which is why I shall be brief in my remarks about the bill introduced by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia).

The bill, Mr. Speaker, is based on the premise which seemed quite valid to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources because some time ago the department recognized the significance of soft energy sources and entrusted with a section of the National Research Council a rather large budget to enable it to carry out some research on the so-called soft energy sources in the field of natural resources.
As indicated by the two previous speakers, the members for Wellington (Mr. Maine) and for Hastings (Mr. Ellis), I have the same reservation about excluding in Bill C-209 other energy sources, such as waves, tides, wind, geothermic power and so on. It was perhaps the idea of the sponsor of the bill to include other energy sources and to try to avoid that increasing dependency on an energy source which is not generally accepted and my colleague, the member for Hastings, referred once again to the facilities near his constituency in Pickering, Ontario.
Nor is it clear either, Mr. Speaker, that we can entrust to a Crown corporation the care of doing research in that field, or of setting up a corporation to develop nuclear energy. It might be that a branch of the National Research Council could more appropriately develop that energy and pursue research to that end.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that another aspect of the problem has yet to be mentioned. I listened closely to the remarks of my colleague for the riding of Davenport (Mr. Caccia). Now, that right to the sun has not been defined, has not been asserted, nor is it protected. For instance, if costly facilities are erected to channel solar energy and transform it into electriciy, if that right to the sun is jeopardized by the construction neighbouring buildings whose height exceeds that of the building collecting solar energy, then we will need an act to define solar energy, to proclaim the right to the sun and protect the owner of the first building so that he can heat or light it with solar energy; otherwise, his rights be hampered by the other building.

February 8, 1977
Solar Energy
Like those who rose before me, Mr. Speaker, I too agree that this bill should be sent to the Committee on National Resources and Public Works rather than to the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates or any other which may have been mentioned. Once again I congratulate the hon. member for Davenport on his excellent initiative in introducing this bill and I trust, like my colleague for Hastings (Mr. Ellis), that the next time a private bill is sponsored by an opposition party, it will also be deferred to a committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we think that the idea contained in the bill presented by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) is a good one. The reason we are not speaking on it is that we do not want to see it talked out. We support the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), seconded by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras), moves that Bill C-309, an act respecting the domestic and industrial use of solar energy, be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Mr. Caccia:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary mentioned in his brief remarks a few moments ago, it might seem to be appropriate, and there might be a general disposition, to refer the bill to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is there unanimous consent to change the committee and to refer the bill to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair till eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-35, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the minister for bringing in various amendments to Bill C-35. Those amendments are certainly likely to eliminate many shortcomings depriving senior citizens. I dare hope that the minister will continue to bring in amendments to eliminate other shortcomings that also exist for other categories of people under the age of 65.
So it gives me great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to participate in this debate, as I said earlier, the subject of which is Bill C-35 entitled "an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act" and to make my most sincere contribution to this important question affecting closely a very large number of Canadians.
As some of my colleagues I am convinced in advance that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), who is in charge of the status of women, intends to bring about through the passage of this bill major improvements to the old age security program. Among those improvements are the changes to the provisions dealing with the period of residence in Canada and prorata pension payments. In addition, one can notice, Mr. Speaker, that the bill to amend the Old Age Security Act contains a provision dealing mainly with the inclusion of the old age security program in international agreements dealing with social security.
This provision will allow many people to keep their social security credits if they decide to move to one country rather than another.
I agree in principle with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) who said the following, which I hope you will allow me to quote, Mr. Speaker:
The aim of these amendments is to make the Old Age Security Plan fairer, to ensure coherence among the three levels of the Canadian retirement income system (that is, old age security, the Canada and the Quebec Pension Plans, and private pension plans) and to facilitate international agreements.
There is no doubt that the provisions contained in this bill will bring great advantages to some people since these proposals will first provide more equality among recipients. However, we of the Social Credit Party of Canada would have wished the government to introduce in this bill or at least to reconsider seriously and responsibly the spouse's allowance mentioned in this bill, which was introduced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on January 31, and to replace it
February 8, 1977

by the payment of old age security pensions to everyone between 60 and 65 who is no longer in the labour force, whatever his marital status or sex. Mr. Speaker, in a study published in the Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology of August 1976, we could read on page 321, and I quote:
The decrease in fecundity which has characterized the industrialized world in this century is now causing those countries in general, and Canada in particular, to face a reality with many consequences: An aging population. In Canada, this phenomenon is recent, but it is on the increase, and this tendency will continue indefinitely: The percentage of the population 65 and over could go from 7.6 percent in 1961 to 11.8 percent in 2001. Present mortality rates mean not only that a greater proportion of the population now reaches an advanced age, but also that these people survive longer.
Indeed, people are living longer than ever.
... Moreover, the equality of sexes as concerns mortality means that the greater number of aged people is characterized by an unbalance favouring women: thus, the deficit of old men could reach 700,000 in the year 2001.
And further on, Mr. Speaker:
The financial situation of the elderly is precarious: the government old age pension offers an income of only $1,600 for a single person and $3,000 for a couple, and yet this pension represents the sole income for about half of the men and three-quarters of the women. Finally, we cannot neglect the added burden imposed on the economic life of society by such an increase in the number of older persons.
Mr. Speaker, as we can plainly see the situation in Canada is very alarming. In any case, as the final purpose of our economy is first and foremost to satisfy the needs of the population, we must get down to work and do our best to find new remedies, new ideas, new incentives for our economy to insure the happiness and well being of all Canadians. Once again, we can plainly see that the time has come for us to study more closely not only the whole system of social security as it pertains to underprivileged citizens such as the elderly, but also with regards to families who, even nowadays, especially when we have a hard time making ends meet, must make do with the salary of a single person.
On various occasions in the House, I have suggested to the government, which is introducing this bill today, to increase the old age security pension not only for single persons but for married men. Like many of my colleagues, I have received over the last few years many letters from persons between the ages of 60 and 65 who want me to defend their case before the federal government, which I have done as often as possible, in order to bring pressure to bear on the government to lower to 60 the age requirement for the old age security pension.
If I remember right, this government indeed promised Canadians that as of October 1975, that is 18 months ago, spouses of OAS pensioners would receive benefits between ages 60 and 65. Unfortunately and to my most sincere regret, the government once more did not adhere in any way to their commitment. They simply failed to make everyone eligible for OAS pension at retirement age.
Mr. Speaker, every day there is the realization that pensioners do not have the income needed to live decently. Sometimes they even have to do without the basic necessities of life. To
Old Age Security Act
illustrate, let me refer to the case of married women below 60 who suffered some misfortune and have no source of income. Clearly theirs is not an easy kind of situation.
Here is another example of the alarming circumstances facing elderly persons. Quoting from a letter from one Mr. Tremblay from Quebec City, which appeared in Le Soleil of January 14 last: "As of January 1, 1975, anyone aged 65 or over and living anywhere in Canada can receive the Canadian pension and go on working, except in Quebec."
"Because in La belle province an individual may get his pension provided he stops working. If I earn more than $100 a month, my pension is reduced 50 cents per dollar earned over and above that amount. For the privilege of being a Quebecer, one must therefore pay a tax on one's gains, a tax on one's pension, and suffer a 50 per cent reduction on that pension. What an incentive!" The letter went on: "Such discrimination that would be judged intolerable coming from a private employer or corporation is not any fairer when extended by the government." Mr. Speaker, that reader asks for only one thing, that the Quebec government amend such a restriction in the pensions legislation to give the people one more reason to feel as happy in Quebec as elsewhere in Canada.
This afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) referred to the war veterans widows who should receive benefits commensurate with their husbands' compensation where the disability pension was below 48 per cent, as suggested by Dr. Hermann in his report. I agree with him that the former-prisoners of war were greatly heartened by the passing of Bill C-92, providing them with some compensation. The government should amend the act so that widows would be paid an amount proportionate to the compensation paid their husbands where the disability pension was below 48 per cent. Because if full compensation starts at 48 per cent, those having 47 per cent disability, a 1 per cent difference, get nothing. This in my view is unfair and should be amended with the utmost priority.
Before concluding, I would like to quote from the Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology of August 1976, to which I already referred to: "By the way, what do people do when they go on working after age 65? In the absence of published statistics from the 1971 census on that subject, we resorted to fiscal statistics for 1972 on those who filed an income tax return in 1970: almost 65 per cent of males and 40 per cent of females aged 65 or over. The majority of them are retired civil servants or others; most of those who have no other income than their government pension have not filed any income tax return since this pension is close to the minimum taxable income; next come investors and real estate owners, relatively much more numerous among women than men.
Therefore, it is quite clear that older people depend greatly on government assistance for a living. Still in the same book, one can read a little further: "If we were to accept the reasonable suggestion that the current activity rates after age 65 would be shifted by five years, lowering retirement age from 65 to 60 would result in opening more than 200,000 jobs

February 8, 1977
Old Age Security Act
now occupied by men and 87,000 occupied by women. This work force represented at the 1971 census nearly half of the male unemployed and nearly a third of the female unemployed."
I admit these figures should not be interpreted indiscriminately because the jobs which would become available through this process would be of a special nature, considering that they were held by older people. However, I think it would be in our interest and in the interest of the whole Canadian people to lower retirement age to 60.
As we are all bound to try to improve the programs, I shall venture to make a last remark in this brief speech, which hopefully will be considered very seriously. It is a controversial issue and I am confident that the minister will admit this. I refer to the spouse's allowance under its present form. Since 1972, when I first entered the House of Commons, I have had to deal with various cases in which the retired spouse died less than twelve months before the normal retirement age of the recipient of the spouse's allowance. Thus, the person concerned, apart from the misfortune affecting her, was all of a sudden deprived of any income because the allowance was automatically discontinued. I admit that the related problems were only temporary in some cases. This, of course, depends on what is left to the succession. But there are also cases where the recipient has to call upon provincial welfare. That is why I think we should possibly improve our income security plan while at the same time providing the anticipated basic pension which, in the final analysis, would be a first step towards optional retirement at the age of 60.
Therefore, although I agree that there is some improvement, I want to point out that the minister has just forgotten those Canadian citizens between 60 and 65 who do not have the means or the health to fend for themselves and who are silently suffering the total indifference of this government towards them. I will take the opportunity I have here tonight to say a few words about some cases of flagrant injustice, concerning particularly the widow of a pensioner who retired at 65. The spouse is suddenly without any income after having received a full allowance during a certain time. A veteran whose incapacity has been established at 48 per cent gets a full pension, but if his incapacity is only 1 per cent less, he gets nothing. That is a case of injustice which should be rectified as soon as possible. The situation is the same for all Canadian widows and people 60 to 65 years old who are suddenly deprived of all sources of income when their spouse dies. All these people should receive a pension after an investigation proving that they are eligible for the old age security plan.
If we in the Social Credit Party of Canada continually ask for and request pensions at age 60, it is because we often meet many people who constantly come to grips with this kind of problems peculiar to the elderly, those people between 60 and 65 years.
So, Mr. Speaker, we should not forget that people aged 65 have already given to their country from forty to forty-five years of hard work which were often very difficult. They also contributed to the expansion and development of Canada. We
[Mr. Allard.)
could, therefore, easily compare them to veterans. Our war veterans went overseas to fight for our liberties and our workers stayed here to defend our rights, to clear off the land and win from it the resources necessary for the development of our country.
Given all the automation we have these days, it is not easy for such people to find employment corresponding to their abilities. Therefore, 95 per cent of them are without work and without resources. Unfortunately, under the circumstances they have to go from one office to another and suffer the humiliation of investigations and other red tape before being told that they might receive a few crumbs within the next few months.
This is, Mr. Speaker, the situation of those Canadians aged 60 to 65 who certainly deserve more consideration from a government which boasts of advocating a "just society". If it were still seeking that just society Bill C-35 should have been the ideal opportunity to give justice to the veterans' widows and to all Canadians from 60 to 65 years of age.


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I shall address myself only briefly to Bill C-35 because I feel it speaks well for itself.


Walter David Baker: Hear, hear!


Frank A. Philbrook: I see the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is going to behave a little better tonight, Mr. Speaker.
On Friday last we had an opportunity to debate the age old proposal championed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-a young friend of ours who is not always easy to convince-to lower the age eligibility requirements and increase the benefits of our various pension schemes. On that occasion I outlined some of the reasons why I think Canadians have reason to be rather proud of our record of providing financial assistance to those truly in need of a pension. However, the story does not end with what has been done so far.
Basic inequities have arisen and shall continue to arise, as circumstances change. It is to these problems, therefore, that I believe our social security legislation should be addressed. Bill C-35, proposing some timely amendments to the Old Age Security Act, provides us with an excellent example of how the government wishes to incorporate contemporary needs into a fundamentally sound principle.
Under the present structure, the old age security payment is an "either/or" proposition; either one fulfils the stated age and residency requirements and receives a flat pension, or one does not, in which case he or she receives nothing. The underlying principle is that one's pension should reflect the contribution made to Canadian society during his or her active years.
February 8, 1977

This existing scheme-and I should like to define it in order to prelude what I am going to say afterwards-sets out three ways in which the residency requirement can be attained: (a) by residing in Canada for 40 years after age 18; (b), by residing in. Canada during ten consecutive years from age 55 onward; or (c), by combining elements of each of these whereby any three years in Canada between 18 and 55 can be counted toward each year of absence after 55, provided the applicant resides in Canada during the year before pension payments begin.
In 1951, when the Old Age Security Act was first introduced, these requirements seemed adequate. Today, however, circumstances have changed more drastically than perhaps even the opposition would have dared to imagine at the time. Mobility and migration have become such common phenomena that today we have had to take a new look at the residency requirements of the act.
As I have said, the fundamental principle underlying our pension policy has been to ensure that all citizens enjoy the benefits of their contribution to society during their productive years. What is required today therefore is provision in the application of this principle for the increased mobility of individuals. It is no longer true, or at least as true as in 1951, that people necessarily spend their retirement years in the same country in which they contributed during their productive years. It is this fact of modern day life which is being accounted for in the proposed amendments to old age security legislation which we are debating here.
As a specific example, Mr. Speaker, the minister has pointed out that a large number of people, approximately one half million, are being disadvantaged by the legislation as it now stands. This figure is indeed impressive by itself, but it is nevertheless nothing more than an impersonal statistic. I should like to take this occasion to describe in greater detail the human side of this problem.
I have been corresponding regularly, ever since I was elected to this House two and a half years ago, with a couple from my riding who immigrated to Canada from Great Britain after their retirement-in fact several couples. They are, I believe, representative of the situation as it exists now.
When this particular couple left Britain to be near their family, their pension was frozen at the prevailing rate of the time. Although this, plus their life savings, appeared ample at the time of departure, the rising cost of living and the relative decline of the pound took care of that. Today, this couple receives a combined total of approximately $47 Canadian dollars per month as pension. This obviously is nowhere near enough to sustain an elderly couple-I sometimes wonder how they manage-much less allow them to enjoy their retirement in comfort.
What is the problem then? Why should they be subjected to such abject poverty after having contributed to the general prosperity of their society? And they are from Britain, no less. The reason is that the present legislation does not allow for reciprocal agreements with other countries with respect to the transfer of pension credits across international boundaries. In
Old Age Security Act
the cases of both Canada and Britain, each has followed a common policy of not paying pension increases unconditionally to pensioners living abroad, on the grounds that our social security systems are designed primarily for the people in their respective countries and that benefits are related to the specific social policy and economic conditions of each. When benefit rates increase, the cost of increasing pension payments falls primarily on contributors and employers in the respective countries. Under existing arrangements, therefore, these people could really be required to bear the cost of increases for pensioners who had gone to live permanently in another country. Only through a reciprocal agreement, therefore, whereby each country agrees to pay pension increases to its pensioners living in the other can this position be modified and those affected be helped. Bill C-35 paves the way to do this.
Let me say a word about the provisions of reciprocal arrangements. The case described a moment ago is typical, yet it reveals only one aspect of the various reciprocal arrangements to be encompassed in the legislation. Most basically, the removal of the all or nothing structure of our present pension system, and provision for the transfer of pension credits between countries will, in addition to the situation just described, safeguard the rights of Canadians who emigrate while in the process of acquiring their social security benefits. Effectively, what we shall be doing therefore, is co-ordinating our social security program with those of other countries. This means that current inequities, such as the duplicate social security coverage which is now required of most U.S. and Canadian citizens working in each other's countries, can be eliminated.
Moreover, under the proposed amendments pensioners would be allowed to claim benefits for contributions made to one country's social security program as periods of residence or contributions in the other. This would be done in conjunction with prorating arrangements worked out between Canada and each of the contracting countries, whereby each fraction of benefits payable under the legislation of each country is paid directly to the beneficiary by the particular country. Thus, the mechanism now exists; once it is put in place, hopefully as soon as possible, we can begin to provide all the benefits to which Canadian pensioners and others, most immediately those of Britain, the U.S. and Italy, are entitled.
What we must bear in mind at all times, however, is that we hold a dual obligation to the citizens of this country and, indeed of the world over. Every individual should be allowed to reap the benefits of his work. At the same time, every individual must be protected from supporting others who are not entitled to unearned benefits. In the context of old age security, therefore, we have had to overcome the intervening factor, personal mobility, which has disturbed the delicate balance between these two countervailing responsibilities. Through the arrangements provided for in this legislation, native Canadians and immigrants alike will be able to derive greater pension benefits while, at the same time, the cost to Canadians should not increase significantly.
The exchange of benefits between countries will depend on such factors as the number of beneficiaries from any one country who qualify; their age and extent of their contribution
2856

February 8, 1977
Old Age Security Act
to the labour force; the immigrant population remaining in Canada; and the particular programs included in each of the individual agreements.
Since on balance more people immigrate to Canada than emigrate from here, more expenditures are likely to be paid into Canada than paid from here to other countries. Thus, both requirements are fulfilled and the balance is restored. At any rate, each country helps to look after its own better than in the past.
I congratulate the minister on bringing forward this legislation. I have enjoyed working with him on this long overdue area of progress on behalf of the citizens of Halton and of all Canadians.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this House and talk on this bill; it is a double pleasure, I might say, since when I woke up this morning, I heard an announcement on the CBC saying that we should spend the rest of this day listening to the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). We have not heard from him, and in that sense this is one of the happier days of my life, but not entirely because of the introduction of the bill we are now debating.
I agree with the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), the lead-off speaker who spoke so capably for the opposition, and with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that parliament must explain this bill. In its present form the bill is confusing and I hope it will be improved in committee. I hope the staff of the Department of National Health and Welfare will, across the country, explain the jargon in the bill. I hope the constituents of Victoria do not expect a simple country school teacher like myself to understand the meaning of sub-paragraph (c) on the top half of page 13 of the bill which reads:
If the monthly family income of the pensioner and spouse is greater than four thirds of the rounded reduced pension equivalent, the amount remaining, if any, after deducting from the supplement equivalent one dollar for each full four dollars of the residual family income of the pensioner and spouse.
I hope the department can explain that language to people reaching pension age who ask for help.
The history of this bill is peculiar. It came to the attention of parliament last April; at least it was announced last April. One of the enchanting things about being in the House of Commons is that you get a glimpse into matters you do not fully understand. Last April 14 the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) rose on motions to announce that he intended to bring in the bill in a few months. I sat there rather open-mouthed, wondering why it was necessary to make a statement that day, and I still wonder why the minister did it. Perhaps, after the next election, the minister will write his memoirs and we shall then find out what he really intended to announce on April 14 and why, instead, he announced that he would introduce this bill in a few months.
This bill is in two main parts. One part deals with partial pensions, which are an innovation in Canada and I suppose almost everywhere else in the world. I have not before heard of partial pensions, but they are dealt with in the first part of the bill about which I want to speak. The second part of the bill

has to do with reciprocal pension agreements with other countries.
I shall now deal with the first part of the bill, that part to do with partial pensions. Let no one think that this is not an important piece of legislation so far as pensions are concerned, because it certainly is. The rules and regulations set out under this bill will do much to discourage immigrants to Canada from expecting pension benefits. As is well known, at present people coming to Canada can qualify in ten years for a full pension. Under the new provision, one year's residence in this country will entitle you to one fortieth of the full pension. Let me illustrate what this provision will mean. According to my understanding of the bill, if a person at age 26 were to come to Canada and work here for the next 39 years, he still would not be entitled to a full pension at age 65. Compare that situation with the present situation. Clearly, there will be a substantial saving to the treasury and a corresponding substantial loss of benefits to those people who will have lived in Canada for 25 or 35 years before reaching retirement age.
The other point I wish to raise has to do with what happens if you can only draw about a quarter of a pension. You must have lived here ten years in order to draw ten fortieths of the full pension. That means that if you came here at age 55 and began drawing your pension at age 65, under present arrangements you would get a pension of about $35 a month. I cannot understand the philosophy behind the provision of the bill which says that from then on, no matter how much longer you reside in Canada, your pension will not increase, that is, your basic pension will not increase as you get older and spend more time in Canada.
Of course you will get the indexing increase, but on a prorata basis. This means that you will not get the same money increase as the person drawing the full pension. You will get about one quarter of the increase, to cope with the cost of living. It will be extremely difficult for people on partial pensions to keep up with the cost of living. The cost of living has gone up appreciably, and, God knows, the supplement or the indexing does not pay for that much of the increase. However, for a person who will only be getting one quarter of the indexing, it will be a very difficult time as he or she gets older.
A part of this system that was not mentioned by the minister will be the difficulty of choice for those coming here in late middle life. Take the case of a person who came to Canada at age 58, someone who had three years' residence in Canada previously. At age 65 he will have seven years plus the previous three. He will be entitled to $35 a month if he opts, and he will have a choice, to take the partial pension. The choice is that he could wait until age 98 and get a full pension. I doubt whether many people would wait the additional 34 years to get a full pension. They would almost inevitably be driven to accepting the partial pension. This ensures they will remain poverty stricken for the rest of their lives unless they have a private income.
No one can say this is a simple little act to help some people and not hurt anyone. It will make old age very difficult for
February 8, 1977

some of these people. They will face an extremely difficult choice. I hope the Department of National Health and Welfare ensures that there are proper counsellors in branch offices across the country who will be able to talk to these people at age 65 wanting to know whether they should opt for the new plan and take a partial pension or hang in there and build up a few more years of pensionable time. They will have to estimate their longevity versus their present needs, which is not a particularly pleasant prospect at that age.
With regard to reciprocal pensions, it is very strange, and I am sure the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) agrees, and probably the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that in all the correspondence and in all the answers the minister gave with regard to why Canada and the United Kingdom could not have reciprocal pensions, we were given the impression on each and every occasion that the United Kingdom was holding up the passage of reciprocal pension legislation. When we wrote to the United Kingdom to ask why they were holding up the legislation, they said that Canada was holding it up. The bill before us, which puts us in a position to have a reciprocal agreement, gives the lie to the previous letters we have had on this subject. Indeed, it was Canada holding up the arrangements, and not the United Kingdom.
On page four of the minister's explanation of partial pensions and other matters, as pointed out by the hon. member for Hamilton West, there is a question. The minister supplied an information sheet, much of which consisted of questions and answers. I very much appreciate having it. It goes a long way toward answering some of our questions, but not all. In trying to determine whether reciprocal agreements will mesh with our partial pensions, we are left trying to find an answer. A question and answer on page four confuses me. It reads:
Question: What is meant by totalizing and prorating and how do they work? Answer: Totalizing is the combining together of periods of residence or contributions in each of the contracting states for the purpose of determining eligibility in one or both of them. In other words, periods of residence or contributions in each contracting state are considered as periods of residence or contributions in the other.
We go down to question 20 which reads as follows:
Question: Under an agreement, could totalizing and prorating be applied to an OAS pension earned under the new rules?
Answer: Yes. The ten and 20-year minimum could be satisfied under an agreement, each country paying its share of benefit under its own rules. For example:
(i) One year of residence in Canada after age 18 plus nine years of residence or contributions in the other country = 1 /40th of an OAS pension payable in Canada.
This rather puzzles me. I think what is meant is that one fortieth of the old age security pension payable in Canada means payable by Canada and that another nine fortieths of the pension will be payable by the other country but payable in Canada, although it does not say so.
I am puzzled by that part of the answer that speaks of the ten and 20 year part of the minimum being satisfied under the agreement. How about the 40 year minimum a person will
Old Age Security Act
need for the full pension? That is a noticeable omission which I hope the minister will clear up in the near future. The other part of the example in the answer reads:
(ii) Fifteen years of residence in Canada after age 18 plus five years of residence or contributions in the other country = 15/40ths of an OAS pension payable abroad.
It would appear that 15 years in Canada plus five years overseas, in this case the five years does not count as far as the pension is concerned. I hope the minister will be able to clarify whether 18 years in Italy, if we have an agreement with them at that time, plus two in Canada will give a person 20 years, or whether 36 years in Italy plus four in Canada equals 40 years and a full pension.
There are some other general matters which leave me somewhat curious. The 20 year requirement of residence in Canada before drawing pensions in other lands is a little difficult to understand. This will certainly be a telling factor in areas such as my own constituency which tends to attract old age pensioners. They spend the autumn of their lives in a salubrious climate such as we have in Victoria. Some like to go south to places such as Arizona in early spring. It would make a great deal of difference whether they have 20 years of living in Canada to count. If they do not have that, and if they subsist on their pension, I expect they will be required to remain in Canada throughout the entire calendar year for the rest of their lives.
The minister saw fit to introduce something in this bill with regard to spouses. I thought that if he could avoid it, he would never mention the subject again. There is a clause in this bill that refers to spouses in the context of family allowances. I wish to put on record once more what I consider to be the meanness of the former legislation brought in by the minister, which is not changed by this bill. It had the provision that a person at age 65 drawing a pension could, subject to a means test, draw a pension for a spouse under 65, but over age 60. The couple having two pensions could get by. However, if the older one died, the minister decreed that the widow or the widower would need no income at all. He or she would be able to live on nothing. When asked about this in the House, his unkind words were that they could always go on welfare. I have always considered that to be one of the meanest pieces of legislation, with the possible exception of one brought in by Veterans Affairs denying prisoner of war pension gratuities to World War I prisoners of war while paying them to those of World War II. I hope those two will both be changed. They represent a very black blot on the record of the government.
There is a question to which I would like to get an answer. I would appreciate if the minister could nod his head. Will the guaranteed income supplement apply in full to partial pension recipients? Can those persons not get any of the guaranteed income supplement or can they get it prorated to the amount of the partial pension they receive?


Marc Lalonde: They can get the total GIS.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I thank the hon. gentleman. I am pleased to see it on the record in Hansard.
80008-43%

February 8, 1977
Old Age Security Act


Marc Lalonde: I said it in my speech this afternoon.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I did not hear it in the speech and I certainly cannot find it in the bill or in the notes. However, I am pleased the minister has now told us that a person receiving a partial pension can get the entire guaranteed income supplement.
Clause 1(2) on page two of the bill spells out that the amount of a partial monthly pension for any month shall bear the same relationship to the full monthly pension for that month as the aggregate period in which the applicant has resided in Canada after attaining the age of 18 prior to the day on which his application is approved, determined in accordance with subsection 1(3), bears to 40 years. That is, if a person is on a quarter pension and the indexing for pensioners for that quarter comes to an additional four dollars a month- and, mind you, this is to cover the cost of food, shelter and absolute necessities-if it comes to four dollars a month for a pensioner, a person on a partial pension will get one dollar per month, that is, if he is on a 10-year or one quarter pension.
I am puzzled about the need for one other provision in the bill. I am not a parliamentary legal expert but the parliamentary procedure spelled out on page 16 seems to my mind to anticipate a form of closure. I refer to the short length of time allowed for the consideration and disposition of motions concerning this legislation. We find such words as:
Where a motion for the consideration of the House of Commons or Senate is filed as provided in subsection (2) with respect to a particular order referred to in subsection (1), that House shall, not later than the sixth sitting day of that House following the filing of the motion, in accordance with the rules of that House, unless a motion to a like effect has earlier been taken up and considered in the other House, take up and consider the motion.
In the next paragraph a time is set for the disposal of the motion. Such a motion-
-shall be debatable without interruption for not more than five hours and, on the conclusion of such debate, or at the expiry of the fifth such hour, the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, shall forthwith put, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary for the disposal of the motion.
I am puzzled as to the need for such a provision, bearing in mind the existence of guillotine procedures such as we see in operation every so often. I am surprised the minister would see a need to incorporate additional such measures in the Old Age Security Act.
In conclusion, I would like to express agreement with what other members of my party have said. We have no desire to hold up this legislation. The faster it goes through, the better we will like it. It has a number of good points in its favour. Any move toward the reciprocity of pensions as between Canada and the other countries mentioned will be welcomed. I hope we shall be given a clearer explanation of the choices which have to be made and the period of time in which people can make a choice between a full and a partial pension, and, if they have any real choice, which would be the soundest way of exercising that choice.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, the measure which has been introduced today for second reading has evinced a wide measure of agreement. It is clear there is a broad measure of support for it in the House and I hope it will receive speedy passage.
I have only a few observations to make by way of general reflections on the bill and the changes it will mean in the administration of a program which had its beginnings in 1951 with the Old Age Security Act. In that year the residence requirements were very simple-20 years prior to retirement. There was no citizenship requirement. It was a very simple piece of legislation, one of a family of measures which Dr. George Davidson, then deputy minister of welfare, used to call universal benefits. Over the years, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said, there have been a number of changes in the act. He went on to say that over a 40-year period, further changes must be anticipated. Consider the residence provisions alone. I believe that attached to the initial requirement for 20 years was a provision for make-up of periods of absence on a two to one basis.
In 1957, the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) reduced the period of residence qualification to ten years, again with a two for one make-up provision and the requirement that the year immediately preceding 65 must have been spent in Canada. The two for one provision proved to be excessively generous, and a three for one provision was subsequently introduced.
The residency requirement survived for a number of years- ten years prior to the age of 65, or one year immediately prior to 65 with make-up on a three for one basis. One further feature was introduced. Residence of 40 years would in any case permit an applicant to receive the pension and waived the "immediate preceding year" requirement prior to 65.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Forty years after the age of 18.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, we now see a change in the bill for good and sufficient reasons. Instead of those provisions we are moving to a year by year build up of residence, with a 40-year maximum over a period of time for full benefit.
The minister, in a clear and able statement to the House, and also in a statement he made on April 14 of last year, set out the intention of the government, and those proposals received broad support. What has happened is this: our legislation has been under increasing pressure as a result of the changing composition of Canada, the result of immigration, and of the employment of Canadians abroad during which periods they are subject to the social security legislation of other jurisdictions. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said the bill needed a good deal of explanation to make sure it is not misconstrued. That is true. I cannot but feel that the changes will be to the advantage of those newcomers who have come from countries with mature jurisdictions in social legislation. However, those who chose Canada and who come from countries without comparable standards of social legisla-
February 8, 1977

tion will not be able to take advantage of provisions for reciprocal arrangements which are made possible by the bill.
The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) said there would be a number of newcomers to Canada, fathers and mothers who came in their late years, and who cannot now look forward to building up full pensions. This means that many of them will be seeking the benefit of future welfare programs in later years.
The changes in the bill will have an influence on the administration in another sense. Residence for each year will count now, instead of general proof of residence, such as was acceptable up to now. These changes will mean that much stricter proof of residence on a year-by-year basis will be required in relation to old age pension benefits.
1 think another change in the bill now before us must inevitably raise another question which I am sure the minister will have to consider before too long. I refer to the relationship of the program as it is now put before us to the Canada Pension Plan. It seems to me that the justification for the continued existence of the two programs becomes more and more questionable when they require individual proof of residence in one case and contributions on a year-by-year basis in the other. Under the Canada Pension Plan, individual records must be kept, and thanks to modern computers this is possible.
It seems to me that the minister should consider a combination of old age security and the Canada Pension Plan benefit so that we have in Canada one combined administration, one set of cheques to be issued, one set of records to be kept. At the time the Canada Pension Plan was adopted, many of us felt that Canada had sufficient leverage with the Canada Pension Plan to bargain with jurisdictions in other parts of the world that had refused to extend reciprocal privileges to those who had left their original homelands and come to Canada.
I realize that making old age security relate to individual years of contributions, in the way the present bill proposes, does extend the bargaining position of the Government of Canada. But it seems to me that we have moved a considerable way from the original concept of a universal benefit, with the simplest possible test of eligibility, a type of benefit that Canada has pioneered. Such benefits included family allowances, old age security and the rest.
We are now being forced to recognize that in the interdependent world in which our citizens move our systems must be adapted to the systems of other countries, and in particular must be more closely related to those social insurance programs that exist in western Europe. These are, Mr. Speaker, the facts of life.
Every speaker who has preceded me has pointed out that the bill has been in response to a number of cases of hardship brought to the attention of members of the House. The government does not seek by this bill to incur a smaller burden of social welfare payments, a smaller burden of social security payments. The total charge to the treasury is going to be about
Old Age Security Act
the same even after maturity of the program, but a great deal more equity is brought into the picture. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the bill.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure to take part in this debate. I want to thank the minister for having finally brought down some legislation for which we have long waited. I wish to comment on only three aspects of the bill, and on the first one I shall be short.
The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), who preceded me, mentioned the requirement of residence on a year-by-year basis. I think this is good and enables one to build up a yearly entitlement to the pension, whether it be two fortieths, three fortieths, four fortieths and so on. This involves residence.
As a former member of the Canadian foreign service, many years of a foreign service officer's life and the lives of other members of the foreign service are not spent in Canada. For some purposes-for example, income tax purposes-these years are counted as years of residence in Canada even though one is serving abroad. I am satisfied in my own mind that it is not the intention of this bill to exclude these particular members of our society and to disentitle them during the years they are serving abroad, but I do want to be absolutely clear beyond equivocation. If necessary, we will take this particular bill to court if we are not sure that a Canadian member of the foreign service who serves abroad for one, two or three years will have his service abroad counted as residence in Canada for pension purposes.
I hope that the minister or his staff will have made note of this point. If there is any possibility of those persons being excluded-I do not think there is, but if they could be excluded-then I think appropriate amendments should be brought forward so as to ensure they are recognized as residents of this country during the time they are serving abroad. They are serving Canada. They are residents of Canada for most purposes, but for some purposes they could be considered as non-residents. Whether these people are members of the Department of External Affairs, Manpower and Immigration, Trade and Commerce, the RCMP, CIDA or whatever service, we want to be absolutely sure that they get their full entitlement when the time comes.
As so many members have thus far said, one of the preoccupations of a member of the House is with immigrant families who come to this country to join their children who, as young folk, came to make their livelihoods in Canada. They come here to share their last years with their families and their grandchildren. Those who came from Britain have been in an unenviable position. British pensioners in Canada are what I would call an endangered species because of the deterioration in the value of the pensions that they are able to draw from Britain. Many of them have not been able to qualify for a pension yet in Canada, and I am delighted that they are going to be able to do so under this new legislation. I for one am certainly not going to delay the passage of this bill, because the sooner these people enjoy that to which they are entitled

February 8, 1977
Old Age Security Act
under this legislation and under any reciprocal agreement that is made, the better.
The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) cited the case of two couples with whom he has been in correspondence for a couple of years. I have been in correspondence with something in the order of 200 families of this sort who have written to me about their plight. I should like to cite a couple of examples of immigrants who came to this country at differing times. As has been said so often, but bears repeating, immigrants from Britain to this country draw the pension to which they were entitled on the date they left Britain. If they happen to go back for a prolonged visit of two or three months, they will enjoy the incremental benefits that have accrued to their pension during their absence; but as soon as they return to Canada to resume their landed immigrant status or their status as Canadian citizens, they go back to their original pension.
I know one lady who contributed toward her pension from 1918 to 1956. Then at the age of 63 she emigrated to Canada. At that time her pension was valued at three pounds, seven shillings and six pence, which today I suppose would be valued at three pounds and so many pence. I have made the calculation and it comes out to 13 pounds 50 pence a month which, at present sterling value, is $21.60 a month. That is the value of the pension to which that particular individual contributed from 1918 to 1956.
A couple came to this country in 1970, and a pension to the two of them stood at eight pounds 20 pence a week, or 32 pounds 80 pence per month, which works out to $52.48 per month. That was when I received a letter from them late in the fall. If that couple had stayed in their country, their pension would have been worth 22 pounds. It would have gone from eight pounds 20 pence in 1970 to 22 pounds on the basis of increments granted since that time. But they do not get that 22 pounds, they are getting only 8 pounds 20 pence, or $52.48 per month for the two of them.
Of course we also have to remember that there has been a considerable drop in the value of the pound over that period. For example, in 1970 the value of the pound stood at $2.40 Canadian. In 1976-77 it stands at about $1.60. Not only has the value of the pound dropped, but in terms of purchasing power the value of the dollar has also been considerably eroded, so that while $52.48 might have sounded pretty good in 1970, it does not mean very much today. Therefore the dual, triple or quadruple erosion of the value of those pensions has eaten considerably into the ability of those immigrants to live comfortably or to be supported by those whom they came to join.
My first intervention in this Chamber on this matter occurred almost on the first anniversary of my election to this House. In fact it was one day after that anniversary, on October 31, 1973.1 had written many letters to the minister at about that time, and I was told that there were problems in concluding reciprocal agreements with Great Britain. Like my colleague, the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), I

was assured that the fault was on the side of Britain. When I wrote to Britain I got the same sort of answer, that the fault was on the side of Canada.
At one stage I learned that the British had submitted terms of an agreement. Unfortunately I could not get from the Canadian side any response to those terms either positive, negative or neutral. When I was in London a year later, in 1974, on a mission for the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization in December of that year, I took it upon myself to recruit the assistance of a number of members of the British House of Commons. I recruited their assistance in order to get them to push this matter from their side, and I have been in continuous correspondence with these members ever since. I think my last letter to them was written this week.
In April of 1976, two and one half years after the original intervention I made in October of 1973, the minister announced his intention to introduce enabling legislation. Why enabling legislation? I was told in correspondence and in conversations I had with the minister that there was an incompatability between the social assistance programs in Britain and the social assistance programs on this side with regard to pensions for the elderly which was difficult to reconcile and which made it difficult to reach an agreement. I hope that this legislation, which in general terms is described as enabling legislation, will enable this government to reach a quick agreement with the British authorities in this connection.
There is a question in my mind which I would like to put on the record. Assuming that a reciprocal agreement with Britain is reached-and I hope it is soon-and assuming that the prorating formula applies, I would like to use the example of a British subject who has been resident here since 1963. What happens to that individual? We know what he was getting from Britain in 1963. I put that on the record just a few minutes ago. It was something in the order of three pounds a week, or $21 per month. He has 14 years' residence. Let us assume that we conclude an agreement this year and that it can be applied. He would therefore be entitled to 14/40 of the pension, if he reaches the age of 65 this year. That is clear; there is no problem there. However, what about the increments? What about that portion of the pension to which he is entitled as a result of his residence in Britain? Does he get those increments? Is this what the negotiations are going to be about? Will the government be able to negotiate into an agreement the increments which are due this particular pensioner so that he will get his full updated entitlement? This we do not know. We know simply that this legislation is intended to be enabling legislation.
There is still a mystery: why is this legislation necessary? How does it change the compatability or incompatability of the British pension and the Canadian pension formula in such a way as to enable these reciprocal agreements to be concluded? I am bound to say that I am a little suspicious that it is simply a delaying tactic, and I sincerely trust that the agreements will now be reached. I can assure the House that the government will be pressed from many quarters to conclude these reciprocal agreements. The government claims that this
February 8, 1977

legislation enables it to do so. I cannot see what prevented it from doing so in the past. In any event, it was unable to do so. Now the. government claims it can. All right, let the government get on with it. I am not at all clear as to how this legislation reduces or eradicates the incompatibilities which it is claimed existed at an earlier time. I am therefore just a trifle skeptical, because the government has given me very little cause to be otherwise. However, I hope I am wrong.
I have spoken about the need to include in the legislation, if it is not already fully and adequately covered-and legally covered so that a court will uphold it-provision for Canadians who are serving abroad in Canada's foreign service. I have covered the need for an early conclusion of agreements. The third matter I wanted to talk about was the consumer price index as it applies to pensions.
As was mentioned this afternoon in the opening statement by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), one of the things we discovered on our tour-and I accompanied the hon. member on part of his tour with regard to the quality of life of the elderly-was that the consumer price index as it applies to the elderly is really meaningless. It is not geared to the needs or the purchasing patterns of elderly people.
Why do I say that? I say it for two reasons. One of the reasons, I suggest, is the criteria on which the consumer price index is based, the population coverage or what is popularly called the target group. I think it is worth reading into the record. I am referring to the study of the consumer price index for Canada put out by Statistics Canada, catalogue No. 62-539. It reads:
The population group to which the CPI refers, commonly called the target group, delimits the specific segment of the population whose spending pattern is used to derive the relative importance of goods and services in the market basket. In selecting the target group, the objective was to secure wide representation or urban families with reasonably similarity in spending patterns among various groupings of family types and incomes.
Accordingly, the CPI population reference group for Canada has been updated in the present revisions according to the following criteria:
(a)	Those living in Canadian urban centres with metropolitan populations
exceeding 30,000;
Do our elderly fit into that pattern? Not badly. Some of them may be out in the country. It goes on to read:
(b)	Those ranging in size from two to six persons, consisting of any combination of adults or of adults and children.
I wonder if this really fits those about whom we are concerned at the moment. It goes on to read:
(c)	Those with annual incomes in 1967 ranging from $4,000 to $12,000.
Here is where we must depart from many of those who are eligible for pension settlements. I suggest that this is one reason why the target group aimed at by the consumer price index which is used for indexing pensions is not really helpful as it refers to the elderly.
But there is another reason, and that is the breakdown of buying patterns. It is an interesting buying pattern developed
Old Age Security Act
with great care. I do not criticize it on the grounds of the care with which it was developed for the purposes for which it is intended, but I maintain that it cannot be applied with any degree of credibility to those who are engaging our attention tonight.
Is as much beef being brought by our elderly as dairy products? We are told that 3.2 per cent of the basket is supposed to be beef and 3.3 per cent dairy products. I suggest that this is not quite in balance for the elderly. As much as 5.9 per cent is allowed on red meat as against .9 per cent on chicken and only .39 per cent on fish. I suggest that this pattern of buying fails if one were to examine the basket brought home by the elderly. It is obviously designed for persons with adequate incomes, to select according to taste and the need to provide bodily warmth and growth.
The sort of selecting I have seen among the elderly is one that is closely regulated by the price of the product offered. I have seen constituents of mine pick up a single pork chop and put it down because it is too expensive. They looked at the unit price and found that a pair of herring is much cheaper than a pork chop, so they will buy the herring. You will remember that at one time pork was a very popular item because it was cheap, and at another time it was chicken. I am not sure which item is cheap now for this particular type of buyer.
To go back to buying patterns generally, there is a suggestion that .9 per cent of the buying is for sirloin and only .8 per cent for hamburger. Surely even the buying in my own family does not respond to that particular proportion. For fruits and vegetables we have 3.2 per cent and for dairy products 3.3 per cent. I suggest that these figures may not be arbitrary, but they are not geared to the elderly.
On drinks such as tea, coffee and soft drinks, tea and coffee account for 3.5 per cent and soft drinks account for .7 per cent. This is ludicrous. These figures apply better to teenagers. Imagine allowing as much on pop as on tea!
Something I do not understand is 17.8 per cent on housing but only 8 per cent on rented premises and 9.48 per cent on home ownership. I do not understand this particular aspect of the price index anyway because it deals with both home ownership and rented premises. Surely it is one or the other. If you are going to have it as a component, they should be weighted the same but broken down internally. But who in this particular class is both a home owner and rents premises?
Do senior citizens spend about the same proportion of their expenditures on telephone services as on childrens clothing? It states here that it is 1.49 per cent as against 1.45 per cent. They must have an awful lot of grandchildren because they are either talking to them or buying clothing for them. They are allowed a little more than that on footwear, that is 1.58 per cent. The whole thing is ludicrous.
Transportation is another matter. Transportation counts for 15 per cent, when in most urban areas senior citizens travel free on the bus, or at half price, or at least at some discount, and not all senior citizens can afford a car, whereas this index provides 13 per cent for the purchase, operation and upkeep of the car.

February 8, 1977
Old Age Security Act
My argument, therefore, is that indexing of pensions on the basis of a completely inapplicable consumer price index is deceptive and could be wrong. They could be diddled, they could be done out of what is their due. It is suggested that persons benefiting from that indexing are keeping pace in their purchasing with the items that are mentioned, when usually they buy in a completely different pattern in order to provide the sustenance of life.
The old age security and all the indexed pensions should therefore be adjusted in accordance with an index which measures very accurately the changes in the cost to those to whom the pension applies-the cost to the senior citizens for the expenditures they make, properly weighted for food as against housing, and properly weighted between tea, coffee and pop, and for clothing and transportation. Then and then only will justice be more nearly done. As matters stand now, great injustices are probably being perpetrated.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has been considered by many people to be a Scrooge in many areas, but nowhere is he as much of a Scrooge as in dealing with services and pensions for the senior citizens of Canada.
This bill is supposedly designed to make old age security residence requirements a little better. I have some doubts about the proposed new rules and whether they will accomplish the corrective action required to treat our senior citizens in a more fair and equitable manner.
The bill deals with certain specific subjects. I think one of the most significant things about it is that it does not deal with certain subjects. A couple of years ago I wrote to the minister about a particular problem that is faced by widows, and I am sure he has received representations from other sources as well. There is in this country something known as a spouses allowance where a pension is paid to a spouse who reaches age 60 when the other spouse reaches age 65 and becomes pensionable. That was a progressive step. In most cases the one who reaches age 65 first is the male, who is normally considered to be the breadwinner. In the past he had the problem of retiring at age 65 and supporting his spouse, who is normally not working at that age, on the one pension.
The allowance was a step forward to provide relief to the man who wanted to retire, or to the woman who if she happened to be the breadwinner who wanted to retire and along with her spouse live off the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement. There is also the situation of the widow whose husband had been eligible for old age pension and who now has no pension available to her. If the husband had not died, the woman would have drawn the pension at age 60, but now since she is a widow she gets no pension at all. In a letter to me the minister promised to bring in legislation to deal with this problem and I had hoped he would have taken advantage of the legislation before us to do so, but unfortunately that is not the case. I think he is to be severely castigated for that glaring omission.

Another aspect of old age pensions is the guaranteed income supplement. I can understand the theory behind it-that it is given only to those in greatest need or those who have no other source of income. I suppose there are two sides to the argument for supporting or not supporting that approach, but it strikes me as being rather unfair to senior citizens who have made provision for their old age and have struggled to save money for it. They are being penalized by not being eligible for the guaranteed income supplement. This is discouraging people from saving for their old age and has the effec. of increasing greater dependency on government handouts.
I would be inclined to suggest that the guaranteed income supplement should be reassessed to reward those who have been responsible and made provision for their old age to ensure they get whatever is available from the public purse on the same basis as those who had been less responsible or less fortunate. Perhaps the most glaring complaint is that the combined old age pension and guaranteed income supplement are too low.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: Except for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who has just interjected, and who happens to be collecting another income. The old age pension is probably adequate for him, and of course he does not collect the guaranteed income supplement. Not all senior citizens are in his fortunate position. Perhaps that might be changed some day although that is not to suggest that this place should consist only of senior citizens, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not?


Paul Yewchuk: I would not object if this place consisted only of senior citizens except that it would be a rather uneven representation of the population as a whole. I think we have followed the tradition of this institution being more or less representative of the population at large.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is why I am here.


Paul Yewchuk: I think we have enough senior citizens to represent the ratio of the population and others to represent other age groups and segments of Canadian life.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On that basis, there should be a lot more of us here.


Paul Yewchuk: There should be a lot more of them particularly in this party, and not the one to my left which seems to have a preponderance of senior citizens.
I want to comment on the proposal the minister is putting forward. I think there is something wrong with a system in which an immigrant who becomes a Canadian citizen earns one fortieth of full pension per year only until age 65. On the surface it may sound fair enough, but what if this person is self-employed and continues to be an economically productive member of society until age 70 or 75? If he arrived in Canada at age 55 the most his pension could amount to would be ten
February 8, 1977

fortieths of the full pension because he would no longer qualify even if working after age 65. He might decide to defer applying for old age security beyond age 65 if he knew that by doing so he would be earning a larger share of the full pension when he stopped working. It seems to me it would be quite logical to introduce this kind of flexibility.
If an individual at age 65 felt strong and healthy, he should not be penalized for that but should be able to continue earning some "pension points", so to speak, so that when he stopped working he would be entitled to a slightly better pension than if he had stopped at age 65 as the present proposal assumes he would. Even if he did stop working at age 65 he might be just as productive as a man who had been collecting welfare or unemployment insurance almost from the day he came to Canada. These comments have been by way of preliminary introduction to the key issue I want to discuss. It has to do with the fact that the government has been negligent in areas in which more progress for the elderly in our society could be made.
In my view the government has been slow to develop other services for the elderly. For some strange reason, for the past couple of decades we have thought that you need only provide the elderly with a small pension and put them in an institution, and that would be enough. I take issue with that approach; it is not right. First, that approach is much too costly, and I think particularly of the cost of institutions. Second, the elderly do not want it. In my view, and I have talked with many elderly people, they would far prefer to stay in their own residence, if possible, or perhaps with their families, than be placed in an institution as soon as they reach retirement age.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: They don't like being put out to pasture.


Paul Yewchuk: Basically, we need to readjust our philosophy underlying the treatment of our senior citizens. Instead of giving them a little pension and putting them into an institution, we could perhaps give them a better pension and keep them at home a lot longer. As well, we ought to provide those services which will make it possible for them to stay home longer.
At present 8 per cent, or almost two million individuals, of the Canadian population consists of people 65 years old or more. By the turn of the century there will be approximately 3.4 million Canadians in this category. That figure represents a 250 per cent increase in the aged population at the turn of the century, as compared with an estimated total population increase of 75 per cent for the same period.
The elderly, it is clear, are now major users of the health care system and will become increasingly so in the future, as the proportion of the aged in our population increases. Hospital utilization, measured by patient days used by the elderly in general and allied special hospitals, will increase from 35 per cent in 1971 to over 42 per cent by the year 2001. Based on current practice, it is estimated that by the turn of the century we shall need an additional 166 hospitals, each with 300 beds,
Old Age Security Act
to accommodate the predicted increase in the aged population. The hospitals it is predicted we shall need will be provided at staggering cost. For this reason alone we ought to consider alternatives to institutions.
Canadians tend to resort to institutionalization more than is altogether necessary. If this trend could be reversed and the taxpayers saved the cost of these institutions, governments would be in a better position to increase old age pensions. The result would be that senior citizens could be more self-reliant, and would be better able to provide for their own care.
The Canadian Senate Committee on Aging estimated that, in the period 1962-63, 8.5 per cent of the Ontario population 65 and over was in some kind of institution on any one day, compared with less than 5 per cent in the United Kingdom. Clearly the province of Ontario puts a proportionately larger number into institutions than does the United Kingdom. More recently it was estimated that in 1972-73 9 per cent of the population of Ontario aged 65 and over was or is in an institution of some sort. As one can see, relevant figures rose from 8.5 per cent in 1962-63 to over 9 per cent in 1972-73. One reason for this rise, I suggest, is that there is little or no alternative to institutional care.
The provision of more beds is not a solution to the health problems of the elderly. In Winnipeg, between 1966 and 1974, while the population of those 65 years old and over increased by 17 per cent, the number of nursing home beds increased by 91 per cent. Some may think that these figures reflect to the credit of the government, something to be proud of; I suggest that the opposite is true. We should be ashamed of them.
The elderly also use non-institutional health services in greater measure than their share of the population would lead one to expect. According to 1971 figures, in Quebec 14.5 per cent of medical services rendered by doctors was for those 65 years old and over; 37 per cent of home visits was for persons 65 and over; the number of services per person aged 65 years and over was 11, compared with 4.8 for those under 65 years; the number of examinations per person 65 years and over was 6.9, compared with 2.9 for those under 65 years. It is therefore apparent that the increase in the aged population associated with the increase in utilization of health services will be one of the major problems in the health care field in the future. Moreover, I point out that most elderly Canadians wish to remain in their homes and communities; indeed, it is healthier to keep them there and much less costly.
The elderly have many health problems associated with their condition. They have diminished reserves, and the functions of various organs are altered. Their medical problems are complicated by the presence of multiple diseases, different presentation and response to disease and differing response to drug therapy. Also, the difficulty to ascertain disease is widespread, and nutritional deficiencies are common. That is to say, one finds among the elderly nutritional deficiencies which are not common to the general population. This perhaps shows that pensions are too low and senior citizens cannot afford to

February 8, 1977
Old Age Security Act
buy proper nourishment, or that we lack proper services with which to keep a close eye on senior citizens and make sure they are properly nourished and looked after. Senior citizens take longer to recover from disease, and treatment must be aimed more at overcoming disabilities and improving function than at obtaining absolute cure.
The elderly are subject to complicating social problems which include loneliness, isolation, financial difficulties, bereavement, loss of status, and poor accommodation, that is to say, poor shelter.
There has been little formal undergraduate education in geriatrics and gerontology in Canada, which highlights one of our important deficiencies in terms of our ability to care for senior citizens. The fact is that there are too few specialists in geriatrics in this country and not enough training facilities to train those who would work in the fields of geriatrics and gerontology in this country. This state of affairs reflects shamefully on the minister, who has been responsible for his present portfolio for a number of years, and on the government, which has been in power now some 14 or 15 years. If our people cannot change these conditions and correct the problems I have outlined, their only obvious alternative is to change the government which has resisted taking progressive action of the sort which other governments, of other countries, have taken, to show that they appreciate what those who built up their countries did.
The World Health Organization has recommended the initiation of geriatric services as a solution to the health problems of the aging. The aims of such preventive geriatric services should be to keep the elderly in their homes within the local community for as long as they are able and desire to remain there, and to train all those who work with the elderly in the special ways in which disease presents itself in the aged, and how to detect illness in the early stages.
Britain has six chairs of geriatric medicine. In Canada there is a well developed geriatric department at Deer Lodge Hospital in Winnipeg, and recently a demonstration model for a community geriatric service based at St. Boniface Hospital has been recommended.
In Ontario, apart from Sunnybrook, the University of Western Ontario has appointed a co-ordinator of geriatric care in the Department of Medicine; Queen's University has instituted a division of geriatric and continuing care medicine, and McMaster has a consultant gerontologist for the health science faculty. This represents only a very small segment of Canada's population that is being served.
I believe it would be useful to outline the services offered by the Sunnybrook Medical Centre in Toronto as a good example of a pattern that might be used in other places to establish services which are required, and to which I have been making reference in the past few minutes.
There is an assessment unit which assesses the mental and physical condition of an elderly patient. There is a rehabilitation unit which provides many forms of rehabilitation to people who require it. There is a psychiatric unit especially designed to deal with the special psychiatric problems which senior citizens face. They are different from those faced by Canadians in other age groups.
There are long term wards for those who must be kept there on a long-term basis. There are domiciliary and self-care units which provide service on a shorter term basis to people who require less attention by others.
They have a community care program which includes daytime admissions only, a day hospital. There is a home care program which provides various services to people while at home. This home care program is administered from the hospital. It follows up patients who have come and gone, providing services which enable them to remain at home and yet receive the appropriate care.
They have a geriatric assessment and consultation clinic as well as follow-up clinics. They also have a program of education of medical people. First year family practice residents rotate through the department for a couple of months at a time in order to increase the knowledge and ability of general practitioners to deal with special problems of the aged.
There are some particular proposals for further development of preventive geriatric services. Perhaps that kind of service could do more to ease the burden of life for senior citizens than many of the others. It would do a lot to ease the burden of costs for treating patients who have been neglected. They may come in with one kind of an illness or another which, if it had been dealt with earlier, could have been prevented.
Special in-patient units are being considered in an intermittent re-admission program. Under this program a patient is admitted for six weeks and returns home for six weeks. This pattern is continued on an alternating basis. It allows the patient to spend half of his time at home while providing his family with a six week break during which time his physical health can be brought to an optimal level while he is in hospital.
Essentially what you have here is one bed being used for two patients simultaneously but alternately. That is an obvious reduction in the cost of an institution. You have two patients being cared for out of one bed.
There is a proposal for a palliative care unit, something that does not exist in many places in this country. It should be established in many areas. Work in various institutions in various parts of the world has shown the value of these kinds of units. They deal with those who are terminally ill or in severe pain for which there is no cure. They require hospitalization measures to ease the pain or to be ensured greater comfort during their last few days or weeks. This is something which governments throughout this country should examine.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
(Mr. Yewchuk.]
February 8, 1977



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I do not have many opportunities to rise in the adjournment debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Welcome!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Thank you. Since I feel the question I raised with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) on February 2 is extremely important but the minister did not share this view, I thought I should clarify the matter and urge the minister to reconsider his answer.
Be that as it may, I asked the minister whether he would suggest to his cabinet colleagues that the eligible age for voluntary retirement be reduced to 60 in order that those who so wish could retire from the labour market and provide jobs for a number of other people. In answer, the minister indicated that according to studies prepared by him or by others such a move would not create that many jobs. It would be preferable if the minister told the House which agencies prepared those studies and stated their findings so the House could peruse them.
It is quite evident that, assuming we had a plant employing 100 people and 20 workers retired voluntarily to receive voluntary retirement pension at 60, there would be no job openings if the employer forced the 80 remaining workers to increase their effort and put out the same volume of production. Such however would be an exceptional case, and the labour unions would see to it that things back were put back in order, to end the agony of remaining workers.
Personally, Mr. Speaker, I know a great many people between 60 and 65 who would be anxious to retire for various reasons. They would like to be able to travel when they are still physically fit to do so and they tell me it is much nicer to travel when both spouses are in good physical condition. It would be more pleasant to travel and to enjoy the few good years of their life.
There are 896,000 persons of both sexes between 60 and 65, and it is believed that at least 40 per cent of them, or 358,000, belong to the labour force. Let us suppose that 50 per cent of them would volunteer to retire, this would mean 179,000 job openings. If these were filled by young people between 19 and
Adjournment Debate
30 years of age, we would hope that a number of them who wish to get married would be able to realize their dream. At least it would help them do so and they might even wish to buy their own house. Eventually, this would stimulate the building trades and give jobs to the workers of this industry.
For my part, Mr. Speaker, I believe that our society would stand to gain if we were to facilitate the access of young people to the labour market. This could also contribute to increasing the birth rate to ensure a natural and normal growth in the Canadian population. All those reasons favour lowering the age for voluntary retirement to 60. For the good of older people, they should be allowed to spend their energy in doing something worthwhile, because otherwise, if they are not given this opportunity-and they say that idleness is the root of all evil-they will do something else.
For my part, I know very well that it would not have been a good thing to let me spend too long with nothing to do when I was very young. I would have found ways to use up my energies. When we get older and more mature and have gained much experience of life, we can remain idle with not much danger, and society will not be any the worse for it. This is another advantage that we must consider. I know many people of 60, 62 or 64 who live comfortably and who have already retired. They take better care of their property because they have more time than when they had to go to work. This improves their environment and encourages the young people to better appreciate their environment and their country. This is another factor that we must consider. Many of those people grow a garden and this shows the young people that the earth has some use and that we must take advantage of it.
There are also people who do odd jobs, who do all kinds of things to keep busy, useful things for their neighbourhood and their family. I know some of these people who belong to golden age clubs. I congratulate the minister for implementing the New Horizons program. These are properly managed funds.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge again the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to reconsider this matter and these suggestions from hon. members in order to put forward as soon as possible a legislation which would allow people to retire when they are 60 on a voluntary basis, and I emphasize the word "voluntary".


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult within a three minute time limit to answer the various arguments put forward by the hon. member, who speaks with so much conviction and sincerity.
The problem he raises I think is of concern to many members and citizens in this country. Unhappily, the points he made, although valid in many respects, contain as well other aspects on which he did not have time to elaborate and which I will not be able to cover either within the short time at my disposal. For instance, he speaks about voluntary retirement. I simply wish to ask him what will he do about spouses at home? A woman who has worked in her home, who has brought up a family during all her life, would be as much entitled as her
80008-44Vi

February 8, 1977
Adjournment Debate
husband who has worked in a plant, on a farm or elsewhere, to say she wants voluntary retirement at 60. And I do not see how, when he talked about some 900,000 people, he could cut that figure in half by saying half of them are working and then again cutting it in half when he added maybe half of that half will want to retire. I regret but he left out the 450,000 spouses who would not hesitate to ask for benefits, and rightly so, if ever such an idea were carried out and people started to demand early retirement under the old age security program in those terms...


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Man and wife!


Marc Lalonde: The hon. member says man and wife. So right then the figures he mentioned should be twice what he had forecast. I would probably say more than twice those figures. Our computation was made within the department. It shows that if all people between 60 and 65 could benefit from that program, it would cost us more than $2 billion in 1977, supposing that only one half of that total figure-and, once again, we should take the spouses into account-would benefit from early retirement. So we would already have more than an additional $1 billion in outlays.
Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes I have left, I would like to raise the problem of those who find it too soon to retire at 65 and who would like to go on working, to have a job. They protest because, in many cases, in their factories they are obliged to retire at 65. This is something new, due mainly to an increased life expectancy and we can see this phenomenon in various countries, particularly in the Scandinavian countries and also in the United States. New pressures are brought to bear that people can have the right to work after 65. As we can see, many people are concerned by this problem but, unfortunately, I do not think that we can seriously deal with it tonight. However, I would be pleased to discuss it with the hon. member on another occasion.


CUSTOMS-PURCHASING OF GROCERIES IN UNITED STATES BY RESIDENTS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, on November 15 last I asked the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin) a question regarding the shopping practices of Canadians in British Columbia, for example, why they go south of the border to Bellingham, Washington, to do their shopping. First of all I want to make it clear that I am thankful for some of the work that the minister has done. She is the first minister in that department, among the parade of three or four ministers that we have already had over the last three or four years, who is doing something for the customs officers in that area. One thing she has done is to add four more man-years to the present staff there on a casual basis.
I should just like to interject at this point that although these man-years are casual at the present time, they ought to be permanent man-years. I say this because the traffic is going to increase and the staff at the customs post are already
overworked. Therefore I ask the minister to reconsider the present casual classification of the men working there and to place them on a permanent basis.
The minister herself wondered why people shop south of the border. I do not go grocery shopping very often, but when I do I am shocked at the way the price of food commodities goes up every time. I certainly do not go shopping in the United States. I am not an authority on this, so I went to the best Canadian authority on the price of groceries there is, the ordinary housewife.
I went to a young mother with three children who does her shopping in the United States because she saves money by going there. I learned that she saves $20 every two weeks, which is something like $40 a month. That is nothing to sneeze at when you are trying to raise a young family. I would like to tell the House about the things she buys there, and the amount she saves by doing so.
The American price of Sugar Crisp, a cereal, is $1.02 and the Canadian price is $1.51, 50 per cent higher in Canada. Rolled oats, good Canadian food, costs 98 cents in the United States and $1.13 in Canada. Frosted flakes cost $1.01 in the United States and $1.30 in Canada. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is always bragging about what a great thing he is doing for Canadian farmers, but here is the way it turns out with regard to the price of corn. In the United States corn costs 28 cents per tin, and in Canada it is 51 cents a tin.
A shopper in the United States pays $1.68 for six tins of corn, and in Canada that shopper pays $3.06. Beans cost 24 cents in the United States and 41 cents in Canada. If four cans are bought in the United States, the cost is 96 cents, and in Canada the cost is $1.64. Weiners cost 48 cents in the United States and 89 cents in Canada, and we wonder why shoppers go south of the border. The Canadian price is double that of the United States. The price of bacon in the United States is 89 cents, and in Canada it is 99 cents. Cheese in the United States costs 89 cents and in Canada $1.27.


Mr. McKinley:: How about cars?


Benno Friesen: Cars are cheaper by a long shot. Ham costs 82 cents in the United States and 97 cents in Canada. Meat pies-packaged food-cost 24 cents in the United States and 38 cents in Canada. Let us consider one more item, tuna fish; it costs 44 cents in the United States and 71 cents in Canada. If a shopper buys four tins, he pays $1.76 in the United States and $2.84 in Canada.
The crowning example is Dare cookies, and the bag says "Head Office, Kitchener, Ontario". There is a plant in Surrey-White Rock, 20 miles from the border. As a matter of fact, that plant is 40 or 50 miles from Bellingham, where the shopping is done. Dare cookies cost 88 cents in the United States and $1.09 in Canada, where they are made. Pray tell, is there somebody on the government benches who can tell me why a Canadian product, made of Canadian agricultural
[Mr. Lalonde.)
February 8, 1977

products, costs more in Canada than it does when it is shipped across the border to the United States? I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) that question a week ago, but I received no answer.
Some may say that it does not pay to go across the border to shop because there is gas and wear and tear to be paid for, but gas is 10 cents or 12 cents a gallon cheaper there. People go down with an empty tank, fill it up there and save money on gas. It is one thing for a couple to raise a young family with the prices we have in Canada. They have a hard enough time, but what is it for people on fixed incomes who get, for example, $3 added to their pensions every three months because of the cost-of-living index? Is it any wonder that they pool their resources and go to the United States? We may think they are being disloyal to Canada, but all they are doing is trying to keep body and soul together. I would like to have an answer from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Baker (Gander-Twillingate)) as to why it is we have this kind of price differential.
The minister was a little catty in her answer when she said "I am anxious to hear his exact views as to what he wishes us to do". Pray tell, that is not my job. If the minister and the rest of her colleagues want to move over, we would gladly take that mandate and offer a few alternatives to the Canadian people. It is her job to look at the mess in which the government has put the country, and to give us the kind of economic policies that would deal with rising prices, prices that prevent people from being able to afford to shop in our own stores and buy
Adjournment Debate
our own products. It is cheaper to buy our own products in the United States. I am awaiting the reply of the parliamentary secretary on this.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank the hon. gentleman and concur in his remarks about our excellent minister. I also want to thank him for his rundown of all the cheap prices in the United States. However, I think his question is misdirected when he asks it of this department. We have nothing to do with setting prices in the United States or with setting customs tariffs. Setting customs tariffs is the responsibility of the Department of Finance.
We have brought the matter of the tariffs to the attention of the Department of Finance. The hon. gentleman knowns that; he was told that in writing as well as in this House. Our position is that we do not attempt either to encourage or discourage grocery shopping in the United States because we cannot, but as a department of the government we do not want to act in a way to harm Canadian businessmen, manufacturers or producers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.18 p.m.

Wednesday, February 9, 1977