1978-05-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an urgent matter of national interest.
Considering that yesterday in the House the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) officially undertook to give Quebec all the money to which it would be entitled under the original proposal made by the federal Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien); considering that Quebec has already made its position clearly known on the matter, both in its counter-proposal to the federal proposal and in its negative reply to the subsequent arrangement suggested by the central government, and that it is now up to Ottawa to move one way or another; considering finally that this question is vital for Quebec and that its citizens can no longer remain indifferent to the settlement of this deadlock, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey):
That the House unanimously urge the Minister of Finance to announce as soon as possible how he intends to render justice to Quebec and to accede to the unanimous wish of the provincial legislature.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF INTENTIONS RESPECTING COMPENSATION TO QUEBEC FOR REDUCED SALES TAX-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has finally recognized the error made by his government concerning the refusal to compensate the government of Quebec for its selective sales tax cuts, and considering that the opposition and all parties in Quebec have urged the Prime Minister of Canada to put an end to his strategy of confrontation with Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the House request the Prime Minister to announce by next Friday his decision to refund the government of Quebec for its selective sales tax cuts because they are constitutionally and economically fair.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF TODAY AS &quot;SUN&quot; DAY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the realization and promise of solar energy is being observed and celebrated today in Canada and in over 40 countries around the world-

whereas setting aside one day to highlight all the solar energy utilization techniques would contribute to informing the general public, the industry and the labour force and to illustrating the possibilities of using the sun to satisfy the energy needs of our country-

-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker):
That this House agree, without debate, to acknowledge this day, May 3, 1978, as "Sun" day and thereby encourage the utilization of solar energy technologies so as to provide humanity with an abundant, economical, safe and environmentally compatible energy supply.


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

May 3, 1978
continuation of presently ongoing projects or provide for the beginning of necessary new research projects.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
-m
fti
im
* -a

* '<¥;* * *$$>. I?1'
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is a phrase in the motion which troubles me in terms of order. I will not delay the proceedings too long, but I suggest the words "without debate" must be deleted from the motion, for obviously any motion is debatable and simply because the language is there in the motion cannot render it otherwise. Therefore, the motion by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), would be:
That this House acknowledges May 3, 1978, as "Sun" day, thereby encouraging the utilization of solar energy technologies so as to provide humanity with an abundant, economical, safe and environmentally compatible energy supply.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the announcement regarding a new direction in housing by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, and in light of the fact that the federal minister proceeded without consultation with the provinces, without which the program cannot work, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway):
That the Minister of State for Urban Affairs convene a meeting immediately with all provincial ministers responsible for housing in order to reach agreement on the federal minister's new programs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I wish to move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House calls on the government to increase the grants to the Medical Research Council so that medical schools will not find it necessary to eliminate ongoing research projects and to dismiss medical research and support staffs because the grants for the fiscal year 1978-79 will not permit either the


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and national importance. As negotiations between the grain handlers' union and the Manitoba and Saskatchewan wheat pools have gone nine months with a Department of Labour conciliator, without being any nearer solution, and as wages are not at issue, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski):
That the Minister of Labour exempt permanently from hours of work regulations country elevator managers so that the issue may be settled without destruction of the competitive position of the Manitoba and Saskatchewan wheat pools or disruption of the country elevator grain handling system.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can only be done at this time with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that many international chartered accountant firms are drawing attention to the fact that substantial tax equalization is required when United States employees are transferred by their employers to Canada-in some cases resulting in a person requiring $28,996 in Canada to give him the same after-tax, take-home pay he would have in the United States with an income of $19,700-will the Minister of Finance indicate if he is aware of this imbalance between Canadian and United States taxes; and, if so, does he intend to suggest


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]
May 3, 1978
[Stage Direction]
changes in our income tax level to ensure that this imbalance does not continue?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this type of allegation has been made for a long time. There has always been a differentiation between Canadian and U.S. tax levels because the United States does not give its citizens the same quality of service as the Canadian government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as the minister well knows, the Carter royal commission on taxation pointed out that such an imbalance would result in a brain-drain-as they termed it- to the United States, and that it should not be allowed to continue.


An hon. Member:: You don't have to worry.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: 1 will wait, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York-Simcoe.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of Finance indicate if he is aware that the imbalance has reached such proportions that Ernst and Ernst, chartered accountants well known throughout the world, have put out a 146-page booklet describing how you can equalize your position between Canada and the United States in the event that you are an employee in Canada, and that there is a new booklet coming out which will describe why it is much more beneficial to be an employee in the United States than in Canada because of our added tax load?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the United States does not have as many services; for example, they do not have medicare or hospitalization as we have here. I know of a Canadian citizen who was in Florida and had a heart attack: when he received his bill from the hospital there, he had another heart attack.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the Minister of Finance must begin with the preamble that the minister obviously has not read the material that I am putting forward, because all medical care plans have been exempted from the calculations.
My final question to the Minister of Finance is this: As a result of the higher tax load in Canada, would he indicate if this in part contributes to the higher wage structure which in turn has made us relatively non-competitive with other employees, especially those in the United States?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 find it very unusual for the hon. member to rise today and speak about the non-competitive position of Canadian products, when in March it was indicated we achieved a record trade surplus of $10 billion, annualized-and that means that we are very competitive.
Oral Questions OUTFLOW OF CAPITAL TO U.S.


Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. minister mentioned medicare, because many Canadians are sick of his government's policies.
Supplementary to my colleague's question, is the minister aware that for the first time in 33 years the U.S. department of commerce figures show there is a net outflow of money from Canada to the U.S. of $440 million? This is the first year in 33 years since statistics were kept that this has happened: there is this net outflow of capital from Canada to the U.S., and not the other way. The biggest year that we had a capital inflow from the U.S. was 1966-$985 million.
Would the minister explain to the House why he feels the Americans have got cold feet with respect to Canada? What steps is he taking to reverse the outflow of investment moneys to the U.S.? Is the minister, in other words, concerned about this problem? What is he doing?


Hon. Jean Chr6tien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I know some people in Canada are investing money in the United States. We have always had a large surplus in that area. For the last few months there has been some nervousness in the Canadian economy because of the decline of the Canadian dollar, and some people have tried to hedge their bets.
I would like to inform the hon. member for St. John's West that I was speaking to some people from Newfoundland the other day and they told me that the weaker Canadian dollar has been very good for the fisheries business in that province.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, with our nation in the economic situation it is, I wish the minister would be serious. In 1977, in terms of our economy with the U.S., $440 million net left Canada. In 1976 it was $102 million net that came to Canada from the U.S. The bureau of commerce for the U.S., their economic statistician down there, has given certain reasons for that and I want to know if the minister agrees. He said first that FIRA has dampened the enthusiasm of Americans for investing money in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: Does the minister-
Mr Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member will realize he is seeking the minister's opinion as opposed to information. Perhaps he could put an informational question.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in connection with this imbalance of investments between Canada and the U.S., does the minister agree that the reason this is happening is that our economy is growing so slowly that there is no point in their keeping money here? What steps is he taking to reverse this situation so that we will again encourage American investment here and Canadians will keep their money invested in Canada? What is he doing about this?
5106

May 3, 1978
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. member looks at the record he will realize that the economy of Canada has grown much faster in the last seven years than has the economy of the United States. In fact, for 27 months during 1974, 1975 and 1976 the United States was in a recession. In Canada we have managed to maintain a certain growth. The forecasts made by the IMF over the weekend indicated that Canada will have the best growth performance in 1978 of any country except Japan and will beat all other IMF members.


John Carnell Crosbie: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. For the first time in 33 years we have a net outflow of funds to the U.S. from Canada. Does the minister consider this to be a problem, is he concerned about it and, if so, what is he going to do about it? The brain-drain is from the government. Is the minister unconcerned that it is a brain-drain from the government? What is he going to do about this, and does he consider it a problem?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a problem in this regard but the hon. member is not aware, for example, that some transactions are considered as being capital outflow from Canada while in fact they are not. For instance, when Petro-Canada bought Atlantic Richfield, we were indeed reimporting into Canada operations that were run by the United States. Of course we had to pay back the Americans, so this was considered as money flowing out of Canada when in fact Canadians were buying American interests in Canada. Obviously the hon. member does take these facts into account when he quotes the statistics he has before him.


SUGGESTION CONDITIONS BE ATTACHED TO CANADIAN INVESTMENT ABROAD
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate to the Conservative spokesman that a brain-drain from this government is a contradiction in terms.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: With reference to the export of capital, the minister has just indicated that there is one example of some possible benefit to Canada. Mr. Speaker, Canadian Pacific Investments Ltd. have announced that they are investing abroad and that their total investment in the U.S. will reach $185 million. This follows decisions by Northern Telecom, Molson and even the Canadian Development Corporation to do likewise.
I take issue with what the minister just said. If he feels there is possibly some benefit that can occur as a result of some investment abroad, why does the Government of Canada not do what every country in Europe and what Japan has done for
[Mr. Crosbie.l
years, that is, make it conditional for the export of capital that large companies show there is a benefit at home?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is very good at giving a lesson in humility. On this question, of course, if we want to be competitive in the world we must be people who are able to compete. It is not necessarily bad that Canadian industries seek greater performance not only in Canada but elsewhere. This very often opens doors for Canadian technology and Canadian experience to gain new ground in export business. We are following these developments closely. If the hon. member has a specific complaint, we can look into it. Canada often imports capital, and it is quite normal that Canadians export to other markets so that they will increase their base of operations.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, this minister is always late to recognize a crisis. At the current rate of export of capital, in 1978 we will export some $1 billion. That means thousands of jobs lost to Canadians. I should like the minister to answer and not evade the question I just put to him. If, as he said in his reply to an earlier question, benefit can accrue to Canada at times from the export of capital, why does the government not make it a stipulated policy, such as exists in all western European countries and Japan, that in order to export capital large companies must show a domestic benefit?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the government is about to control the flow of capital between Canada and other nations. One of our successes in the past is that we have operated an open economy and have welcomed capital to this country. If we want capital to come into Canada, we must be a society that permits the free movement of capital. I do not think the hon. member would improve the lot of Canada very much if at this moment we were to restrict the flow of capital.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering that in recent months the net flow of capital has been out of Canada going abroad, and we have IV2 million people unemployed, I plead with the minister to recognize this reality and do, in this industrial country, what all other industrial countries did a long time ago, with the exception of the United States, and that is to put export controls on the export of large amounts of capital.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General.
Last year his department officials were asked to look into the possibility of building a penitentiary in the Quebec City area. Would the minister tell the House if this study is
May 3, 1978

finished, if he has requested a report from his officials and if a decision has been made following that report?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bellechasse should know that my predecessor made a statement concerning the construction of a penitentiary in the Donnacona area. This decision has been made and work has already begun.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
I remember quite well the statement made by the predecessor of the present Solicitor General but since it was suggested that such a penitentiary might be built close to Montmagny, the mayor of the city of Montmagny asked me to put this question so that the municipal council would know where the matter stands.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I take note of these further details provided by the hon. member and I will give him a complete report on that matter.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General. It relates to a Canadian Press story printed today in which the Solicitor General is alleged to have said:
I'm not advancing that my thought processes are absolutely devoid of obscurity-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Herbert Jarvis: I think he would get unanimous consent for that representation. That item relates to a story which, if accurate, means this House was clearly, not deliberately but clearly misled a week ago yesterday, April 25, when in reply to a question from the hon. member for Nickel Belt relating to the 400 surreptitious entries, the minister said, as reported in Hansard of that date:
A legal opinion has been forthcoming from the Department of Justice to the effect that these procedures are legal. There is a decided opinion with reference to their legality.
It indicates in this story today that such is not the case and no such legal opinion was obtained in relation to these activities. Would the Solicitor General take this opportunity to correct any misinformation he may have given the House a week ago yesterday?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the hon. gentleman from Nickel Belt, it was a question that referred generally to surreptitious entry. The question was a general one, and I replied in general terms indicating that there was a legal opinion. I indicated, as well,
Oral Questions
that in view of the differing opinions relating to the legality of surreptitious entries generally, I wished the matter to be dealt with by the McDonald inquiry so it would address itself to the evidence in total put before the inquiry and make a report. Mr. Speaker, that is the position I have taken in the past and it is the position I will continue to take.


William Herbert Jarvis: Would the Solicitor General take the opportunity to indicate to the House the legal opinion he has from the Department of Justice? Does it relate solely to entries for the purpose of installing electronic surveillance devices? Is there any legal opinion with respect to surreptitious entry? If so, would the Solicitor General do the House the courtesy of tabling those legal opinions?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I made it clear outside the House, after that reply was made, that the legal opinion to which I referred had been tabled before the McDonald inquiry. That opinion is available to the hon. gentleman if he wishes to obtain it. It deals with surreptitious entry to install electronic devices.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, would the Solicitor General answer the first part of my last question? Does he have a legal opinion from the Department of Justice, or has one been asked for, with regard to surreptitious entry which does not relate to the installation of electronic surveillance devices?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I do not hold the opinion described by the hon. member and I have never indicated that I had such an opinion.


ROLE OF RCMP IN PROVINCIAL JURISDICTIONS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General about a study of his department's law enforcement task force, entitled "The Role of the Federal Government in Law Enforcement", which states it has two main goals, one of which is to examine the role of the federal government in law enforcement with particular reference to the RCMP.
One of the general points considered in this study is the taking over of the OPP and the QPF by the RCMP. I ask the minister, what ongoing consultations have been developed between the federal government and the affected provinces regarding questions of jurisdiction in this very important matter and the role of provincial police forces vis-a-vis the RCMP which are of particular relevance under the present circumstances?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, it becomes evident that if there is a study relating to the role of federal enforcement, or the RCMP in the role of enforcement of federal laws, the question of federal-provincial relations will be dealt with. I would ask the hon. member to review the
5108

May 3, 1978
Oral Questions
document to which he has referred, in order to make sure he is not advancing something that is not contained within that document.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: 1 would like to make the same request of the Solicitor General and ask him what ongoing discussions are taking place with the attorneys general or solicitors general of the various provinces. I am seeking information as to whether, on this very interesting study, the provinces have been fully briefed and kept fully informed. I know there were brief discussions in Charlottetown. Is there more than one of these studies? Is there now one that supersedes or changes the first one?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can rest assured that there is no intention of taking over the QPP or the OPP at any time. Nor is there any indication that such is the intention of my ministry.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question on another point related to the same study. Can the minister indicate what the situation is with regard to the possible taking over of harbour policing functions by the RCMP, and the RCMP withdrawing from drug enforcement? Were those points also discussed with the provinces?


Jean-Jacques Blais: With regard to the taking over of port policing, I believe a bill has been introduced in this House relating to such a process. I see the Minister of Justice has some hesitation about that. I would have to look at the legislation that has been introduced. With reference to drug enforcement, that is a federal responsibility. It is an ongoing responsibility that we are not ready to give up.


FINANCE
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the sales tax issue opposing Ottawa to Quebec, the minister will agree with me that the time to juggle with words is long since past. Yesterday the right hon. Prime Minister committed himself formally to giving Quebec the money it would have received under the minister's proposal. To give credibility to the Prime Minister's statement, would the Minister of Finance now be prepared to explain to the House how Quebeckers could receive this money, without going against the unanimous wish of the National Assembly?


Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister reiterated yesterday what I had myself stated last Friday, namely that we do not intend to penalize Quebeckers just because the Quebec government absolutely
[Mr. Blais.l
refuses to come to an agreement with the federal government, even though I have made concessions on two occasions since my budget in order to find a common ground of understanding. It seems the Quebec government wants confrontation, and the Prime Minister has stated that we will take the necessary action to ensure that Quebeckers are not victimized by the Quebec government's stubbornness. Eventually, if the provincial government does not change its mind and does not decide to cut the sales tax on all other goods by 2 per cent, as I suggested, we will advise.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
I think it is clear that what the Prime Minister said yesterday is absolute nonsense. Can the Minister of Finance tell the House today how Quebeckers will get that money? Under the circumstances, I ask the Minister of Finance, if he has some small measure of honour, to tell us how Quebeckers can receive that money, so that they are not penalized, without violating provincial jurisdiction and the unanimous will of the National Assembly, and the minister knows what I mean.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am glad, Mr. Speaker, to see that the hon. member agrees with the attitude we are adopting in saying that we will not penalize Quebeckers. Our financial year started exactly one month and two days ago, which means that we have ten months and 28 days left in which to solve the problem before the end of the fiscal year.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour and in view of his absence to his parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Speaker, since Bill C-8, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, has already been passed by the House and the Senate, can the parliamentary secretary tell the House whether the Minister of Labour intends to implement as soon as possible that part of the act which allows the minister to impose a first collective agreement, and specifically in the case of the conflict at Radio-Mutuel, which has already dragged on for 16 months?


Mr. Jacques Olivier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, we have received representations from the two large Quebec unions asking us to intervene. We have also received the recommendations of our officials. The bill has been passed and the royal sanction given. All that remains to be done is to proclaim it law; when it has been so proclaimed, Mr. Speaker, we will see, but I do think we will solve the problem within the next few weeks.
May 3, 1978

Oral Questions


HOUSING
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. We have been treated to another example of the new techniques of federal-provincial relations in the area of housing. With regard to the new, fundamentally changed housing package that the minister will introduce in the House tomorrow, has he secured the agreement of the provinces regarding the new approach presented to us yesterday without consultation with the House of Commons or the committee.
Does the minister have the agreement of the provinces for this new approach, or is it his intention to immediately call together the housing ministers of the provinces to discuss their role in this new federal scheme?


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a very short memory. Not very long ago I explained in detail the various aspects of this policy when appearing before a standing committee of this House. Second, the hon. member should know there was a federal-provincial conference of ministers of housing where all these proposals were extensively discussed. The provincial officials participated in those discussions and made some very valuable suggestions. Third, this subject was also raised at the time of the first ministers' conference. I do not know on what basis the hon. member draws the conclusion that there has been no consultation. Indeed, there have been extensive consultations. What we want to do is clearly in line with the priorities established by the provinces.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, my memory serves me quite well. It tells me that the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was not allowed to answer questions in the committee. I did not ask the minister whether there was consultation; rather, I asked whether there was agreement with the provinces, because my information is that there was not. Is this the new way the government arranges its priorities in the field of economic strategy, taking away $500 million from the one sector that has the potential of creating new jobs and alleviating poverty and abolishing any form of subsidy that formerly existed under that program?
[ Translation]


Mr. Ouellet:: Mr. Speaker, I am under the impression that the hon. member is disappointed because this is an excellent policy which was discussed at length with provincial authorities. The proposals put forward are designed essentially to increase the participation of both levels of government, federal and provincial, in the construction of more homes for low income Canadians. The Conservative member may not agree with our objective to provide decent housing to low income families and senior citizens, but it certainly meets the needs and aspirations of most Canadians.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Sinicoe North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Communications. I should like to ask the hon. lady, bearing in mind her concern, what is being done to evaluate a system which would make television more accessible to the two million or so people in Canada who suffer from various degrees of deafness and for whom little has been done, politically or otherwise, because they are not a particularly visible group. What is being done to develop a system which would be acceptable and Canada-wide, instead of the mess of pottage the deaf are now getting?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: I think the hon. member is quite unfair when he says this is a mess. On the contrary, research has been going on to help the deaf follow television programs. I told the hon. member last week, or ten days ago, that we are studying a system incorporating a hidden caption on the television screen coupled to a decoder which would allow the deaf to follow the dialogue.
A prototype of such a decoder exists at the present time. It is, of course, an expensive gadget-it costs about $2,000-but everyone knows there is a great difference between the cost of a prototype and the cost of a product when sold to the public. Nevertheless, price, I would think, would be one of the obstacles. The first thing, though, is to develop the technology which would enable the deaf to have fuller access to national television, and that is what we are doing.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It is now confirmed that there is no legal opinion which justified the surreptitious entries which do not relate to the placing of electronic devices: that is my understanding of the answer given by the Solicitor General. This being the case, will the hon. gentleman take the House into his confidence and tell us how many such surreptitious entries did not relate to the setting of wiretaps, particularly in view of the fact that 402 of the 419 surreptitious entries took place in British Columbia? Would he advise the House how many were legal; how many were not covered by a legal opinion backing them up?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: As the hon. gentleman knows, the evidence to which he refers has been adduced before the McDonald commission. The whole subject matter of surreptitious entry, including surreptitious entries effected in order to place electronic surveillance equipment and those

May 3, 1978
Oral Questions
which were described as intelligence probes, has been identified before the inquiry. The evidence related to those surreptitious entries and to the nature of such entries is not complete.
I hope the hon. gentlemen will now recognize that the commission was acting with all due haste in ascertaining the whole of the evidence material to the discharge of its mandate, and I trust the hon. member will exhibit some forebearance as we await reports from the commission.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I wish the police would exercise the same amount of haste with regard to the persons against whom they lay charges. My question is this: 402 of those surreptitious entries occurred in British Columbia. Responsibility for laying charges in these cases lies with the attorney general of the province. Can the Solicitor General advise us specifically whether he has made recommendations to the attorney general of British Columbia with regard to this matter? Has he communicated with the attorney general of British Columbia? After all, they have been charging cabinet ministers out there, and they should think about charging some of the RCMP officers who have clearly violated the law.


Jean-Jacques Blais: The position of the government has been made very clear. Any procedures of the RCMP which may be questionable will be referred to the McDonald inquiry and the inquiry will carry on its investigation. That is exactly what has happened. I am satisfied that the inquiry is proceeding apace.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. We note the minister was able to give General Quang a work permit, and as far as I have read-or have been advised-he has not done much for Canada. On the other hand, several Jamaican women who have made a significant contribution and who have been here for between five and ten years are living under a deportation order. I sent the minister a brief on this matter and I believe he appreciates the facts contained therein. I want to know what is happening. Has the minister considered this matter, and is he able to tell the House whether he has any sympathy for this legitimate cause?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I guess he is making contribution in that he is not drawing on the welfare system of the province of Quebec: the General is at least working a 90-hour week to support himself and his family. So to that extent he is not drawing welfare from Quebec and federal taxpayers.
As far as the Jamaican women are concerned, I will concede that the hon. member wrote what is probably one of the best letters in support of his representations that I have received on this subject. He borrowed generously from the opinion and advice of the lawyer who was assisting him. I was prepared to
[Mr. Blais.l
make a decision based upon the recommendations made by the lawyer and by the hon. member. However, they have seen fit to retain counsel and to file appeals with the Federal Court. They have sought the assistance of the human rights commissioner, the Federal Court has decided that it has no jurisdiction, and an appeal has been taken from that ruling. Rather than usurp the role of the assistance which is in place for these ladies, I think this process should first be exhausted. I will make my decision at the end of it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have never heard so much nonsense. The minister has indicated-and I thank him for this; I do not ordinarily thank ministers-that the brief I submitted made a lot of sense. All I want to know is whether the minister has any sympathy in this regard. Let us be honest about this matter. If he can look after General Quang, who has done nothing for this country, I want him to stand up and tell me now that he is interested in this matter and that he has some sympathy for these representations. Have the deportation orders been stayed? Further, has the hon. gentleman issued work permits so that these women can continue to make a contribution to this country?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, now we know that the hon. member makes an excellent oral as well as a written presentation. The deportation orders have been stayed: there is nothing to prevent these ladies working. But I think they are entitled to all the rights and benefits of the courts that the law provides. I do not think it is for me to usurp that role. If they choose-as they have chosen-to go that route, I should not say either that they are to be deported or that they will be allowed to stay. Surely these people should be able to use the procedures which are open to them. It is their own counsel who has decided to adopt the appeal procedure, and I think I should respect that decision.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister take action to assist Renata Jacobs, a disabled Polish Olympics athlete married to a Canadian citizen, to come to Canada to join her husband in view of the refusal of the Polish government to allow her to leave her country?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I thank my hon. friend for having given me notice of this question. I made some preliminary inquiries and am advised that the marriage to which the hon. member refers took place in March. To this date we have not received a formal application from the husband who will, presumably, be sponsoring the entry of his new wife to Canada. When we get that letter we will be glad to proceed. As to whether the Polish government has refused an exit permit, we have not yet had an opportunity to check into that part of the question.
May 3, 1978


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Can he tell us what has happened to the report of the Royal Commission on Corporate Concentration? Nothing has been said in the House about it in a definitive way for months. Will he bring out this old chestnut that it is subject to translation at this time?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Responsibility for that commission does not come under me. I will inquire and report to the hon. member.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General is aware that a former RCMP staff sergeant, Ed. Hameluk, has left the co-ordinating law enforcement unit in Vancouver to join John Meirs, a former associate of the late Howard Hughes. Since Mr. Hameluk was in a sensitive security position analysing intelligence and information sources and is now working for Mr. Meirs, who also had contact with CLEU, I ask the Solicitor General whether this matter is being looked into. Also, is he aware of the concern of other police forces in Canada about this matter, and what steps are being taken by him and, to his knowledge, by the attorney general of British Columbia to evaluate the situation?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the hon. gentleman for bringing all those facts to my attention. I will look at the information he has provided, and if his evidence is accurate I will express the concern that he has expressed.


USE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Because of the significance of international "Sun" day and the motion which received unanimous approval today, as well as the need for using renewable energy in homes and businesses, would the minister amend his budget to incorporate incentives to help people in Canada use renewable energy resources in their homes?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of the representation of the hon. member.
Oral Questions NATIONAL REVENUE


REGULATIONS RESPECTING CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the minister who speaks on behalf of Revenue Canada. Is the minister able to reveal to the House the status of document 78-3, of February 27, entitled "Registered Charities, Political Objectives and Activities"?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it very much if the hon. member would be kind enough to repeat his question. I shall gladly answer him.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the minister represents Revenue Canada in this House, and I should like to know the present status of document No. 78-3 dated February 27, 1978, and entitled "Registered Charities-Political Objects and Activities".


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, as far as I can remember-but I will gladly check with the Minister of National Revenue for further details-the document is entitled "Information Circular". These are documents relating to income tax that are issued regularly and distributed to all accounting firms and tax experts. In this case, it was sent to all charitable organizations, of which there are about 40,000, if I am not mistaken, and which are given tax concessions for charitable donations.


Donald W. Munro: I wish to ask a supplementary.
If I remember well, the Prime Minister has suspended the document concerned. I should like to know whether, according to the answer the minister gave us a few moments ago, the document's status is actually the one it has today.


Monique Bégin: I am sorry but I was not in the House for a few days. If the Prime Minister has suspended that document, I cannot see why the hon. member bothers to ask me a silly question.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of the fact that the regulations in the new Immigration Act have been proclaimed as of April 10, and in those regulations there is a requirement that foreign entertainers are now obliged to apply at a Canadian consulate or embassy for a work permit, I should like to ask the minister whether, in view of the assurances we have received from him time after time during our study of the bill that fingerprinting would only be

May 3, 1978
Oral Questions
used in criminal cases, the requirement still stands that entertainers applying for a work visa to Canada will, in fact, be fingerprinted by the Canadian authorities before getting a
visa.


An hon. Member:: What about Lassie?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: That is unlikely, Mr. Speaker. However if, in the view of the department an entertainer who applied for a work visa was a member of the "prohibited" class-I cannot think of the right word-that individual would be fingerprinted for the purposes of identification; but only in that particular instance.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I find the minister's explanation very ambiguous because, first, he says they will not be fingerprinted, and then he says that perhaps they will. Can he spell it out clearly, because at present even when a name artist who is not Canadian comes to Canada, he will have the back up of Canadian musicians, and that regulation affects Canadian musicians much more adversely than it does foreign musicians.
Would the minister review that regulation, in view of the fact that we have not had a chance even to discuss it in committee and the effect it is having on Canadian commerce, especially in view of the objectives under section 3 of the act?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The hon. member has made a representation, and so have others. Our concern is that we should be treating people who come to this country to entertain in the way we would like Canadian entertainers to be treated abroad. We have been very generous in the approach we have taken. But I do have an obligation: when an individual comes in as an entertainer, under whatever circumstances, if that individual is suspected of being a criminal I must protect the Canadian public from that person.


MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has she received representations from the medical research community to the effect that a crisis now exists in the field of medical research because the funds allocated to the Medical Research Council for the coming year have increased by only 3.8 per cent and as a result of this very small increase-less than the increase in the cost of living-20 per cent of the established medical research projects are being cut off in the coming year and the scientific community cannot live with that kind of budget? If that is so, what does she propose to do about it?


Hon.   Monique@: Mr. Speaker, I did receive representations from the medical research community of Canada, which is one of the first groups I met when I became Minister of National Health
(Mr. Epp ]
and Welfare. I am very sympathetic to their representations for more funds. However, the facts given by the hon. member are wrong and I would like to correct them. We increased the budget of NRC by 5.6 per cent and we were able to exempt their budget from the exbudget procedure in order to protect to the maximum the funds we can grant them in this difficult economic situation. Therefore, they have received, proportionately, more than any department of government. This is very important and shows our commitment to medical research and our concern for their particular problem.
I have asked the community to provide me with the facts, and I will do my best to help them. I have not received anything from them as yet. They say that respecting medical research equipment, the cost of which amounts to about 80 per cent of the cost of a given project, comes from the United States and therefore they suffer from devaluation of the dollar in addition to inflation.


FINANCE
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. On April 19, the right hon. Prime Minister stated in the House that the caisses populaires and credit unions would be included in the new Bank Act. Could the Minister of Finance indicate whether, under this government policy, the caisses populaires and credit unions would be required to join the Canadian Payment Association?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The decision whether the caisses populaires and credit unions should join the Canadian Payment Association will be known the moment the legislation to amend the Bank Act has been introduced. At the time the green paper was released, neither the caisses populaires nor the credit unions strongly objected to joining this association.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question. In view of the fact that both the caisses populaires and credit unions came previously under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments, could the Minister of Finance indicate whether the federal government has held discussions with the provincial governments concerning the possibility of having these organizations come under such a federal agency as the Canadian Payment Association or another federal agency?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the details of this legislation will be announced in due course. Participation will be on a voluntary basis, and the caisses populaires and credit unions will have to decide one way or another, once the legislation has been duly introduced and studied.
May 3, 1978


PRIVILEGE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It refers to a question which I directed to the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) on Wednesday, April 25, 1978, and the response which he gave at that time. As reported at page 4828 of Hansard dated April 25, 1978, my question was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Solicitor General. It arises from recent testimony before the McDonald commission which has shown that members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police took part in illegal activities for which they could be prosecuted under the Criminal Code. The Solicitor General is quoted in today's Globe and Mail as saying he is not planning to take any action in connection with these breaches of the Criminal Code. Can the minister tell us why he does not intend to take action against those who broke the law of Canada?
The Solicitor General's response was very clear. His reply reads as follows:
The hon. gentleman has undoubtedly read the terms of reference of the McDonald commission. They include power to inquire into procedures which might not have been authorized by specific legal provisions. The evidence in the past week has shown-if this is what the hon. member is referring to-that there have been what are called surreptitious entries. A legal opinion has been forthcoming from the Department of Justice to the effect that these procedures are legal.
I note the Solicitor General did not say "some" or "a few". He said "these procedures are legal." He continued by saying:
There is a decided opinion with reference to their legality, and I wish the evidence were completely adduced before the commission so that the inquiry, which is proceeding apace, would be able to make a judgment and bring in its own recommendations.
In today's edition of the Globe and Mail, the Solicitor General informed the public of Canada that, in effect, he found his thought processes were indeed obscure. He found there is no such legal opinion forthcoming to indicate that these surreptitious entries were legal.
I submit the Solicitor General misled the House of Commons. He did not know what he was speaking about. He rose and said things which were not correct. I suggest that he has misled the House. He ought to show some courage and com-monsense by standing up in the House like a man and by saying to the House and the people of Canada that he was wrong, and that he apologizes for misleading them.
It is fine for him to make the statements he has made as to how he is prepared to lay things before attorneys general, that he is so open, et cetera. But the fact of the matter is that he misled the House last Wednesday. He should rise and apologize for having done so. We would have a lot more respect for him if he would conduct himself in an open and frank fashion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) raises by way of a question of privilege a matter which was touched on during oral questions today. Of course, it does not fall within the realm of a question of privilege. In
Order Paper Questions
any case, if it did, it is not followed by a motion which would call for any action on the part of the Chair. I would have to see such a motion to be able to determine in a final way whether or not the matter is a question of privilege. Even if it does come within the general lettering which might touch upon privilege, without a motion there is nothing for the Chair to act upon.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table in both official languages copies of a highway agreement respecting an improvement between New Brunswick and Canada.


Mr. Ed Lumley:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I missed the call for the tabling of documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there consent to revert to the tabling of documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


ANTI-INFLATION ACT TABLING OF REFERENCE FROM ANTI-INFLATION BOARD
Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, herewith is a copy of a reference from the Anti-Inflation Board to the administrator for tabling in the House, pursuant to subsection 17(2) of the Anti-Inflation Act, in our two official languages.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1039, 1381, 1,474, 1,483, 1,505 and 1,506.


Mr. MacKay: During the first week of December 1977, did any members of the Prime Minister's office travel to Vancouver and, if so (a) for what purpose (b) how
5114

May 3, 1978
Order Paper Questions
many persons made the trip and what were their names and positions (c) did any such persons attend, as voting delegates, the nominating meeting of the Quadra Liberal Association in Vancouver on December 5, 1977?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No.


Mr. Dionne (Kamouraska): Since 1970, did the government allocate any money for the development, construction, repair or for any other kind of work on buildings for the Post Office Department in the constituency of Kamouraska and, if so, in what amount?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: The Department of Public Works has the following expenditures for the development, construction, repair or for any other kind of work on buildings for the Post Office Department in the constituency of Kamouraska from April 1, 1971 to February 28, 1978.
$ Capital	$ Operating	$ Total1971/72	59,466	52,033	111,4991972/73	2,304	62,013	64,3171973/74	1,771	66,096	67,8671974/75	234,498	82,318	316,8161975/76	94,876	126,141	221,0171976/77	7,090	140,694	147,7841977/78 (To February 28/78)	91,082	16,374	107,456
Information prior to April 1, 1971 is not available as per the Government of Canada's general records disposal schedule.


Mr. Huntington: 1.	Was a German company, BHS awarded a contract by CIDA for construction of a cement plant in Indonesia and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Did any companies bid on the project and, if so (a) what are their names (b) what were the bids, in dollars, in each case?
3.	Was steel provided by Canada for the project fabricated in Taiwan and, if so (a) for what reason (b) what was the cost of fabricating the steel in Taiwan as compared to the cost of fabricating it in Canada?
4.	What is the total (a) cost of the project (b) Canadian content, in dollars, and in materials supplied (c) Canadian content of man years (d) amount of involvement by CIDA in the project?


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. No.
2, 3 and 4. Not applicable.


Mr. Howie: Has the government taken the decision to have public servants discontinue taking second language instruction training at the New Brunswick Provincial Language School and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: it was the New
Brunswick public service commission's decision to discontinue providing this service to the federal government. The New Brunswick provincial language school intends to concentrate on the development of their own program and the Public Service Commission (federal) is presently taking steps to ensure the continuation of their language training program in Fredericton through other means, (i.e. University of Fredericton and possibly University of St-Thomas).


Mr. Patterson: What amount was spent by the Department of Public Works in the constituency of Fraser Valley East in each year since 1970?


J. Judd Buchanan: As of March 31, 1978 Department of Public Works-funded expenditures in the constituency of Fraser Valley East were as follows: 1972-73, $246,000; 1973-74, $611,000; 1974-75, $408,710; 1975-76, $766,868; 1976-77, $922,737; 1977-78, $755,400. Information prior to April 1, 1972, is not available as per the Government of Canada records disposal schedule.


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What members of the press, House of Commons, PMO staff accompanied Prime Minister Trudeau on his recent visit to New York?
2.	Who accompanied the Prime Minister to his meeting with the United Nations Secretary General?
3.	What members of the Department of External Affairs based in Ottawa, accompanied the Prime Minister on his visit to New York?


Yvon Pinard: See reply to question 2,881 answered October 17, 1977.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 1,397 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 1,397 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Mr. MacKay.)
May 3, 1978

Social Policy



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Docs the government have available an economic impact analysis of the effect of conversion to the metric system and (a) if so (i) on what date was the analysis done and by whom (ii) from what areas was such data gathered (b) if not, for what reason?
2.	What facts does the government have to ensure that metric conversion is in the best interest of the Canadian economy during the current recession in North America?
3.	Will standardization benefit Canada in the long run?
4.	What information is available, and what analysis has been done, regarding the implication of our trade position in the short term?
5.	What steps has the government taken to provide (a) low cost loans (b) technical assistance (c) education for small businesses?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PETITIONS
John Carnell Crosbie: On motions, Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present. May I do that now?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is a petition from residents of the electoral district of St. John's West, the Mundy Pond area. The petition contains 136 signatures, and 1 think it is in the proper form. They are from an area where they have had a Neighbourhood Improvement Program and a Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program which have been of great benefit to them. They understand those programs are terminating on March 31 this year. They ask for them to be continued, that an appropriate measure be taken to continue them, because they have found them to be of great benefit. I should like to submit the petition, Mr. Speaker.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions for production of documents be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF SUPPLY


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the social policy of the government contains severe inequities for elderly Canadians, and in particular the House considers the practice of terminating the spouse's allowance after the death of the older marriage partner to be cruel and unjust.
She said: Mr. Speaker, once again the opposition is using one of its few allotted days to bring to the attention of the House a matter which seems to be of far too little concern to the government, that is, the increasing financial difficulties confronting elderly Canadians living on fixed and low incomes. Unfortunately, too many Canadians are unaware of the problems and inequities which exist for this particular age group, and many even think that such problems, if they ever did exist, have since been taken care of.
Everyone knows the old adage that if you repeat something often enough, people will begin to believe it. Once they take hold, certain ideas become so commonplace and so taken for granted that a bare bones exposure of the true facts can be downright startling. Current attitudes to social policy reflect this syndrome.
It is taken for granted that our standard of living has risen and that the number of Canadians living in poverty has declined. People equate the one with the other; but why? It is because they have heard for so long about the Prime Minister's just society and about the endless march of government welfare programs which purport to take care of the needs of all sectors of Canadian society.
Many people are inclined to believe they pay high taxes in order to help out those who are less fortunate than themselves. They believe it because the government has told them this is what is being done with their tax money, that it is being used for the benefit of other less fortunate people. As a recent report from the C. D. Howe Research Institute entitled "In Search of Robin Hood", issued in April of 1978, has pointed out:
Whether or not the outcome of government redistributive activity has been desirable, the belief that there has been a substantial increase in redistributive activity has gone unchallenged.
The report states:
It is almost an article of faith that income is being redistributed more and more in Canada.
The report then goes on to explode that article of faith. It shows that the federal government's budgetary policy has provided higher benefits for the higher income families than for the poor, and that the redistribution of income has changed little in the last 25 years. The report asks:
Has the federal government substantially improved the economic position of the poor relative to the highest income families in the 1970's?
80038-34%

May 3, 1978
Social Policy
It answers that question with an overwhelming conclusion, and that conclusion is "No". The fact is that over the past decade Canadians have been paying more and more taxes, and almost everybody realizes that. We know that in 1978 the average worker is paying $1,500 a year in income tax as compared with less than $400 when this government first took office.
Canadians have been paying these taxes believing that, because of the government's proliferation of welfare programs, fewer and fewer Canadians have been living in poverty and that the gap between the rich and the poor was being narrowed. Now they are waking up from this giant spending spree which has been conducted on their behalf by the government. Canadians are waking up to discover that any narrowing of the gap between the rich and the poor has occurred in spite of, and not because of, the government's policies, and that although inflation may have raised the poverty line, nevertheless, there are still some three million Canadians who live below that poverty line. That is the shocking and bare truth with regard to poverty in this country.
The truth is we do not have a welfare state. Rather, what we have is gross mismanagement of the taxpayers' money and of the country's resources. Sadly, a number of recent reports do indeed show that we have not reduced poverty in Canada. We have shifted the numbers a little. Families are a little bit better off than they were, with some 17 per cent living in poverty in 1969 and almost 12 per cent now. Some 32 per cent of the unattached youth lived in poverty in 1969 and 35 per cent do now. However, overall the basic picture has not substantially changed. There is still too much poverty in this country, and the government's words of self-praise about its success in reducing poverty do not conform to the facts. There is a very real discrepancy between what the government says and what the government does. On the one hand, we have the true facts about poverty in this country; on the other, we have what the government says are the facts.
Just recently, in the last few weeks, we had an even more striking example of the divergence, the differences, between the government's words and the government's actions. That striking example was seen in the recent issuance of guidelines to charitable organizations, those organizations which direct so much effort toward alleviating social and economic problems, particularly in respect of the poor of this country.
In a recent speech the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had fine words for our country's charitable and voluntary organizations. I should like to quote a paragraph from his March 22 speech to the Economic Club of New York. He said in the course of that speech:
The not-for-profit and voluntary sectors of our societies could be made to flourish. Historically they have been the source of the humanizing social movements which were the life-blood of our liberal democracies. They have employed the creative energies of many of our people. Their decline has been inevitably reflected in a growth of government and commercial services. It has resulted in a loss of a sense of community. Surely we need this sector. We need to develop alternate styles of work and leisure and we need to demonstrate that there are other ways of doing the community's work. On a broad second front we must give encouragement and sustenance to these efforts. There is no threat here, only boundless opportunity.

Those were the words of the Prime Minister in New York a few weeks ago. Of course, he was right to say we need this voluntary sector. I suggest we need it more than ever with the government's failure to cope with poverty in this country; more than ever we need the work of charitable and voluntary organizations. We need them too to help prod this government into action to even out the economic inequities. The Prime Minister was right to say they could be made to flourish and that we must give encouragement and sustenance to their efforts. What fine words these were on behalf of the Prime Minister.
When it comes to actions instead of words, what do we find? This is where we find the divergence. We find instead a set of guidelines that, far from offering encouragement, gives restrictions to and curtailment of the activities and freedoms of these organizations; which, far from helping those organizations to flourish, effectively serves to muzzle them in their efforts; which, far from providing the boundless opportunity the Prime Minister promised, raises the spectre of intimidation.
How can these charitable organizations, most of which are attempting to ameliorate the plight of certain underprivileged groups of people, be made to flourish when all of the avenues of effecting change are being closed to them? If they are not allowed to lobby, to hold public demonstrations or to conduct letter-writing campaigns to elected representatives, how can they make the government aware of their concerns? How can they get their point across if effective methods of doing so are considered to be what this government terms political and, as it says, "a threat to their status as charitable organizations"? We are not talking about partisan political efforts here at all. What the government says in its circular is that it sees any involvement in the political process, even that of recommending legislation on an issue of national concern, as a questionable and perhaps even subversive activity by these groups.
As it points out in the circular, these groups must do nothing to embarrass the present government because that, too, would be considered illegal or would be questionable enough to have their charitable status withdrawn. We have seen that government legislation, all too often over the years, has reached out to intrude more and more into the lives of Canadians, both of the rich and of the poor. This is a fact of life that Canadians begrudgingly accept, but the corollary of the simple fact of the growth of government activity is that in this day and age any meaningful change in the situation of any particular group which has been overlooked, overburdened or unprotected by the mass of existing legislation can only be affected by changing legislation.
Any legitimate effort to influence changes in legislation has now been declared political by this government, and in its view is therefore unacceptable activity by a charitable organization. We have an absurd situation here, Mr. Speaker: Charitable organizations cannot do their work except by being what the government terms political; but if they engage in political activity, they lose their tax exempt status as a charitable
May 3, 1978

organization. Think about it; they cannot be charitable unless they are political, but if they are political they are not allowed to be charitable. The absurdity of this situation must be evident even to a government as cynical, hard-headed and hard-hearted as the one we have lived with for the past decade.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The non-profit and voluntary organizations play a much needed role in bringing issues into the open, in highlighting the plight of certain groups, in analysing the situation of the elderly, the unemployed, youth, children, et cetera, both as to present and future needs. Their work cannot be done without promoting change, and this means legislative change.
It is only too obvious that we cannot rely solely on the government to assess and correct the situation of the poor in this country. Their record so far is not an enviable one. The inequities of our social system have not been evened out over the last decade, in spite of the fact that government expenditures have more than quadrupled in the last ten years.
The elderly are the greatest sufferers and the greatest victims of the inequities in our social system. It is indeed discouraging to think that in the Canada of today one-third of the elderly, some one million Canadians, live below the poverty line. The group that concerns me most in that particular age category is the group of unattached elderly, especially single elderly women. Almost one-half of the unattached single Canadians in the age bracket 65 to 69 and almost two-thirds of those over the age of 70 live below the Statistics Canada poverty line.
The situation for unattached women 60 to 65 is even worse. None of the government's pension programs touch the majority of these women. Unable to get work because of their age or because of ill health, ineligible for Canada Pension Plan benefits-because in the government's view housework is not productive labour-and without a husband or a husband's pension to take care of them, these women are at the mercy of the welfare rolls. Many of them eke out a meagre existence on less than $2,000 a year.
Some of these women, in this age category, 60 to 65, previously lived in relative comfort a few steps above the poverty line while their husbands were alive-they could draw between them or jointly the old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the spouse's allowance as a couple. These women now find themselves alone and pensionless. The situation arises from the government's curious logic in relation to the spouse's allowance, which says that two people may need $6,000 on which to live-and they have to show a need to achieve that-while the pensioner is alive, but when one dies, the one that is left needs nothing to get along on. That remaining spouse has the pension withdrawn. Now, what curious logic, what curious kind of reasoning, is this? One could really laugh at the government's reasoning if the results of it were not so tragic.
Not only must these elderly people-although my main concern here is with women, the situation is equally desperate
Social Policy
for many unattached men-cope with meagre incomes, but they must also cope with rising costs, especially with regard to food and shelter. The price of food which has come close to doubling in over-all price since 1972 has risen 12 per cent in the past year. And it cannot all be blamed on the price of coffee, as the government tries to make out. The price of a loaf of bread, a quart of milk, a pound of butter, all basic essentials, has almost doubled. A can of salmon, which is hardly a luxury, cost 72 cents five years ago and now costs $1.41; a box of soda crackers has risen from 28 cents to 55 cents. A basic 15-item food basket that cost $10 in 1973 cost $18 last month. That is what these people have to cope with in addition to having no or low income.
Many of these elderly people on meagre incomes have less than $15 a week for food. Their incomes are, for the most part, static, and doubled food prices for them means not that it costs them twice as much to eat, but that they can only afford half as much. There is a great difference between what you can buy and what you can afford, and this applies particularly to elderly people on fixed and low incomes.
What is of particular concern to me is that their diets have probably only half the nutritional value that they had five years ago. Many of these elderly people are undernourished; more than half of elderly females have a less than adequate intake of iron and vitamins A and B. This has been shown to be true by many reports and statistics. Is it any wonder that is so when the price of onions, turnips and carrots, the most basic Canadian year-round vegetables-not imports but year-round Canadian vegetables-has doubled since 1972?
Even for the elderly whose income from old age security and the guaranteed income supplement is indexed to the cost of living, increased food prices mean less food. They spend proportionately more of their income on food and we see food prices generally rise faster than the overall price index. An income increase of 5 per cent or 6 per cent cannot match the past year's increase in food prices of 12 per cent. It is therefore imperative that a system of indexing be devised which reflects the real expenditures of the elderly and indexes pensions accordingly.
The situation of the elderly is not one in which we can take pride, certainly not one in which the government can take any pride. The situation of elderly women is shocking, as the Canadian Council on Social Development has stated in a recent report on women and pensions. When questioned about this shocking situation the government responds that they are doing all they can. They shrug their shoulders and say "We cannot spend any more money; the taxpayers don't want us to spend any more money." We have heard them say that and it may be true. But we are not asking them to spend more money; we are simply asking them to spend properly the money that they do collect-not to spend more, just to spend it well.
We might be more sympathetic to the government's excuse of lack of money to help ease the plight of widows, for

May 3, 1978
Social Policy
example, if it were not for the government's incredible record of waste. This government wastes millions of dollars of taxpayers' money annually. Some of the wastage we have seen in the last year has been highlighted by the Auditor General's report.
How many spouses could have been maintained with the $2 million the government gave to the nuclear sales agent, Shaul Eisenberg, for services never rendered; with the $17 million that has been committed to renting unoccupied excess property in Vancouver at a cost of $241,000 per year until the year 2045; with the $95 million in overpayments made by the Unemployment Insurance Commission; or with the $4.5 million paid for rental of unoccupied and, in some cases, unfinished office space in Ottawa in 1975-76? Even those few items I have listed total some $120 million of taxpayers' money which was wasted and which could well have gone toward continuing the spouse's allowance for those who have had it cut off.
The government's spending habits are notorious and I will not take any more time listing them. I could go on and on. But I do have to say that it grieves me deeply that the $10,000 in fees that the government is paying without batting an eyelash to cover the damages in a libel suit for one of its tactless ministers, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), would provide for payment of the spouse's allowance to one Canadian widow for the years between age 60 and 65 for which she would be eligible.
It is this kind of extravagance and waste that highlights the meanness of the government's social policy toward elderly widows. It is this kind of extravagance in relation to a select few at the expense of the ordinary Canadian that highlights the government's insensitivity to the problems of the poor and elderly who, for the large part, are one and the same group.
The withdrawal of spouse's allowance is a mean and cruel practice. It victimizes those who least deserve it-people, mostly women, who have devoted years of their lives to the service of family and community. They do not deserve to suffer the double loss of their spouse and their income. This heartless practice, which represents a minimal saving in the phenomenal national budget and which is money already allocated, should be discontinued immediately. The surviving spouse should be allowed to keep the spouse's allowance. Surely the government should not look to the death of the elder marriage partner in order to achieve a "windfall profit".
I want to emphasize that the motion I am putting forward is just a preliminary step toward easing the financial burden of the elderly in this country. It does not cover single, divorced or separated people in the same age group and it could be seen as creating further inequities. I would emphasize, however, that the inequities are already there in abundance and that this one step would serve to remove at least one of the inequities.
Surely nothing can be more unjust than taking away the small pension that is a person's sole livelihood. To not give a pension to a particular group is one inequity; but to take a pension away is surely a greater one. Even members of the

government opposite must be able to perceive this injustice. I implore them to take immediate action to correct it.


Mr. McGrath:: Read the motion!


Monique Bégin: That is what I did, I read the motion but, apparently, the Progressive Conservative party did not have enough to say on this motion and felt compelled to talk mostly about the sun instead of limiting itself to the motion. As concerns the status of women, I wish to answer a point raised by the hon. member that has nothing to do with the spouse's allowance but casts serious reflections on the actions of this government, and I find it quite dishonest. I am talking about income tax circular No. 78-3 dated February 27, 1978. I will comment on it in relation to the status of women, Mr. Speaker, and I think that you will allow me to say a few words because the subject was brought to my attention similarly when I was Minister of National Revenue.
I particularly remember AFEAS which does a very good job on issues of concern to women and families and has 38,000 members in Quebec. I also remember groups from the Vancouver Committee on the Status of Women and many Canadian associations, namely women's associations, which came to see me and inform me about a situation that seemed unfair to me at the time, that is the possibility of getting a tax exemption number for charitable donations. The officials of the department explained to me that according to tradition, tax exemption registration for charitable donations was given to associations with medical, educational, cultural purposes, sport associations and others of the same type. According to precedents going back to Elizabeth I, on the other hand, any political action prevents an organization from obtaining tax concessions. In other words, if the Association des femmes diplomees des universites, the National Action Committee of
May 3, 1978

the Status of Women of Canada, the Federative Catholic Women's League or AFEAS that 1 mentioned earlier, the Federation des femmes du Quebec, if any women's association which has been promoting the interests of Canadian women had asked for an exemption for charitable donations under the Income Tax Act, most would have been turned down as were many other volunteer associations in Canada. In fact, their charter allows their members to engage in what might be called political activities under the Income Tax Act.
The Income Tax Act does not allow groups who want to obtain funds and enable people to deduct charitable donations from their income tax to engage in political activities. I therefore asked senior officials to update an interpretation of the act which I thought unfair, and I am very happy to be able to clarify this issue today. When the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) gets all heated up about this, she is getting angry for nothing. We are the first ones to want to update the interpretation of the act, even though this does not come directly under our jurisdiction, but rather under the judiciary when it comes to determining if a certain activity is political or not. I suggest-and I hope this will not make me the target of any criticism-that voluntary organizations which deal with the status of women or any other valid cause in the eyes of Canadian society should be allowed to engage in certain political activities.
This is what we all believe on this side of the House, and circular 78-3 which was published recently by the Department of National Revenue will be completely revised. I am happy to be able to inform the House that my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Guay), has made a commitment to revise the circular and to take our request into consideration. I do not know why the hon. member is laughing. Perhaps she does not understand. I shall try to explain this differently. Oh, I see that the Progressive Conservative party is pleased and supports the status of women! I am happy to see this since we are not used to such support. We want certain activities of a political nature which are acceptable to Canadian society- and the examples I mentioned should not of course be considered binding for the government-to be recognized as valid and legal.
Of course no case has been tested in the courts in 75 years, if my memory serves me right, which makes it difficult for the experts to determine what would be acceptable in the courts today. Writing letters and making representations to members of parliament is in my opinion a political activity which has become part of Canadian customs, can shock no one and is absolutely respectable and important for the health of a democracy. If I understand my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, the senior officials will see what is being done in Great Britain, among other countries, to determine the types of political activities which would not be acceptable and would go against the purpose of the legislation since, after all, it finances indirectly these organizations with the money of all
Social Policy
Canadians, and which other types of activities are quite acceptable and give evidence of the health of the Canadian democracy. Mr. Speaker, that is all I have to say about the point raised by the hon. member and which has nothing to do with this debate.
[DOT]	(1542)

The spouse's allowance program which is at the very core of this motion of non-confidence put forward by the opposition is a program that was brought into effect in October 1975. There are four programs that we know of which have been in existence for the past two and a half years and which we can observe, study and assess. Under the spouse's allowance program, allowances are paid to spouses between the ages of 60 and 64 inclusive. These allowances are for old age pensioners when the need is established by an income test. This income test is one of the most reasonable that I know of. It takes into account that a couple may have a small house, and no matter the value of that house, if it has some reasonable value it would not be deducted from the budgetary list of income and expenses on which they are assessed. This is to find out if the spouse, who in most cases is a woman, is eligible to receive that additional pension called spouse's allowance.
What is most important and what was totally lacking in the contribution made by the hon. member opposite is that the spouse's allowance-in all honesty this should have been mentioned by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald)-was introduced in the context of the guaranteed annual income which her own political party more than anything else has helped kill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Monique Bégin: If I understood the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) correctly, he used the most pornographic or criminal word one can use in this place concerning the guaranteed annual income, which has always been, no matter what name it is given, a commitment of this government. Many cliches, fears and fairy tales which are frightening instead of hopeful have been described by the hon. member for Athabasca. He is trying to make people believe that a guaranteed income would bring the economy of this country to the worst possible point. Many other members opposite have supported the hon. member in this approach.
[DOT]	(1552)
I do not know where the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands was during that debate. I do not know what kind of a fight she had to put up in her caucus in order to obtain a formal commitment to any form of guaranteed income. I do not know where she was when the estimates of my department were being studied a few weeks ago by the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. I did not hear her speaking about older people, older women in particular. After a few very good reports were published by some outside groups, it suddenly became a fad to be talking about the issue.

May 3, 1978
Social Policy
We then heard her voice. Otherwise she was interested in federal-provincial relations and the politics of federal and provincial governments, but not the politics of people.
The spouse's allowance program was introduced in the context of the first step toward a guaranteed annual income. In answer to a question the other day, I informed the House that a guaranteed annual income was rejected by the provinces at one of the last federal-provincial meetings concerned with the social security review. It was rejected for many different reasons. Some of these were explained at that time by my predecessor. They left us with one possibility of action, namely to explore tax related programs of income supplementation which by definition include a selectivity feature and no longer the charcteristic of universality.
We brought about the spouse's allowance in recognition of the hardships faced by many older couples who no longer have a full salary but only the benefits of a single pension. By doing that, we were at the same time introducing another inequity. I do not recall the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands bringing that to the attention of hon. members when this House discussed that bill two and a half years ago.
The spouse's allowance was meant to answer the urgent problem of a couple. It has nothing to do with a principle. There is no principle behind the spouse's allowance. The spouse's allowance was designed to meet a practical situation, no more, no less. It is the first step toward helping those in need between 60 and 65. In saying that, I have just stated the purpose of this government. The purpose of this government, be it through a guaranteed annual income which we know will not take place or any other program of income supplementation that will come about sooner or later, and the sooner the better, is to help all those in need aged 60 to 65.
That is why, when it is recommended that we continue the spouse's allowance for those who receive it until they reach the age of 65, I have to oppose it. It multiplies the inequities for other people, often women who are not married. I refer, for example, to the eldest sister looking after the parents and left without any employment or possibility of employment because of her age, and having not yet reached age 65. This is a lifestyle of our society.
We have to respect those women who might have been married before the age of 60 but are no longer as a result of a divorce, death of her spouse, separation, or any other reason, and who did not fall under the bill proposing the spouse's allowance.
Moreover, we have to help all those aged 60 to 65. One of my colleagues on the government side will address the cost problem that is involved. If there were no cost problem, there would be no problem. It is very nice and easy to exploit the problems of people by trying to create expectations. However, the job of a politician is to choose between resources and priorities, trying to keep a balance and to satisfy the various needs of all the groups in Canada. That is the task of the government.

Finding a solution for those in need between 60 and 64 is the second priority I have set for myself. The first is to find a solution for single parents or two-parent families with children who are among the working poor. They are not covered by existing provincial welfare programs because they are working, or they may be earning more than the minimum wage-but not really enough to live.
I set this group as my first priority after a great deal of inquiry among various groups in our society and officials working on these questions, those who are committed to social reform in our country. I attempted to determine the most vulnerable groups in Canada. There is not enough money to look after all groups. Which group should we help first; whose hardships and problems are the most critical? I was told that older people are in the second group. Later this afternoon one of my colleagues will describe the various programs to provide them with an allowance or pension, or exempting them through the tax system, making them slightly less vulnerable.
The second problem in these days of economic uncertainty is to reallocate moneys within the existing expenditures. We are working through the tax system to see what changes can be brought about in order to diminish the gap between the poorest in our society and those with the greatest share of its wealth.
[ Translation]
As far as the spouse's allowance program is concerned, the real problem is this. We introduced this program two and a half years ago. We believe that with the support of parliament and public opinion, we could have made headway with the idea of a guaranteed annual income. Honesty compels me to say that the opposition has done everything to kill this idea of a guaranteed annual income for all Canadians. Since I was appointed minister six months ago, members of the opposition have been most conspicuous among those who, during the question period, have repeatedly worried Canadians by suggesting that the government was spending too much under the social programs, which of course is simply not true. Just now, the problem is this: 74,000 Old Age Pension recipients, most of them women, also receive the spouse's allowance.
I have just said that about 74,000 younger spouses receive these pension benefits, which averaged around $130.60 a month during 1977. It is estimated that approximately 200 persons receiving spouse's allowance lose their benefits each month.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Monique Bégin: That is a fact of life. Hon. gentlemen had better address it as such and find a solution rather than saying "Shame". This is based on legislation which was passed by all parties and none of them have the courage to say what should have been done to correct it.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You were not in the committee.
May 3, 1978


Monique Bégin: Yes, I was. A few members on this side did point out that we might encounter some inequities in respect of older women, unattached individuals between the ages of 60 and 64 who were in need, but who thought a guaranteed annual income would look after their needs. Since the spouse's allowance program began, approximately 5,800 beneficiaries have lost benefits because of the death of the older spouse. Of course, when they reach 65 these persons will themselves become eligible for the old age pension. Therefore, there are approximately 3,750 of all past beneficiaries who have yet to qualify for the old age pension, since they have not yet reached the age of 65. That is the problem to which we should address outselves. Members should decide whether they are ready to allocate resources to this program as a top priority, resources which would have to be taken from funds available for other programs, and I insist on this.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands said the other day, if 1 am not mistaken, that the department had a hidden $400,000 which could cover the pensions of all the people losing spouse's allowance. I have myself checked with the department and I find there has never been such a hidden sum of money. We do not know what the hon. lady is referring to. She says that extending the spouse's allowance program would not involve additional expenditure, but it would involve addional expenditure and that is the cause of the problem. I will personally not accept any solution which creates, in turn, another inequity. At one time we were pretty sure that a guaranteed annual income was to be expected in the near future but we faced every year more difficult economic conditions and a conservative movement in Canada, both small "c" and big "C", shifting each day more to the right, which did not permit the government to take the action which we think is fair and necessary.
Since it is a question of money I shall talk about money for a few minutes. I shall not accept continuance of the spouse's allowance until the age of 65, as the hon. member proposes. I cannot accept it because it would be creating a worse inequity for the woman next door, on the same street, who is called Miss Somebody instead of being Mrs. Somebody. That is a situation which I cannot support at all. Nor can I support the proposal to lower the age of pension for all persons from 65 to 60.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: You will get there some day.


Monique Bégin: No! I think that is a mistaken idea. I regret that the hon. gentleman was not born a few years earlier than he was, before the time he lived in parliament, where he has done a lot of work for social reform because 1 honestly believe a pension at age 60 is a measure which should have existed at least 30 or 40 years ago but not today. It is the way I would have designed social policy at that time, because in those days life expectancy was much shorter than it is now, when the average is 78 for Canadian women and 76 for men. It was something over 50 years then. In the second place, the hard, physical type of work which was so common, work of a type
Social Policy
which is less and less prevalent, should have been recognized as justifying a pension at an earlier age.
Today we are witnessing a reverse movement. We are living in a society in Canada where there is a longer life expectancy, the longest in the world, in fact, due to better diet and living conditions. We are also witnessing a movement among older Canadians against the validity of the idea of compulsory retirement at the age of 65. In addition, I should mention that the cost of providing an old age pension for all at the age 60 would be around $2 billion.
Then again we have never asked ourselves what type of life we would be offering all these Canadians who would be 60 and over and in retirement. I know the New Horizons Program is a good one and I believe members on both sides of the House approve of it, but it is a limited program with limited funds, permitting some initiatives but surely not fulfilling the lives of people who have 20 more years to live after retirement. Our society, like North American society generally, has not yet given sufficient thought to the room it wants to give older Canadians, where it wants them to serve, how they can be integrated into movements and associations without being, in a sense, totally "ghettoized". It is true there are movements and associations of older people only, and there is nothing wrong with old age citizens groups of any sort; but I find it a pity that Canadian society cannot benefit more extensively from the experience, the thinking and imagination of older people who could easily serve, for example, in day care centres, or helping teachers by telling stories or explaining ways of hunting or other skills that they learnt in their own lives to children-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: May 3, 1978
Social Policy


Stanley Howard Knowles: I enjoy the friendly teasing I get sometimes around here, Mr. Speaker, about having been here for quite a while, but this is the first time it has been suggested to me that I should have come even before I did!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I could have come here a few years earlier, but back in those days you had to be 21 even to run for this place.
I rise to support the motion presented by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). This will make it necessary for me to answer some of the statements that have been made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), but I hope to relate my remarks directly to the motion and to the import of the motion as I see it.
The motion speaks of severe inequities in the government's arrangements for elderly Canadians, and then cites a particular case having to do with an inequity suffered by women. The facets of the subject of retirement income or the arrangements we make for our older people are many, and the two speeches made thus far demonstrate that point. But I should like, in the time that I have this afternoon, to concentrate on a gross unfairness which, it seems to me, exists and which we should correct, and that is the unfairness of our pension arrangements to women in our society.
I listened with interest when the Minister of National Health and Welfare gave us her priorities in social policy, and I find there is a good deal of merit in the priorities that she outlined. She said that she is, first of all, concerned about those who are in their working years and who do not have enough income to maintain a decent standard of living or to maintain their families. Then she said that the second priority, so far as she is concerned, has to do with older people. Well, I should like to draw to her attention the fact, in terms of older people, that a distinction must be made between the treatment accorded to men and the treatment accorded to women. The fact is that on many counts older women suffer discrimination, and if the minister looks more closely at the suffering of older women, I think she will find that their need has a priority equal to the priority which she gives as number one.
There are several ways, as I said, in which that discrimination stands out, but even before I get to that I might say a word or two on some of the things the minister said. I notice, of course, that she, like many before her on that side, has a great deal of sympathy with the social aims advanced from this side, but there is always the cost problem. I remember reading about it when finance minister Dunning told J. S. Woodsworth that we could not pay a pension of $20 to Canadians 70 years and over because we could not afford it. That was in the 1920s.
When I came here in the early 1940s, Mr. Ilsley was the finance minister. He was also sympathetic to the pleas I was making on behalf of older people, but he told us that the country could not afford the cost.
Down through the years, everything that we have advocated by way of an improvement in social policy has been given that answer-that we cannot afford the cost. Mind you, it is a bit of an experience to sit here today and hear the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) trying to point out that things are so much better in the United States than they are here, and then hear the Liberals on the other side boasting about medicare and about our social programs, programs against which they fought for years, indeed for decades. However, the fact is that we have implemented these programs and we are able to afford them and will go on affording them.
In terms of retirement income, I think the statistics I gave in a speech some time ago spell out the point. At the present time, the older people of this country, people 65 years of age and over, constitute about 9 per cent of the population, but the total income of that 9 per cent is about 4 per cent of the wealth being produced by this country today. That total income includes not only their old age security and other government benefits, but any private income some of them may have.
When we talk about the cost of social programs, that is the reality to which we must address ourselves. Can we not as a society so order our affairs, so distribute the wealth that we produce, that we can give a section of our society, which amounts to 9 per cent, something better than the 4 per cent we are giving them now? If we cannot do that, let us not have all this talk about the cost that we cannot afford.
I was also interested in the comment of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to the effect that the government wanted to move in the direction of a guaranteed annual income. At one point she blamed the provinces, but then she blamed the opposition.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am glad I was not here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not know that this was a minority parliament. As far I know, the government has sat there with a solid majority since 1974 and has been able to do anything it wanted to do. If it did not have enough support from the Liberals on its own back benches, it has had our support down the line for social programs, as it had during the minority years from 1972 to 1974.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Foot-dragging.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister can, in some circles, get away with complaints about the provinces-and there are too many Conservative governments in the provinces of this country; she knows that and I know it- but she cannot get away with the argument that this government could not do what it wanted to in the parliament of 1974 to 1978, with the huge majority it has had in all that time.
There is one other matter with which I should like to dispense, and it takes only a sentence or two to do it. The
[Miss Blgin.1
May 3, 1978

minister said that when legislation respecting spouse's allowance was brought in, nobody on the opposition side of the House complained about the inequities or unfairnesses in it. All she has to do is to get her research people to trot out the record of the speeches that were made. My friend the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) was a little annoyed because in my first speech I pointed out that they had been asking in the last election for the pension to be paid at the age of 60 to the wives of pensioners, whereas we wanted more than that. We wanted more than that all the time; we were never satisfied with the pension paid to the spouses of pensioners where the spouses were between the ages of 60 and 65. We wanted it across the board, willing though we might be to accept an income test or some test like that, but not a marital test. So I invite the minister to read the record of the debate which took place in June of 1975, and also to read the debates that went on in the standing committee to which that bill was referred.
At any rate, let me get down to what I think is the thrust of this motion. I am delighted it has been presented this afternoon. For all we can boast about our old age programs being pretty good, or a lot better than they were when I first came here, there are still inequities particularly with respect to women. Women in the older age brackets suffer discrimination, and we ought to straighten that out. Now that a woman is the Minister of National Health and Welfare, perhaps she will see to it that this is done.
There are all sorts of pension programs, led by the government's own pension programs, in which a widow's pension is only 50 per cent of the total pension, whereas the man's pension, if he lives on, is the full amount. How can that be justified?
There are various problems created because the Canada Pension Plan does not provide any equivalent for women who work in the homes, nor even an adequate pension for women who work and contribute to the Canada Pension Plan or for those who contribute to industrial pension plans. Because their wages have been and are still lower than the wages of men, any entitlement they earn in later years is always less. There is the case of widows of veterans, some of whom receive a full widow's pension and some of whom do not. The issue is not what their needs may be, not the attention they may have given to disabled veterans, but the percentage of disability suffered by veterans.
Also there is the situation which I brought out the other day concerning actuarial tables. This was brought to light because of a ruling in the supreme court of the United States which held that employers in that country cannot continue to charge women more for their pensions simply because they are women and are therefore likely to live longer.
This brings to mind the Nellie McClung story about disability pensions being sold by her husband's company. This occurred many decades ago. The insurance was paid in the case of a man whether he was killed or hurt, but in the case of
Social Policy
a woman, only if she was killed. What was the reason for that distinction? It was felt a woman might disfigure or hurt herself in some way to collect a benefit.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Shame!


Stanley Howard Knowles: We laugh at that today, but other elements of discrimination still continue. It is a black mark on a parliament that, over the course of four or five decades, has done some pretty good work in establishing pension programs, yet has done such a poor job in terms of leaving women discriminated against as seriously as they are in their older years.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare referred to reports which have come out lately concerning women on pensions and so on. These were excellent reports which documented the case. Rather than chiding the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands for having seen these reports and making use of them, the Minister of National Health and Welfare should take them to heart and attempt to do something about them both in her department and in the government generally.
Now I should like to come to the particular issue which is before us, namely, that discrimination against women is highlighted by the unfairness of the spouse's allowance. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands brought out a particularly mean practice which is carried on, namely, the discontinuance of that allowance when the younger spouse becomes a widow before she is 65. In order to be correct, I realize I should say, "she or he"; but in most cases the younger spouse, if both spouses are receiving pensions and allowances, is the woman. I have received scores of letters from women in this position. Their husbands have died and their pensions have been cut off. I have not received one letter from a man in that bracket indicating that he has been discriminated against because his wife has died and his pension has been cut off.
The spouse's allowance is essentially a pension program for women between ages 60 and 65. It has been set up on the basis of discrimination of the worst kind. Effectively it says to a woman, "You do not get this pension unless you have got a man".
I do not like means tests or income tests, but I have been required to accept certain income tests. I can see the argument for an income test between the ages of 60 and 65. I think a work test would be better. I want to see a pension available at age 60 to all who are out of the labour market, without any means or income tests. But even if there is a case to be made for income tests, there is no case at all for marital tests. There is no case for saying to a woman, "Need the money though you may, you cannot get it unless you have a man".
The minister has indicated that she will not accept this motion because it adds to the inequities. The inequities are already built into the system. There is no provision for a spinster, a widow, a person who is separated or divorced, be that person male or female. The allowance is there only for the younger spouse, being a woman, who has a man.

May 3, 1978
Social Policy
Perhaps the minister is technically and logically correct in saying that passing this motion and carrying it out would add a bit more to the situation, because then some widows would be receiving allowances and other widows would not. The minister has indicated that this motion adds to the inequities. One of the reasons I support this motion is that once that happens, it cannot stop there. The government will have to go on and give this allowance to everyone.
Also I say there is a certain practical and humanitarian approach to this. It is bad enough that the government does not give the allowance to a widow who is between 60 and 65, to the spinster, nor to the older single sister who looked after members of her family. It is bad enough that the government does not give the allowance to those people. But to give it to some women between the ages of 60 and 65 who draw the benefits for a month or two or a year or two, and then to take it away, is worse. The government sends a sympathy letter which indicates, "Too bad you lost your husband/wife, but, as you know, this is what the law says".
The minister indicated that this was put forward in the context of a guaranteed annual income. I do not remember the former minister of national health and welfare making very much of that point when he introduced the legislation. That this was the beginning of a guaranteed annual income was a secret on the government side. But the minister was quite correct when she said that it was a means of solving one particular problem, namely, the problem a couple faces when trying to live on one pension. That line has been given to us repeatedly. The minister was quite correct in quoting it again today. The former minister, the present Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Regulations (Mr. Lalonde), indicated that the government was attempting to solve that one problem. I suppose it is logical to say that the government hoped to go on from that point to solve other problems, but this poor government has only an overwhelming majority and could not go any further in this 1974 to 1978 parliament!
We have said it 40 times, and we will say it another 40 times: if two people cannot be expected to live on one pension, how in the world can one person be expected to live on no pension? That is what the government is allowing to happen. It is saying to every single woman, divorced woman and widowed woman between the ages of 60 and 65 that there is nothing for them. Of course, we get the line that those people can go on social assistance or welfare programs which are just as much a right as the assistance under this program; but the fact of the matter is that the Old Age Security Act has been accepted as a basic program which carries with it pride. People are proud to be drawing pensions under the Old Age Security Act. To say to people, "No, you cannot receive benefit under this act; you must go to welfare", is degrading. That is why I feel the spouse's allowance as set up is basically wrong.
I well remember being at home watching the national news on television one night during the 1974 election campaign and hearing the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announce that they

were going to introduce the spouse's allowance. I remember saying to the television screen right then, "Does he not realize the problems that will be created?", and hearing him come back and state, almost as though we were in conversation, "This will create other problems, but we shall have to solve them later". When will the government solve them, Mr. Speaker? The Liberal party promised pensions, unemployment insurance and health insurance in 1919. It took until 1926 to get the first old age pension, until 1940 to get unemployment insurance, and until the late 1950s to get health insurance. When are we going to solve these problems?
I see that you have been handed a note telling you that my time is running out, Mr. Speaker. Before it does, may I say that although I recognize that the implementation of this motion would create further problems, I would be glad to see this done. It would solve problems for a few widows, but it would hasten the day when the government would have to provide pensions for all between ages 60 and 65 who are out of the labour market.
What is proposed in the motion of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) should be implemented forthwith. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That the motion be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"and this House calls on the government to terminate this practice
forthwith."


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the mover of the motion. I am also pleased to take part in the debate on the motion of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald).
As stated so aptly in the motion, I also think it is unjust to terminate the allowance of the spouse aged 60 to 65 after the death of the pensioner. I would like to recall that in March 1977, I moved a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 urging the government to pay at least two thirds of the allowance to the spouse aged 60 to 65 who loses his or her pensioned marriage partner. A great many people between 60 and 65 are faced with serious problems of survival, particularly pensioners' widows since the majority of those aged 60 or over are women.
The economic situation of elderly citizens is precarious since many of them who receive only transfer income from the government are seriously affected by inflation. Indeed, living at the limit or even below the poverty line, the greater part of their budget is spent on food and housing, two areas where price increases are staggering. In this situation pensioners with no investment or work income have no protection other than the quarterly indexing of their pensions.
To make this old age security system more equitable and in line with today's economic situation I suggested various improvements in the past. Indeed, our old age security system has many gaps which the government has failed to bridge so
May 3, 1978

far. One of them is the one we are discussing today. Admittedly it is difficult to explain why a non-pensioned spouse should continue to receive the spouse's allowance when single people in the same conditions were never eligible for that allowance. That is why I suggested on many occasions reducing the age of retirement to 60 and at the same time making retirement optional up to 70. This would go a long way towards solving the problem of the allowance of the spouse who loses his or her pensioned spouse. A number of jobs would also be opened up and could be made available to people drawing unemployment benefits. Any person aged 60 to 70 who is able and wants to work could forego his or her pension and keep working. So optional retirement at 60 would result in lesser outlays for the government than mandatory retirement at 60.
Mr. Speaker, there are now a little more than two million pensioners in Canada with more than half of those in receipt of the guaranteed income supplement. This system of old age security and guaranteed income for people 65 and over is costing the treasury $4.3 billion. There are now nearly 860,000 people between the ages of 60 and 65.
According to the figures for 1976-77, the average pension is $180 a month. A quick calculation shows that lowering pension age to 60 would cost close to $2 billion. But let me quote from the Canadian sociology and anthropology publication to which I referred last February when we were considering Bill C-35. It says that lowering the retirement age to 60-if we accept the reasonable assumption that the current activity rate of people over 65 would be shifted five years back-would open up more than 200,000 jobs for men and 87,000 for women. These figures represent today almost one-third of the Canadian unemployed, according to the latest Statistics Canada survey.
I agree, Mr. Speaker, that allowances must be made when considering these figures because many jobs made vacant in such a way are of a special kind since they are filled by aged workers. But still that would represent a substantial saving in terms of unemployment insurance benefits which would amount to close to $1 billion or even more. The tax burden of bringing the retirement age down to 60 would be lightened by that much.
Mr. Speaker, I concede that, in view of the difficult economic situation we are now experiencing, such a short-term financial commitment could seriously undermine the budget if we once again had to increase the burden of the debt. This is why I suggest lowering the retirement age on a progressive basis within a certain time scale. That way the financial burden would be spread over several years, which would facilitate things for the government. While conceding that over the last few years there has been real improvement regarding old age security, I take this opportunity to remind you that elderly people are always the most vulnerable to inflation and housing difficulties. Because of the many faceted problems of the
Social Policy
elderly people, it is difficult to put forth a comprehensive solution.
Yet I would urge the government to realize the difficulties these citizens have to overcome. I am aware that lowering to 60 the age of eligibility for the old age security pension raises many issues, the cost factor not being the least of them. Given the present economic situation, it seems to me that gradually reducing the age of eligibility for the old age security pension would be the most appropriate measure. I also believe that in the short run, a social measure such as early eligibility to pensions for certain persons between the ages of 60 and 65 should seriously be considered. And that 1 wish to explain. A growing number of persons falling in that age category are finding themselves unemployed because they do not have specific qualifications or are unable to get any. Having little or no investment income and being without dependents, these persons must turn to their province's welfare system for help. It seems to me that according to fair and equitable criteria these persons could be allowed to take an early retirement at 60 and start receiving their benefits under old age security. This would be a first step towards the universalization in Canada of an optional retirement income system at the age of 60.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat that the only solution that the government can offer us to correct unfair situations such as those described in the motion presented by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) is to introduce as soon as possible a program aimed at bringing down to 60, at least on a gradual basis, the age of eligibility for the old age security pension plan.
Mr. Speaker, I consider the minister to be an honest person and I think that in the heat of the debate her words exceeded her thoughts; so I should like to remind her that, on this side of the House, my party as well as the other parties of the official opposition and the New Democratic Party, we have repeatedly asked for a guaranteed minimum income. I should also like to point out that the government actually promised it during its 1974 campaign, stressing the fact that a guaranteed minimum income program would be set up in the years fo llowing that election.
Mr. Speaker, to prove my point, I gleaned several of my interventions in 1974, and more specifically during the month of-I have that in the official report of the debates for December 3, 1974. I asked the government to lower the old age security pension eligibility age from 65 to 60, and to adopt a guaranteed minimum income. As well, in 1977, on two occasions, I asked that a guaranteed minimum income program be set up for all Canadian citizens from 18 to 60 years of age.
So, the minister may want to tell the truth about the matter and tell the people that, unfortunately, it is not that the opposition put obstacles in the way of a guaranteed minimum income but that in all truth, as the hon. member for Winnipeg

May 3, 1978
Social Policy
North Centre (Mr. Knowles) stated it a while ago, the government is responsible for not having done so when, being in the majority, it could easily have respected its 1974 promise and set up, at long last, a guaranteed minimum income for all Canadian citizens.


James Aloysius McGrath: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), for bringing in this resolution. It is a sad commentary that such a resolution would in fact be necessary in the Parliament of Canada. It is a reflection on us, this institution, and it is certainly a reflection on the government of the day that enjoys a majority in this House. Indeed, it is a reflection on Canadian society itself.
While I congratulate my colleague the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands for bringing in this resolution, which would certainly commend itself to all sides of the House, it is not the first time that she has risen to speak in this House to bring forward a glaring injustice in the social structure of Canadian society. She was the first to raise the question in the House about the inequities in the Canada Pension Plan which discriminates against the homemaker in a way equally as unjust as discrimination in the provision to provide for spouse's allowance.
Without equivocation and on behalf of my party, we accept the amendments put forth by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I regret that this resolution will not come to a vote today so that we could watch some of the squirming on the other side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: If this were coming to a vote, I submit that my learned friend opposite from New Brunswick would not be half as vocal as he is in his seat right now.
The minister, who is not in the House at the moment, referred to intellectual dishonesty in her criticism of the very excellent speech by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. If there is any intellectual dishonesty-and in my opinion there is considerable intellectual dishonesty-it resides in the government of the day. Ten years ago this government came to power with the promise of a just society, yet parliament must spend one of its very important days on supply to debate a resolution which identifies discrimination against women.
I would like to tell the hon. gentleman opposite, who is smiling all over, that if he were half as knowledgeable about the subject that I am addressing to the House as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, or the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, then I might be willing to accept his interjections, albeit from his seat; but since he has no appreciation of the subject and since, like most of his colleagues over there, he has little or no sympathy for the people to whom the

resolution addresses itself, I suggest he contain himself and hold his tongue.
I can understand the minister in her criticism, and I can understand why she got excited, because anybody who has followed the career of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) would understand the position that she is in today. The word "compassion" is not in her dictionary. If it were, we would not be addressing this resolution today. I suppose the reason for that is that the hon. minister has a background of being a career bureaucrat. She is in fact a bureaucrat's bureaucrat. She is one who has been used to dealing with people as mere statistics or as part of some data coming out of a computer. Otherwise she would be able to put herself in the position of those unfortunate women who today are the forgotten minority in Canadian society. She would be able to put herself in the position of those women who have to pay inflated prices for food and do not have enough money to provide for themselves adequately. The statistics make this point abundantly clear to everybody.
The minister commented in a critical way on the references made by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands to the now notorious information circular sent out to registered charities by the Minister of National Revenue, who now resides in another place where he is untouchable by this House. It is well that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands should refer to this insidious document. Were it not for the organizations in this country that speak up for the poor, the forgotten and the social outcasts, it would be a sad day indeed. These people should not be hampered in carrying out these very important activities.
We are told today by the minister-and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has been told by the minister who resides in the other place, by way of courier-that the whole matter of this circular is to be reconsidered, and the inference is that it will be withdrawn. Constraints are placed upon charitable organizations in this country that have to deal with a heartless government such as that in power at the present time. The relevant paragraph reads as follows:
The holding of public events to attract public support, recruit new members, raise funds, explain purposes and programs, and generally publicize the organization and its charitable activities is an acceptable activity of a registered charity, but if the purpose of the demonstration is to embarrass or apply pressure upon a government it is considered a political activity.
What kind of a directive is that for a government to issue in a democratic society such as ours? I say shame to the government that allowed a minister of the Crown to send such a document out to respectable charitable organizations. It is only right and proper that they should be embarrassed and have to admit a mistake, and promise that this scandalous document will be withdrawn or substantially amended.
I referred to the inability of the minister to place herself in the position of an old age pensioner or single person on pension. Imagine the hardships such people undergo in order to provide the basic requirements of life. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands referred to statistics issued by the
May 3, 1978

Anti-Inflation Board a few days ago which indicate that food prices alone in the past year in Canada have risen by 12 per cent and in the past month by 2.6 per cent. This means that a single person over the age of 65 who has an income of $4,634-which is the norm for many people in that category- has to pay over 21 per cent of his or her total income for food. A married couple who enjoy the benefits of spouse's allowance or a pension income are a little better off. but even they must pay 17 per cent of their income for food. I bring this out to illustrate that we have not taken into account the impact of inflation, and especially of food inflation, on old age pensions in this country.
It is all very well to say that we have brought in indexing. When you consider that for the Canada Pension Plan the indexing was approximately 7 per cent for the year and that food prices increased by 12 per cent, it is obvious that the present method of indexing hardly addresses the problem. Indexing for the old age pension plan is equally unjust; it provides an increase of only 8.4 per cent.
On top of all that, Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, with one stroke of the pen, the government eliminated one of the few consumer subsidy programs on food that was still in effect. That is the powdered skim milk subsidy which amounted to $13 million. That amount was too large for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to justify in his budget and he indicated the money should come from elsewhere-for instance, from the budget of the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the budget of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand).
The Minister of Agriculture can claim, on the basis of his surveys, that the subsidy on powdered skim milk was largely going to people in the upper and middle income brackets who did not need it. A closer examination of the facts, however, shows that a large proportion of that consumer subsidy of almost 40 cents per pound on skim milk was going to old age pensioners who prefer such milk, finding it more nutritious and easier to handle, to people with large families who require a great deal of milk in their diet, and to people in the north who cannot afford the price of liquid milk which in most cases has to be imported to the area.
What kind of government do we have, Mr. Speaker? They have lost touch with reality and live in a vacuum. I would say this government have been in power so long that they cannot see the forest for the trees. They cannot see what is happening in this country today. They try to gloss over a study issued by the prestigious C. D. Howe Institute entitled "In Search of Robin Hood", released a few days ago. This report examines the problem which is being exacerbated by this government every week it remains in office. In its opening statement the report has this to say:
The principal finding is that the federal government's budgetary policies have not, in fact, improved the economic position of the poor relative to the highest-income class in the 1970's.
We do not hear very much about regional disparities in this House any more, despite the fact that regional disparity is still a major factor contributing to the extraordinarily high rate of
Social Policy
unemployment in the Atlantic provinces. It is about time we started addressing ourselves to the very serious social disparities that exist in this country, disparities which the C. D. Howe Research Institute thought important enough to study.
This study was necessary because the government tend to ignore the facts, the facts being that in consequence of an inflationary situation which they have not been able to control-especially with regard to food which has been considerably exacerbated by the dollar problem-food inflation in Canada weighs most heavily on the poor. Amongst the poor, none are more pathetic than the senior citizens who constitute far too high a percentage of the poor in this country.
The minister spoke of the spouse's allowance being the first phase of a guaranteed annual income. She tried to blame the opposition for the fact that she has been unable to bring in a co-ordinated plan of guaranteed annual income. What a lot of hogwash! The minister herself was being intellectually dishonest when she said that. All she had to do was look to her colleague, the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Buchanan), who spoke against this concept not too long ago, or to her other colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), who came out against the concept in a speech he made not too long ago.
If that is not enough to satisfy her, I would remind her that her colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) was the one who spearheaded the opposition to a guaranteed annual income program when it was first raised by this party a few years ago. This minister now boasts of the fact that as long as he is a member of the Government of Canada he will not permit a guaranteed annual income even to be discussed. So it is about time that the minister was honest.
I support the concept of a guaranteed annual income and for this reason. There is a need for some kind of a guaranteed annual income in this country in order to bring in a comprehensive program to cover the inequities that have crept into the ad hoc system of social welfare which has grown up in this country.
Equally important to me as a Conservative, and there is no contradiction here, a comprehensive guaranteed annual income in this country is needed to address two problems: firstly, the inequities in income distribution, which I have identified in one particular area; and secondly, the problem of incentives. Ad hoc programs have grown up in this country, a lot of them in and of themselves commendable; but without being co-ordinated, they are in fact disincentives in many cases. To work and earn more is a disincentive. People who are on the receiving end of many social welfare programs are not permitted to earn more, otherwise they would be disqualified from the benefits which allow them to eke out some kind of subsistence.
I say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that on this question she should address herself not to members on this side of the House who, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out, constitute a minority in this House, but to her colleagues on the government side

May 3, 1978
Social Policy
where the real opposition is coming from. There is no other way to explain the fact that this government has failed during the ten years it has been in power to address itself to this problem in a meaningful way. We get ministers of national health and welfare who come and go and yet who continue to remain insensitive to the problems that still surround us today in this enlightened society of ours. Why should we address ourselves to spouse's allowance? My God, that is fundamental in a just society if there is any kind of justice at all.
There are a number of suggestions I could make to the minister, and I am sorry she is not here. I would like to see her bring in some kind of program which would tie the indexing of the Canada Pension Plan and old age pensions in a real way to the major expenditures of the senior citizens of this country. What are the major expenditures? To most of us who are average income earners of middle age, they are just everyday things; but to an old age pensioner they are major expenses. I am talking about the cost of heat, light, shelter, electricity and food. These are the things that should be taken into account when we review the cost of indexing the Canada Pension Plan and the old age pension.
I believe the Canada Pension Plan should be indexed quarterly. It should reflect these major expenses of senior citizens. Furthermore, I would suggest to the minister very strongly that a survivor's pension under the Canada Pension Plan should not be less than 70 per cent of the contributor's pension, with an eventual goal of 100 per cent. Why not, Mr. Speaker? I would like the minister to address herself to the question of why this reform cannot be brought in and brought in immediately.
I come next to the question of a spouse's allowance. My colleague the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands addressed herself to this most eloquently, as she always does. A person receiving a spouse's allowance should not lose that allowance if the older spouse dies. That is fundamental. It is simple justice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, the motion of the opposition gives us the opportunity to examine in a very broad way various suggestions from the opposition, and more particularly from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), namely that the government should undertake a complete review of the old age security pension, that is the basic allowances and the maximum allowances authorized under the guaranteed income supplement.
The most common suggestions are that the age of eligibility be brought down to 60, that the allowances be the same for everyone and raised to approximately $300 a month and, finally, that they be indexed to the cost of living. Since all

these questions are directly related to the subject of the spouse's allowance which is the substance of the present motion, and since this proposition, whether it is adopted or not, would eliminate the spouse's allowance, hon. members will understand the importance of my remarks and the reason why it has to be debated here today.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister has already indicated that paying the spouse's allowance to any person under 65 would cost the treasury $2 billion. If the payment were made according to the needs of the spouse, again as regards the same 60 to 65 age group, it would cost the government $600 million.
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are just as conscious of and just as sympathetic to the needs of a person who loses a dearly cherished spouse and we believe that as Canadians we must bring, at least for a while until the question has been settled across Canada, temporary relief to that situation, at least for six months. It seems to me a very logical suggestion to continue paying the spouse's allowance, a highly acceptable suggestion at the moment even if we have to review it later on after we have made an in-depth study on the advisability of extending it. Mr. Speaker, as I want to review all the pension programs, I will start with the old age security program.
In 1977 the old age security program cost $4.5 billion, including $3.4 billion for the basic old age security pension, $1 billion in guaranteed income supplement and $100 million in spouse's allowances. Since nearly two million people now benefit from the old age security pension, an increase of $1 in this pension would result in additional costs of $24 million each year. Supposing we raise the old age security pension to $300 a month across the board, the current rate being $ 156.66, we would be doubling the monthly payment.
It can easily be figured out that two million pensioners each receiving $300 a month or $3,600 a year would cost the federal treasury $7.2 billion every year. This would represent a total increase of nearly $3.8 billion or more than 84 per cent of current outlays. Moreover, as we are often urged to do, we could consider eliminating the means test which is now required to establish eligibility for the guaranteed income supplement. In other words, all pensioners eligible for the old age security pension would also be eligible for the guaranteed income supplement.
If we assume the number of single citizens as compared to married citizens will remain constant, we can make a rough estimate that 1.1 million persons over 65 would receive the guaranteed income supplement at the rate established for single pensioners, and that 900,000 married persons would also be eligible for this income supplement. This additional expenditure would reach $2.4 billion at the current rate or $1.4 billion over the cost of the guaranteed income supplement. Total expenditures for the old age security program would then rise by $5.2 billion a year at the current rate, if we were
May 3, 1978

to apply this program to everyone over 65. Overall annual outlays for this program would be $9.7 billion.
It has been suggested, Mr. Speaker, and I heard it again this afternoon from the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard), that benefits under the old age security program and the Canada Pension Plan be made available at the age of 60 for any person having left the labour force. This suggestion would mean a return to the old income test for all persons over the age of 65 and eligible for the Canada Pension Plan. It is now proposed to come back to that formula and apply it at age 60 without any income test.

As to how we could achieve any kind of fairness with a retirement test but no earnings test, I am not sure. Certainly there are many questions to be answered about this concept. It appears that a person with $100,000 per year income from investment could state that he is not in the labour market, whereas a person who works part-time for a few dollars to eke out his income could be said to be still in the labour market. Persons such as housewives who are not in the labour force might be able to collect the full OAS benefit even though their spouse is working and making $20,000 per year.
What would happen if someone in receipt of benefits found work and wished to re-enter the labour force? Would the benefits be suspended and overpayments recovered? What would be done for people who are unemployed but continuing to seek work, even though the prospects of finding employment may be slim? Would we force them to give up all hope of employment and permanently withdraw from the labour market before they could obtain benefits? Since unemployment insurance benefits are currently payable up to age 65, would double benefits be permitted, or would we perhaps lower the age limit on UIC eligibility to age 60?
I might note that one of the reasons the CPP retirement test, for persons over age 65, was abolished was to avoid some of the inequities which I have described above, as well as to remove the disincentive to work which such a restriction implied for persons aged 65 to 69. Some would suggest that such a retirement test be applied at age 60 for both the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act. With such measures, the Government of Canada would be very strongly encouraging people to retire at an earlier age, and almost penalizing them if they did not. If past experience is any indication, the Government of Canada would also be encouraging employers to lower compulsory retirement ages, as happened when the eligible age was lowered from 70 to 65.
Because of the possible changes in retirement patterns that such an incentive to early retirement might have, it is not possible accurately to estimate the total cost of permitting voluntary retirement on full pension at age 60 under the Canada Pension Plan and the old age security program. We can, however, make observations and approximations which might prove useful in considering the possible effects of such a decision.
Social Policy
First, I might note that at present 13.3 per cent of the population of Canada is over 65 years of age, whereas 19.3 per cent is over 60 years of age. If we were to imagine for the moment that the entire population between 60 and 65 years of age were to retire, then clearly the cost of retirement programs would increase by at least 45 per cent. This would increase old age security costs which, as hon. members will recall, already have risen to $9.7 billion, by another $4 billion, making the total cost $13.7 billion per year, or nearly three times the present total annual cost of the OAS program.
This speculation of mass retirement is not very far-fetched in the long view if we consider the possibility that lowering the retirement age to 60 for the federal government programs might eventually lead to its being adopted as the normal retirement age in Canada. If we suppose, however, that only the approximately one-half of the population between 60 and 65 who are not now in the labour force were to take advantage of this early retirement proposal, the cost of OAS would still rise by about $1 billion annually at the current benefit rate, or $2 billion at the proposed $300 rate. This in itself is more than ten times the estimated amount currently spent on social assistance for persons aged 60 to 64, excluding the spouse's allowance. If this proposal also suggests that these people in the 60 to 64 age category receive full GIS as well, this would make the total annual program cost of old age security nearly $12.2 billion more than the cost of the current OAS program.
In the Canada Pension Plan we find a similar pattern. If all eligible persons were to retire at age 60 instead of 65, then the CPP beneficiary population would jump by almost one half. In the long run, the contribution rate would also have to rise by almost one half to pay for these benefits. Since it is now projected that the CPP contribution rate will have to more than double in the next 50 years, we might wish to reflect whether we have the right to commit succeeding generations to such an additional burden.
If legislation were introduced to allow CPP retirement pensions to be payable at age 60 in 1979, and if we assume that only half the eligible population takes advantage of early CPP retirement, we find that benefit payments would rise by $40 million in 1979 and would cost an extra $640 million by 1985.
The tale of financial woe does not end, however, with increases in numbers of pensioners and the dollar amount of benefits paid. We must remember also that by increasing the number of pensioners, we decrease the number of people in the labour force who must pay the taxes and make the contributions to support the larger population of pensioners. In other words, we are not simply increasing by five the number of years for which the eventual pension must be paid; we are also lowering by five the number of years in which the individual contributes toward the benefits of others.
The effect might be made clearer if we think of the individual as "earning" his or her own eventual retirement through active participation in the economy and in Canadian society prior to retirement. A person who works from, say, age 20 to age 65, a total of 45 years, and then retires and lives a further

May 3, 1978
Social Policy
15 years to age 80, has, in effect, worked three years for every year of retirement. If we lower the retirement age by just five years in this example, we find that the individual has worked only two years for every year of retirement. Clearly the amount that is set aside in respect of every working year to pay for the eventual benefit must be considerably increased.
One final and vital factor must also be considered, and that is the changing population profile in Canada. Our birth rate is dropping and is now well below the replacement rate. This means that the average age of our population is rising. If present trends continue, some demographers estimate the ratio of retired persons to workers in the labour force will nearly double in the next 50 years even with the normal retirement age still set at 65. This means that the tax burden placed upon each worker to pay benefits for the retired population will increase over the next 50 years. It is said that if we lower the normal retirement age to 60, the ratio will be three times what it is now and the eventual tax burden therefore three times as great.
There are other hidden costs associated with lowering the retirement ages and increasing benefits on which we can only speculate. If income security benefits such as old age security are drastically increased, will this encourage people to become more dependent on public pensions and to decrease their personal retirement savings? Certainly the average private pension benefit will have to be smaller, or the contribution rate much higher, if we lower the average working career by five years and increase the average payment period by the same amount.
Summing up the costs of these suggestions as far as they can be estimated, we can say that the changes in CPP and OAS benefits which I have outlined could cost at least $7.7 billion extra in the first year after implementation. The annual amount to be expended would increase and not decrease in the long run. At the same time the alterations to our social and economic structures which are implicit might very well lessen our ability to pay the cost.
Hon. members will recognize that these are extreme proposals I have been talking about, but they have all been seriously discussed in this House at one time or another, either under the guise of a solution to the spouse's allowance problem or as more general reforms for our old age security system.
We have considered such proposals, and I will repeat what I said in French a few moments ago: I am in total sympathy with those who, on the death of a spouse, find themselves in straitened circumstances. I know that serious studies are going on within the administration to cope with the problems which hon. members have raised. It is, indeed, a sad situation when a surviving spouse is left without income because he or she is not eligible for OAS payments. I think a proposal might be made on this side that, in the immediate period following the death of an eligible pensioner, his or her spouse would be entitled to six months' allowances as an exceptional measure. During this

period he or she could possibly adjust to the new financial situation.
I also spoke of the cost of improving a number of the present programs. We must look seriously toward improving many of these programs and these improvements must represent additions to what I consider to be already very good programs. Consider the financial position of pensioners today compared with a few years ago. In 1965 a married couple was entitled to $150 a month or $1,800 per year provided both were over 70 years of age. In 1977, a retired couple, one of whom was 65 and the other over 60, are guaranteed by the OAS/GIS of an income of $488.24 per month, or $5,858.88 per year. A single pensioner is guaranteed $255.94 per month, or $3,071.28 per year.
But these figures do not tell the whole story, since they ignore the Canada Pension Plan income such a couple would almost undoubtedly have. The maximun CPP benefit in 1978 is $194.44 per month. Even at the end of 1977 the total benefit was $2,083.32 per year. A two-pensioner couple, one of whom was in receipt of this maximum CPP benefit, was guaranteed an income in 1977 of $6,711.30. I might point out that none of this income would exceed the available tax exemptions.
Let us assume that such a couple had a family income of $10,000 per year at the end of 1976, prior to retirement. If they lived in Ontario, their income after deductions in 1976 would have been about $8,000. It can be seen, then, that the Government of Canada has virtually guaranteed such a couple nearly 84 per cent of their pre-retirement net income, even excluding private pension income or provincial supplements.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I want to take part in this debate because I think it is an extremely important one. First, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) for putting this motion forward. Next, I congratulate my hon. friend from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) for so admirably handling his portfolio as Conservative critic for welfare and social needs. As for the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), I will not say he did not write the speech he made because that is not fair, but he did leave me with the impression that everything was perfectly all right.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I did not say that.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The hon. member says he did not say that, but all I heard from him was that our senior citizens are doing all right. On the other hand, my hon. friend from St. John's East stands up in the House day after day telling the government how callous and unconcerned it is about the poor, about our senior citizens and about those who are least able to take a kick in the pants.


Mr. Mclsaac:: I am sure you don't believe that.
May 3, 1978


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: There speaks the hon. member for one of the Saskatchewan ridings-we might as well mention it, Batt-leford-Kindersley-to show his disregard for our senior citizens. What I would like to say is this: perhaps the minister and her officials need to take a sabbatical and travel around the country as some of us have done to find out just what are the real needs of the senior citizens. It seems to me the minister and her officials are developing policy in Ottawa without knowing what things are like in the real world. They have no idea of the monstrosity they created when they brought in this spouse's allowance.
I recall that we expressed concern at the time the bill was debated. We did so on the grounds that it was discriminatory. Spinsters and bachelors who reach the age of 60 are not eligible for benefit. There is an even worse aspect. In the first instance, the government indicated, in defence of its proposal, that two people could not live on one pension. But when one of the couple dies, the surviving spouse is supposed to live on no pension at all. This is one of the cruellest hoaxes perpetrated since I became a member of parliament. It is the worst piece of legislation I have ever read and it has no place on the statute books of our country.
I had the opportunity of going across this country and I want to put on the record some of the things about which our senior citizens are concerned. We have the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet)-I do not know what he is doing but he seems to be butting into provincial jurisdiction half the time-and we have the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sports (Mrs. Campagnolo), but it is becoming increasingly evident that since the proportion of senior citizens in our population is growing at a rapid pace because people are living longer, there is a requirement for a special minister to be appointed to look after the needs of senior citizens.
It has been suggested to me on my tour that it is time we started to think about such a minister because the number of senior citizens is growing for various reasons, whether owing to better diet, improved medical technology or for other reasons. This means that in the long run there will be more senior citizens, with all the problems that go with them, and that it is high time we started to think about our priorities in terms of a separate department to look after their needs.
Somebody will say, I am sure, that we, a party which always talks about restraint, perhaps should not be proposing ways of spending more money. But let me point out that these are important priorities, and when we see a priority arise in terms of the needs of our senior citizens, we should be prepared to act. When I went across this country I found a need for such a ministry. Surely if we have a minister to look after fitness and amateur sports-and I am not taking anything away from that minister-and a minister to look after small business, we should also have a minister to look after this very important sector of our population, namely, our senior citizens. At present their needs are looked after by three or four ministers.
Social Policy
This is unfair, unjust and cruel. That is my first suggestion, Mr. Speaker.
What else have I found on my tour, sir? I will read the following comments regarding housing accommodation. There is a great deal of resentment among senior citizens who would like to live in their own homes rather than be shunted off to senior citizens' homes, no matter how excellent they may be. Senior citizens would like to have money in order to pay their taxes and to pay for heating and maintenance, which cost such exorbitant sums at this time that they must sometimes sell their homes.
In my view, it would be much cheaper to have a form of subsidization to look after these matters than to build senior citizens' homes en masse which, incidentally, cost more than the amount which would be allocated to look after the problems referred to. In other words, senior citizens are demanding more choices. This makes sense. Many of our senior citizens have owned their homes for years, but in their twilight years they cannot maintain their homes, paint them, cut the grass, heat them. These are the sort of services which they need. That is why I say we should take action in that area. If we are cost conscious at all, let us think of the millions of dollars that would be saved if we had programs under which our senior citizens could live in the places they themselves built and furnished and in which they raised their children, programs which would enable them to live the balance of their lives in dignity. Of course, such an idea would escape the imagination of this callous, cold, inept government.
I heard the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier say-and if I am wrong, he will check me-that he does not like the idea of people working after the age of 65. I myself think there is some merit in people over 65 working. These people do not work because they love work although, mind you, they really appreciate the work ethic. They work because they have the need to work, either because of their own personal needs or because of the commitments they made on behalf of their wives, their children and their grandchildren. The inequity which came about as the result of this government's attitude is that they cut off these people from unemployment insurance. That was a terrible day. The government said it would save them-I am not sure of the figure-about $50 million. Then there was the question whether they were ripping off the system.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order. I want to make it clear that I never said what the hon. member just attributed to me. I spoke French and the translation might have been incorrect. I will repeat in English what I said. I said that some people would like us to reduce the age of eligibility for OAS from 65 to 60 with a means test. I do not agree with the means test. That is what I said. I never said anything about the capacity for work of older people. As a matter of fact, I am one of those who encourage them to work.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As I was saying, with regard to unemployment insurance, the government destroyed the initiative of

May 3, 1978
Social Policy
countless thousands of people when it said: "You are no longer entitled to unemployment insurance". The government kicked them out to pasture.


Mr. Caccia:: You voted for that legislation; you supported it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That was another cruel hoax and inequity. If the hon. member wants to, he can check it out, but what we did was to register our concern about that inequity. I will not pay any attention to what he says. We took issue with that government program the same as we took issue with the measure regarding spouse's allowances.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles L. Caccia: You voted for it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Is it not significant, Mr. Speaker, how disturbed they become over there when you hit a nerve? I do not want to talk about the polls because that is not the subject of our discussion, but I would have plenty of reason to be concerned if I were a member of the Liberal party and watched it go down the drain. Why is it going down the drain? Because the Liberals are insensitive. They are in this business for the sake of power, and they do not give a damn about the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Now it is coming home to roost. That is why they are sitting over there worried and scared. I heard the clapping they had in caucus this morning which was supposed to be for our benefit, but it was faked, just like most of their policies are in the first instance.
Let me get on with the subject under discussion. Another thing that I admire about my colleagues, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the hon. member for St. John's East, is that they brought another point to the attention of hon. members opposite.


An hon. Member:: Why are you smiling?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have to smile. I am not really angry; I pity those opposite because they do not understand. My smile is a smile of compassion as I stand here speaking on such a serious matter. They are not bad people; their only problem is that they are Liberals.
My colleagues to whom 1 have just referred spoke about the cost of living. I want to read again some comments that I passed on to one of my colleagues who was going to deliver a speech or write a letter on the needs of senior citizens. My colleagues really hit a very important point. This is what I wrote to one of my colleagues:
Cost of Living-it is noted that the senior citizen is primarily interested in heat, clothing, food and shelter, etc., but it is noted that the consumer price index is based on a number of things which do not directly affect senior citizens and therefore they would like a new formula invoked regarding the consumer price index which would take account of the cost of living with which they are involved.
(Mr. Alexander.]
This was not discounted by the former minister of national health and welfare. I do not wish to paraphrase him or take his words out of context, but, as I understand it, he thinks that suggestion interesting. I did not hear the hon. lady's speech, but I put that suggestion before her again, as did the hon. member for St. John's East and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. Both ministers should take a long, hard look at this suggestion, because it seems to me that the formula means nothing when the cost of food and other costs go up 14 per cent while they are only entitled to 8 per cent. I may be wrong, but hon. members will get the idea.
We are moving in the wrong direction and we must look for a new formula. Let them not tell me that it cannot be done, because I remember the time when the government wanted to shaft the unemployed by bringing in amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the hon. member for St. John's East were concerned about the less privileged. I said, after I had discussed it with my colleagues, that we would give this government notice that there should be flexibility. Rather than have a 12-week period, we would have a period from eight weeks to 12 weeks. It would be a flexible period. It would depend on the rate of unemployment and the number of weeks a person would have to work.
At first government members said that it was impossible, that it was a bureaucratic nightmare and could not be done. Government members asked from where we got such a stupid idea. We should thank God that we have opposition members around here. The government eventually bought that policy, after espousing that it was nonsense. Now the government is taking credit for that idea and we are receiving no credit at all. Wait until the Conservative party comes into power.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If hon. members opposite think those are all the ideas we have, they will be surprised when my party forms the government. Let me point out that after waiting for ten years I am eager.
We require a new cost of living formula to assist our senior citizens. The one which is being applied now does not meet their needs. I should like to put on the record some more of our ideas.


Mr. Paproski:: Don't give them too much. We want some policies left for ourselves.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Well, that is right. Hon. members opposite are thieves.


Mr. Martin:: Go ahead.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The government listens to our suggestions and indicates that they are no good, yet eventually implements
May 3, 1978

them. What about wage and price controls? I do not want to mention that.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Go ahead.


Alan Gray Martin: What about wage and price controls?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Government members are thieves.


Alan Gray Martin: What about indexing?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I should like to refer to wage and price controls, because our senior citizens have been affected by these. In 1974, members of the Liberal party travelled across Canada indicating that price and wage controls did not work in the United States and Great Britain, and that they could never work in our country. At that time they indicated that they would never bring in price and wage controls because they would be disastrous for the country.


Alan Gray Martin: No freeze.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What is the situation now? That is why the government's credibility is shot at the present time. It indicated that the wages of Canadian workers would never be frozen. Hon. members of the government are the biggest bunch of hypocrites I have ever met. That is why the government is going down the drain and its credibility is shot.


Mr. Huntington:: That is why there are over one million unemployed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Now the government is attempting to pussyfoot and indicate its circumstances have changed. I told the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) about that idea. He had that policy tucked under his armpit. I brought that matter up after the 1974 election. He was as embarrassed as the other members of the government are at the present time. Government members are deceitful. They play hanky-panky with Canadians. They are flimflam artists. They are thieves. I am directing those remarks to the government collectively and not to any individual member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) that in the opinion of the Chair he is pretty close to the line. I suggest that he should be careful in what he says about our government.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I never like to tread on Your Honour's toes. I do not mind treading on the toes of government members, but treading on Your Honour's toes is another matter.
I should like to refer to the New Horizons program. It is a magnificent and excellent program. Recently I found out that senior citizens are concerned about young people having so much to say about programs designed for senior citizens. The senior population would like to have more individual, personal input into these programs. That is not happening now.


Steve Eugene Paproski: We will make it happen.
Social Policy


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, we will. I should like to refer to very simple matters such as our taxation forms. They are horrendous. I attempted to figure out my form the other day. I am a pretty smart fellow-perhaps hon. members opposite do not think so-but it was an absolutely terrible and frustrating job.
I managed to get my return in. I did not do what I was supposed to do.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I just dumped all of my papers into the envelope and mailed it. I can imagine what senior citizens face when they attempt to complete their forms with no assistance. The government should give thought to having more assistance available in the offices of the Department of National Revenue for the benefit of senior citizens. Of course, I refer particularly to the city of Hamilton. I feel this is another policy which has some merit.
Another problem which our senior citizens face is in the area of benefits. No matter what the benefit is, the bureaucracy is fantastic and the red tape is too long. Perhaps the government knows about this problem and is coming to grips with it, but it is somewhat lost with the countless millions of people who are involved. It takes too much time for senior citizens to receive benefits. I am sure those members of our population would like to see the red tape cut and the bureaucracy removed as much as possible, so that they will know when to expect receipt of their cheques.
Guaranteed income supplements were referred to earlier. I realize we are getting into the area of shared cost programs, but we must look hard at what we are doing to some of our senior citizens. If they are slightly over a particular limit, they are not entitled to any help whatsoever. When these same people start to receive incomes, and as tough as things are now-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I regret to inform the great hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) that his time has expired.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thank you for the compliment, Mr. Speaker.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate this afternoon in this opposition motion which has been put forward by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). On the one hand, I suppose we might call it the "cruel and unjust" motion. On the other hand, based on the discussions which have taken place this afternoon, perhaps it can be labelled as the "$4 billion flip-flop motion".
It is incredible that it is sponsored by the official opposition that hopes to form the government of this country at some point some day in this century; God knows when. The financial critic of that party, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), distinguishes himself by his absence from the chamber this afternoon. I think I can understand why.

May 3, 1978
Social Policy


Charles Joseph Clark: Where is the minister?


Alan Gray Martin: The hon. member for York-Simcoe said that we should knock $2 billion off the operating expenditures of the government. That sounds great.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Read his entire speech. You should not be selective.


Alan Gray Martin: Distinguished senior members of the Conservative party, such as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), have now promoted a particular policy which would not reduce the government's budget by $2 billion, but rather would add $2 billion to the budget.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What are you talking about?


Alan Gray Martin: Even hon. members of the opposition have to face simple arithmetic. They should realize that two plus two equals four.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, a point of order, or whatever Your Honour prefers to call it. I want to second guess the hon. member who has the floor. If he is talking about the spouse's allowance, and I hope he is-


Alan Gray Martin: That is the motion.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: All right, I am glad that is clear. If the hon. member is talking about the spouse's allowance, he should not leave the impression that it will cost $2 billion. I have heard from departmental officials and from the hon. member from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the cost will be approximately $4 million. I do not think the hon. member should mislead the House by indicating in an offhand fashion that the cost will be $2 billion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) that he is not presenting a point of order, nor a question of privilege. He is raising a point of debate. The Chair has been fair with all hon. members. They have wandered all over the lot in dealing with this subject.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon I was accused by the hon. member for St. John's East of knowing nothing about health and welfare programs.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is correct.


Alan Gray Martin: Perhaps I do not know as much as the distinguished hon. member for Halmilton West, because I have not been around here as long. However, in order to implement the spouse's allowance policy for people aged 60 to 65, without any means or needs test of any kind, I understand the full cost would be $2 billion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are wrong, sir.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You are wrong.


Alan Gray Martin: If my figures are incorrect, as hon. members opposite are indicating, I stand to be corrected. Certainly those are the figures I have been given.


Charles Joseph Clark: The problem is that you cannot read your figures.


Alan Gray Martin: That is the first flip-flop, a $4 billion flip-flop. I am glad the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) is present in the chamber. He can participate in the flip-flop being performed by the members of his party. I am delighted.
The second flip-flop might be called the "DDM flip-flop," the displaced deputy ministers' situation. That is another flip-flop on the part of members of the party which is hoping to be elected as the government some time in this century.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will there be an election in this century?


Alan Gray Martin: A senior member of the Conservative party from the Winnipeg area, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie), indicated that when his party forms the government the deputy ministers will be dismissed. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) made a quick about-face and said, "No, no, we will keep the deputy ministers. We would not get rid of deputy ministers." By coincidence, he represents a seat in the area of the nation's capital.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Stick to the motion.


Alan Gray Martin: The third flip-flop was in the areas of capital punishment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) should direct his remarks to the resolution under discussion.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am coming to that. I might add that in the course of debate this afternoon we have had introduced a circular put out by the income tax department; we have had reference to the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), and the sum of $10,000; and we have had reference to unemployment insurance. However, I am prepared-


An hon. Member:: Read the motion; it says "inequities."


Alan Gray Martin: I am prepared to move from this after just saying in passing that I noted earlier that the hon. member for Hamilton West told us he had supported a piece of legislation in this House which he now calls the worst piece of legislation

May 3, 1978

that has come before the House in all the time he has been here. However, he supported it, I am not clear why, when it first went through. He also supported the unemployment insurance changes which he now intends to condemn because he feels they are cruel and unjust.
Let me make a few more general points before I get into specifics. It needs to be put on the record that there is no country in the western industrialized world where the senior citizens are better looked after than they are in Canada, bar none.


An hon. Member:: Tell that to the senior citizens.


Alan Gray Martin: This is something of which this government, Canadian citizens and the Canadian community at large can, indeed, be extremely proud.


An hon. Member:: Tell that to your people in Scarborough during the next election campaign.


Alan Gray Martin: I will be delighted to tell that to the people of Scarborough West, Mr. Speaker. I have a good number of senior citizen's homes in my riding and I continually have a good deal of interaction with them. Yes, there are a number of things senior citizens would like to see done to add to the benefits in existence today, and that goes without saying. But the senior citizens are very supportive of government programs that exist today in all kinds of areas, including senior citizens' housing, old age pensions, the Canada Pension Plan, disability plans, the New Horizons program, etc., etc., etc. In the past ten years or so this Liberal government has moved the percentage of the federal budget devoted to social programs, administered largely through the Department of National Health and Welfare, from 12 per cent of expenditures to 33 per cent, and that is almost a three-fold increase in percentage terms, to say nothing of what these increases really mean in terms of actual dollars.
At the same time, to show the kind of commitment Canadians have through their elected government, a government that still has the majority support of all Canadians across this country, and will continue to have after the next election, during the same period expenditures on national defence have moved down from about 25 per cent of the budget to about 12 per cent, or roughly one half in proportion to the total budget. That is the commitment of this government and that is the commitment of Canadians who will continue to elect the Liberal party to form the government of this country.
The important thing, which has been mentioned earlier, is that if the program which is being talked about was to be put forward simply for those in need between 60 and 65 years of age, this would cost somewhere in the area of $600 million. Let us not talk about things that have been taken out. This was not something taken out of the legislation. When the legislation was put in, it was to benefit a group in addition to the senior citizens over 65. One can argue that the age should come down to 55, 50 or even 45, but let us keep things in context. If we include only those who are in need, my under-
Social Policy
standing is that the cost would be somewhere in the area of $600 million, as I have said.
It is my understanding that one of the things that could be looked at and which is receiving some consideration, is a tie-over period to help those senior citizens who suddenly find themselves without this pension, giving them a six months' lead in time in order to adjust to whatever other benefit plans may be available to them. This is something that is currently receiving consideration and hopefully will be done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We will be hearing about this during the election campaign, no doubt.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, I never object to hearing the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) speak in support of senior citizens, the disabled and those less fortunate in this country, because he is very consistent. He continually speaks on their behalf and I think that is to his credit. I know he does not always tie the dollars in, but at least he is consistent. But in the official opposition we see this incredible flip-flop policy. I only wish the hon. member for York-Simcoe and the hon. Leader of the Opposition had been here for the full debate this afternoon, because it would have been interesting to see how they intend to handle the situation once they have moved outside this chamber.


Charles Joseph Clark: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since attention has been drawn to my presence during the debate, I should like to point out to the hon. member, not simply the fact that he has been misrepresenting the facts, probably with some deliberateness, as was pointed out by my colleague the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), but also that when he speaks about the presence or absence of front bench members and party leaders he should ask where is his leader, where are his ministers, and where is his minister at this time when we are dealing with a matter that is so fundamentally associated with social justice in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


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


Charles Joseph Clark: When will he come to the point of telling the House of Commons what the government intends to do to ensure that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I would suggest to the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) that this is not a point of order but rather a matter for debate.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, I resent very strongly, and deny, any suggestion that I am attempting deliberately to mislead anybody. I do not think any hon. member of this House in any party whatever would attempt to do that. Perhaps that remark will be withdrawn on further reflection by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. As far as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is concerned, she just returned from outside the country about ten minutes before the debate began. My understanding is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is taking part in some very important conferences with the leader

May 3, 1978
Social Policy
of an important political party from one of the provinces at this time, in the interest of national unity.
I should like to move away from this flip-flop aspect of what we are hearing today. I would like to get into some specific details of what we are talking about in terms of the actual benefit plans available to senior citizens in this country, including hospital and diagnostic insurance, medical care, the Canada Assistance Plan, the Canada Pension Plan and income
tax benefits for senior citizens which result in their having exemptions in excess of-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), the proceedings on the motion have now expired. This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, May 4, 1978