1980-05-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgency stemming from an answer last week to my order paper question concerning the $10 million loan at 3 per cent interest to Cuba approved on February 6, 1975, and the answer stating that to this date no payments have been received on time and that Cuba is currently two semi-annual payments in arrears. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie):
That this House request a full investigation of this unpaid ridiculous-interest loan presumably inspired by a "viva Castro" spirit, that a demand be made upon the Cuban government to immediately bring its payments up to date, that no further loans at such low interest rates be ever issued when the average Canadian struggles with high interest and mortgage rates and, finally, that the government and Crown corporations cease and desist from making any further loans to extremist governments of the left or right without approval being first given by the Parliament of Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that Trent University, in Peterborough, is now a leading centre for environmental studies in Canada, and because a large amount of office space leased by this government in downtown Peterborough is now vacant because of the cancellation of the Parks Canada regional office in Peterborough, and considering that Peterborough is ideally located among the Kawartha Lakes, and that it is the government's
intention to deal with the acid rain issue with the help of regional offices of the Department of the Environment, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan):
That this government give immediate consideration to designating Peterborough and Trent University as the centre for environmental research into the acid rain problem, thus taking advantage of an already leased government building in Peterborough, while at the same time recognizing Trent University as a major regional research centre for environmental studies in Canada.


Madam Speaker:: A motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I am glad I have the Secretary of State for External Affairs beside
me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: In view of the fact that over 40 torture victims being held in Argentine's prisons have been granted visas to come to Canada and have not yet been released to come, despite the efforts made on their behalf by Canada's ambassador to Argentina and by refugee-help groups in Canada, and in view of the increasing number of people being imprisoned and tortured in Argentina, many of whom could be granted Canadian visas, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That the Canadian government more actively seek the release of the 40 or more people who have been given Canadian visas but who are still being held in Argentine prisons, and that the Canadian government empower immigration officials to grant visas based on information received by such authoritative bodies as Amnesty International, rather than require individuals to be interviewed personally.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

May 26, 1980


SHIPPING
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of some urgency.
Given the present state of negotiations between Canada and Mexico, and in view of the ongoing discussions between our countries and the state of the deliberations with respect to oil and other general trade imports, and in keeping with the UNCTAD suggested formula of 40-40-20, the percentage for the movement of such goods, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That this House urges the Prime Minister to include in the deliberations the Canadian desire to reserve at least 20 per cent of cargo for transportation by Canadian vessels built in Canada and crewed by Canadians.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCENTIVES FOR GASOHOL PRODUCTION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a motion of urgency under Standing Order 43. Because of the urgency of gasoline supply, and the fact that shortages may occur at any time, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko):
That the government immediately set yearly goals for ethanol or gasohol production and provide incentives for such production, such as the removal of the excise tax for gasohol gallons and the lowering of the production bond requirements.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Minister of Employment and Immigration has not produced a full-scale, long-range and cost-effective job-creation program, even though there will soon be close to 1.5
million Canadians who want to work but cannot find employment-almost twice the number of the unemployed during the worst years of the great depression-and given the determination on this side of the House to declare war on the unemployment problem and to have government policies which would create cost-effective real jobs and training opportunities, I move, seconded by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook):
That this House condemn the Minister of Finance for creating the problem, and that it instruct the Minister of Employment and Immigration to table all of the research studies on job creation and manpower training programs that have been paid for by the taxpayers of this country.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter that is pressing and urgent under Standing Order 43.
Whereas a government in a democratic country has the responsibility to reflect the thinking of the greatest possible number of people, whereas a majority of the people of Canada want the death penalty restored, and whereas the death penalty is a deterrent, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That this House request the government to bring legislation to the House that will require the death penalty for first degree murder.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXPORT OPPORTUNITIES FOR SOLAR ENERGY AND HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the developing countries have a need for energy technologies to offset pressure on their balance of payments because of the increases in oil import costs, and whereas Canada has the technology to meet that need, for example, turbines and generators for small-scale hydroelectric projects and photovoltaic, that is, solar-powered irrigation pumps-to name only two projects-and whereas Canada has the lowest trade levels
May 26, 1980

of all OECD countries with developing countries, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Secretary of State for External Affairs examine these two specific export opportunities and devise a clearly defined government program where there is none now to support initiatives in this field.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RAILWAYS
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that residents of Etobicoke are extremely concerned about the proposal to build a third rail line through their neighbourhood, because of the adverse impact this will have on their safety, the quality of the environment and on property values as a result of increased movement of freight through metropolitan Toronto, and in view of the recent formation of the metropolitan Toronto Rail Action Committee, representing a number of citizens' groups in Toronto with similar concerns, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley):
That this House request the Minister of Transport to meet forthwith with the metropolitan Toronto Rail Action Committee, so that he may hear their concerns first-hand and the various alternatives which his department might consider in meeting these concerns.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent? '


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OFFSHORE RESOURCES
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, 1, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The provinces of Canada are virtually united in their position that each provincial government administration should exercise control over the exploitation and development of offshore resources. Accordingly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):
Oral Questions
That this House direct the Prime Minister, in the interests of renewed federalism, to review the stand taken by the government on ownership and management of offshore resources and recognize the legitimate interests of the coastal provinces.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I wonder if the minister can advise the House whether he said, during his remarks in Edmonton on the weekend, words to the effect that if unanimous approval by the provinces cannot be found for a new constitution, then eventually some other way such as an appeal to the people will be necessary?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: I thank the right hon. member for the question. Madam Speaker. I think the words the hon. gentleman read were roughly what I said. I said that if we were unable over the course of the passage of some years to achieve unanimity among the provinces, that in my view at some point in time there would have to be some other course of action taken.
I was questioned afterwards as to what those possible courses of action were, and I said that it might be that the constitution could be amended with three-quarters of the provinces approving. I was asked specifically, "Is a referendum to the people", if the provinces did not approve, "a possibility?" and I said yes, that would be a possibility.
I would make it clear to the right hon. gentleman that I spoke as a citizen in answer to questions-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: -and that 1 carry no ministerial responsibilities in relation to the amendments of the constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSITION OF GOVERNMENT ON POSSIBLE REFERENDUM
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister, who knows a little bit more about ministerial responsibility than his Nova

May 26, 1980
Oral Questions
Scotia colleague, whether the citizen from Halifax was expressing the position of the government when he uttered those remarks both during his speech and in the press questioning afterwards?
Does the position just outlined by the Minister of Labour here in the House of Commons, in answer to a question directed to him as Minister of Labour, represent the position of the government?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I would hesitate to add-


Mr. Nielsen:: Is this citizen MacEachen speaking?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -to the very detailed and satisfactory explanation which the Minister of Labour has made to the right hon. gentleman's question. Obviously, the Minister of Labour has said what I confirm, that this matter has not been a matter of government decision up to the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, may I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether, as is suggested in recent news reports-at least in Le Droit-the Government of Canada is now considering or now has under preparation a new federal referendum bill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have absolutely no knowledge of that preparation and I have not heard about it.


Miss MacDonald:: Ask Regan.


An hon. Member:: Regan knows everything.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Therefore, I think the hon. member can conclude that it is not a matter which has come before the Government of Canada within the last few days or since the referendum; indeed, not since the bill was in the House the last time when I heard that subject discussed.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCES INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF NEXT CONFERENCE
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Now that the Minister of Justice has returned from his cross-Canada tour discussing the possibility of a federal-provincial conference with the premiers, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether a date has been agreed to among the premiers and the federal government as to the holding of a federal-provincial conference.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will realize that the Minister of Justice has not yet had a meeting
with representatives of the province of Quebec in the round which just concluded. Therefore, it would be my view that until that meeting has been held, or the views of the province of Quebec ascertained, it would not be possible to give a report of that kind to the House.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the federal government intends to move forward with a federal-provincial conference even if a meeting with the premier or officials of the Quebec government cannot take place.
Further, when the Minister of Justice met with the premiers as a federal representative, did he also discuss with them an agenda? Was the agenda only that of the federal government, or was the federal government also willing to put on the agenda items that the provinces have advocated in the past such as an examination of the division of powers?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, on the first point, I think it is a matter of time in so far as a meeting to be held between the province of Quebec and the federal representative is concerned.
On the second matter, I cannot carry the information any further than I have up to the present time.


EXPANSION OF ROLE OF PETRO-CANADA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker since it is pertinent to my question, I am sure I express the views of hon. members on all sides of the House when I say that we were all pleased to hear the highly imaginative and statesmanlike address earlier today by the President of Mexico.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Now that I see the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources clapping, and since the people of Mexico have long since demonstrated the advantage of complete national ownership of the petroleum industry in their country, which is anticipated to bring to the people of that country some $11 billion in revenue this year alone, I would like to ask the minister what early plans the Government of Canada has to implement its pledge to the people of Canada in the election campaign to expand significantly the role of Petro-Canada.
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, the government is indeed committed, not only to expanding the role of Petro-Canada but also to expanding significantly Canadian ownership generally in the oil and gas industry.


An hon. Member:: State ownership?
May 26, 1980


Mr. Lalonde:: Various proposals have been considered and are being examined at the present time by my officials and myself. 1 hope to be in a position to go to my colleagues in the near future, and then announcements will be made in the proper way once the government has decided what steps are appropriate in the circumstances.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, just to be very clear, in replying to questions I put in the House on Friday, the minister's parliamentary secretary said that with reference to a suggestion that Petro-Canada expand its role in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic, it would be up to Petro-Canada to set its own priorities. That was the gist of what he had to say.
If that is government policy, it will simply be up to Petro-Canada to decide whether it is going to expand into all these provinces which do not yet benefit directly from its retail services; or is the minister prepared to tell the House that the government will be, if not instructing, issuing a strong request to Petro-Canada to expand in these areas soon?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have always taken the position that it is not the role of the minister to interfere in the daily management decisions of Petro-Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: What about Eldorado?


Marc Lalonde: There are executives and a board of directors of that corporation, and they should be left to run it. However, there are regular contacts with the officials of Petro-Canada. I have had discussions with the president of Petro-Canada in the last couple of days, the opportunity of touring certain parts of Ontario with him, and the opportunity of visiting France with him where we attended certain discussions together.
1 would remind the Leader of the New Democratic Party that it is pursuant to a request made by this government that, for instance, Petro-Canda is now studying the construction of a large upgrading refinery in Montreal at a cost of approximately $1.5 billion. This construction is for the purpose of upgrading the oil which comes out of six refineries found in Montreal.
I hope to receive a report from Petro-Canada in the next few months. I hope that after this study, Petro-Canada will conclude that indeed this is a very valid and positive development. This is only one example of the numerous steps which are taken through regular consultation with the authorities of Petro-Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the minister has said in his answer that even in this limited area, which I do not by any means totally dismiss, it would take perhaps some three months before any action could be anticipated. In the minister's speeches during the campaign, he said that he would be content if Petro-Canada were to become No. 3 in the industry, which from our point of view is rather paltry because we think that it should be No. 1.


An hon. Member:: Order.
OraI Questions


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Shorten up those questions.


John Edward Broadbent: Given the need to move quickly because, as we all know, oil will go up in value at a constant rate- therefore, the longer we wait to expand, the more we lose in potential revenue-will the government take early steps to request that Petro-Canada buy out one of the other major firms, such as Petrofina which already has a modern refinery in the province of Quebec?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, even if I had taken part in such discussions with the chairman of Petro-Canada, I am sure the leader of the New Democratic Party would be the first to recognize that it would be extremely inappropriate for me to reveal their contents. I indicated earlier to the hon. member that we have asked Petro-Canada to get involved in the building of a major upgrading refinery in the east end of Montreal. Of course, there are other projects; for instance Petro-Canada is going to participate as a shareholder in the building of the pipeline extension to Quebec City and hopefully to the maritimes eventually. Petro-Canada is deeply involved in exploration work off the coasts of Newfoundland and Labrador and it is considering the possibility of reopening the Come-by-Chance plant in Newfoundland. So Petro-Canada is presently involved in all kinds of projects and our objective is in fact to make it the major Canadian oil company as quickly as possible.

[English)


ACTION TAKEN BY CAHA ENDANGERING EXISTENCE OF NOTRE DAME COLLEGE, WILCOX, SASK.
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the minister of fitness and amateur sport. Is the minister aware of the problem which exists for the college of Notre Dame, in Wilcox, Saskatchewan, because of the action taken by the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association last week?
A motion was passed last week in Edmonton by the CAHA that will endanger the very existence of this world famous Notre Dame College which was founded in 1927 by the late Pere Athol Murray, who was awarded honorary membership to the Hockey Hall of Fame for his outstanding contribution to Canada's national game of hockey.
Will the minister take the action that is necessary to stop this flagrant abuse of freedom of individual choice which could, in fact, close down this great Canadian institution? This matter should be of great concern, not only to the minister and members of this House but to every Canadian.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I am aware of the problem which the hon. member has brought to the attention of the House. It is certainly true that Notre Dame College, in Wilcox, has made a great contribution

May 26, 1980
Oral Questions
in education, as well as in sports, over the years. Apparently, the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association has passed a rule providing that young players in certain age groups cannot transfer from one province to another and then play in CAHA games.
This college attracts a great number of people from outside the province who end up with excellence in hockey and also in education. It is a matter over which the government has no direct jurisdiction; indeed, no jurisdiction that I know of. 1 will be happy to discuss the matter, however, with the president of the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association and report to the hon. member.


Leonard J. Gustafson: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Is the minister aware of the urgency of this problem? These boys make their home in Wilcox when attending school there. Will he look into it and attend to the situation immediately?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, as I say, I am aware of the contribution since the days when Don Metz and Nick Metz came forth from there to play for the Toronto Maple Leafs, and 1 am aware of the great work of Frank Germaine who is presently their coach. I certainly recognize that it is an urgent matter. 1 point out that Cy MacDonald, an excellent Liberal cabinet minister, was a graduate of that university.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: And hockey player.


Gerald Augustine Regan: So I assure the hon. member that I am aware of the urgency and I will attempt to see if there is some middle ground that can be found.


FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM LOTTERIES
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the honourable private citizen from Halifax, the sports minister who made a statement in Edmonton. It has to do with lotteries.
How can the minister break an agreement with the provinces which was duly signed by the previous government under the PCO and Department of Justice? I want him to know that his provincial counterparts are calling him a liar. I would not call him a liar-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: -but he cannot play that kind of game with his provincial counterparts.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, 1 want to thank the excellent hon. member for not calling me a liar, since he says he is not going to do that. It is certainly not the intention of the government to break any agreement at all.
There was an agreement that existed between the provinces and the federal government, negotiated by Iona Campagnola,
and the former short-lived Conservative government tried to give away the whole shop by changing that agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: I happen to believe that we have a responsibility to the arts and to amateur sport at the national level as well as the provincial level; therefore, if the terms of any agreement that was entered into by the interim government allows us to re-enter the lottery field, we certainly will be exploring that with the provinces in the immediate future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Ten o'clock. Madam Speaker.


FOREST FIRES
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In view of the suffering and dislocation being experienced by many Canadians because of the disastrous forest fires raging in many parts of Canada, and in view of the expense that these Canadians will face when they try to return home and reestablish themselves, is the government in a position to tell the House what specific plans it has to help these people and, in particular, will the government consider that it has a special responsibility to native peoples, many of whom are involved in this disastrous experience?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I certainly thank the hon. member for drawing the attention of the House to the very real hardship and suffering that is now going on in various parts of Canada as a result of forest fires.
The hon. member knows that the federal government stands ready to assist in situations which are presented by the provinces as being beyond their capacity, and in these circumstances we will also be ready to consider any such appeals.


ASSISTANCE TO VICTIMS IN REGAINING REMUNERATIVE EMPLOYMENT
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, may I address my supplementary question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of the fact that one of the most serious results of the forest fires now raging in Canada could, because of the destruction of so much timber-for example, in the Kenora area-be the loss of employment to many hundreds, if not thousands, of Canadians, what specific plans does the minister and his department have to assist these people in regaining remunerative employment?
May 26, 1980


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, 1 can tell him that during the past two or three days I and several of my colleagues from the cabinet from western Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: It was a very small plane, Madam Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Are you talking about the twins?


An hon. Member:: It must have been a two-seater airplane.


Lloyd Axworthy: As I was trying to say before the eruption, we spent the last two or three days visiting the fire sites and talking to provincial authorities and people in western Canada to examine the possibility of plans that we could develop for future government action. We had a meeting in Regina, on Sunday afternoon, with federal officials from the joint task force that was established in 1977. That meeting was for developing proposals that will be going forward to cabinet within the next week. It includes an examination and assessment of the problems caused by the very serious fire situation.
I can tell the hon. member that I have never seen anything quite as dramatic or as tragic as the fire situation in my own province, and in Saskatchewan when I flew over. I can communicate to the hon. member that action is being taken. The discussions are going on and officials are preparing a document that will be presented to cabinet at the earliest possible moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't forget Kenora.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for Externa] Affairs. Since the U.S. Senate plans to recess, according to all reports, by the end of June, what steps is the government taking to impress upon that body the necessity of ratifying the Canadian-U.S. agreement which is vital to the management of fisheries on Georges Bank?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, this is one of the most serious bilateral problems facing Canada at the present time, and we are very concerned about it. I am hoping to have the report this week from our parliamentarians who are attending the Canada-U.S. Parliamentary Association meeting.
I welcome suggestions from the opposition. We are trying to formulate the best plan possible to bring our views very strongly to the United States Senate. I might say that we have, of course, brought our views very strongly to the U.S. Administration, but that is not necessarily the same thing as
Oral Questions
creating an impact on the Senate. We would wish to do that as well.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. After the Conservative government brought back the Americans from Iran, Senator Frank Church, head of the Senate foreign relations committee, agreed to put this agreement at the top of the list for ratification.
I ask the minister if he was aware of that fact and, if so, what has happened since that statement was made? Will we have to face the same problem that is presently being faced by Norway, for example, where overfishing has required that country to cut their quotas in half this year? Will we have to face that problem before concrete action is taken to impress upon the Americans the necessity of getting agreement on this treaty?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, one of the most troubling aspects of this problem is the overfishing which is occurring. That was a point which I made very strongly to Mr. Muskie when I discussed the matter with him recently in Brussels, namely, the overfishing by American fishermen that was occurring.
It is not Senator Church who is directly involved with this, but Senator Pell, of Rhode Island, who is the chairman of the subcommittee involved. I suppose he does not regard himself as bound by any undertaking which Senator Church may have given. I can assure the hon. member that we will do our best to have an impact upon the American Senate in this matter.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
DIRECTORATE TO ST. JOHN'S: TORBAY AIRPORT-PROPOSED REMOVAL OF PRECISION APPROACH RADAR SYSTEM
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: My question is for the minister of Transport, Madam Speaker. On February 16, 1979, the then minister of transport, Mr. Lang, announced that the water transportation assistance directorate in the minister's department was being moved to St. John's, Newfoundland as part of the decentralization program. There were 29 positions involved. It later turned out that some of the civil servants did not want to move there, but the move was reconfirmed by the minister's predecessor, the hon. member for Vegreville, on August 2, a move that was supposed to take place by August, 1980.
Will the minister advise the House whether that move is still going forward or whether he has put a halt to the move, or could he advise just what the situation is.
Will he advise the House also, while answering that question, whether he is planning at the same time to take away from Torbay airport the precision approach radar system, which is now in effect there, that his department plans to remove in June.

May 26, 1980
Oral Questions
One of my questions is a question of removal and the other is a question of moving.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, with respect to the removal, that question is still being discussed in the sense that I am trying to accommodate, in this particular instance, the very well respected interests of Newfoundland and those of my department. If my hon. friend would like to wait a few more days, I will gove him a very definitive answer on that at that time.
On the subject of the instrument landing system, this system is going to be installed during the summer. At the same time the present system which is there but which is obviously inadequate will not be used. However, 1 understand that this will not create major difficulties.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I gather from the minister's answer that he is reconsidering whether this move of the Water Transportation Assistance directorate will take place, because up to now it has been affirmed by two governments that it would go ahead as part of the decentralization program. What reason could the minister possibly have for the move not taking place, other than the fact that St. John's East and St John's West are seats held by PC members? Is there any other reason apart from that involved here?
Would the minister also tell the House whether there are any other airports in Canada that so badly need every type of navigational aid, as does the airport at Torbay which has a constant problem of fog. I do not want a foggy answer, but I want an answer to these questions. Why is the minister reconsidering this stated government policy through two election campaigns?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am quite sure that my hon. friend would like me to try to combine the interests of Newfoundland with the interests of the Department of Transport. This is what 1 am doing now.
There has been a change in the functions of the directorate itself, and a reduction in the number of people employed by it. I am looking at all these factors and hopefully will come to a conclusion that will accommodate all interests.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I want to ask him about the most expensive "twin" in Canada. Recently the minister appointed a friend, Mr. Doug Lauchlan, who was the defeated Liberal candidate from my riding in Calgary West, as special adviser in the minister's Winnipeg office. He has been appointed with a reported salary of-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a question?


Walter David Baker: He is coming to it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I would like to know how the minister can justify paying an inexperienced special personal assistant $50,000 a year, when the top administrators in his department make $38,300 or thereabouts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That is a good question.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, first I would like to correct the hon. member in terms of the sum of money mentioned; it is not that amount of money.


An hon. Member:: What is it, then?


Lloyd Axworthy: Second, 1 believe that the hon. member for Calgary West would be the first to accept that it is very important for this government to be able to maintain its contact and its information sources in western Canada.
We announced at the beginning, because of the outcome of the election, that special measures would have to be taken to ensure that we would be able to provide services in western Canada, to maintain contact with a wide variety of interest groups and individuals who want to be served both by the government and by a specific department. That is the primary role the minister's staff has played. It has played that role under every government and it will continue to play the same role under this one. I think we should be thankful that we are able to obtain the services of someone like Mr. Lauchlan, who was the former president of Mount Royal College as well as being a Liberal candidate in the last election.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I should like to address my question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In light of the present disastrous growing conditions in western Canada, which could leave the prairie feeder industry without feed, could the minister inform the House whether the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board was consulted before the 45,930 bushel quota per permit book holder was issued?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Obviously, Madam Speaker, I cannot answer this question which is very detailed and presumes information on what went on at the Canadian Wheat Board on that particular occasion. I will consult with the minister responsible for the Wheat Board and report to my hon. friend.
May 26, 1980


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, the minister then would not be aware that this quota opened 12 days after the ability of producers to reassign their quota acres had expired.
Was this quota, which denies access of equal opportunity of delivery, issued so that the Canadian Wheat Board could repay the country elevators the stocks of barley that they borrowed last June and July from the country elevator system, which now will cost Canadian farmers and cattlemen millions of dollars?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, in my inquiry I will add the second question to the first.

[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
The newspaper Le Soleil reports that some of his officials in Montreal advised two Toronto companies against investing in the fishery industry in Quebec, suggesting Nova Scotia instead as a site to develop their project valued at some $8 million.
Did the minister read the letter which Mr. A. E. Beauchamp sent to Quebec maritime fisheries director Pierre Vagneux concerning the disappointing and disconcerting attitude of his officers in Montreal or was that merely another dirty trick played against the Canadian government a few days before the referendum?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, 1 am pleased to report to the hon. member that I spoke about the matter with the assistant deputy minister of our department in Montreal and he assured me that contrary to the allegations to which he referred, my officials encouraged, rightly in my opinion, that company which wanted to set up a processing plant to make fish products to put it up in the Gaspe peninsula or on the north shore rather than in Montreal so that fishermen may also get jobs in the manufacturing sector. They wanted to send them in the maritime area of Quebec. 1 suppose the company did not like that. It would rather be near the market in Montreal. Personally, I think that manufacturing jobs related to fisheries should be where the resource itself is found.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. The minister is aware
Oral Questions
that the delay in announcing the. final decision about the future of the Saskatoon postal district office and the Saskatchewan postal region is causing great concern and discontent among the people of Saskatoon and Saskatchewan. Whereas Senator Argue, who is not responsible to this House, has been quoted as saying that the post office will not move, and whereas the minister has not answered my letters requesting a definite answer to the situation, is the minister willing to tell this House today what the decision is? If not, will he tell us when the final decision will be made?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I am glad to say that Senator Argue was right in announcing that no change will take place. I regret to say that it was only in the mind of an opposition member that the possibilities of a change in the number of people to be moved from Saskatchewan to another province was contemplated. In fact, 1 indicated in this House that no decision would be made before I had a chance personally to assess the situation. 1 did assess it, and 1 indicated to my officials that that change should not be made.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for this clear information that the postal region will not be moved, and 1 know that is something the people will be extremely happy about. But is the minister aware that such indecision and such insensitivity in not giving clear replies to pertinent questions is causing greater alienation to the people in the west than the fictitious twinning of seats in which defeated Liberal candidates give the impression that they have direct input and control into what Ottawa is doing? Is the minister willing to announce the government's intentions in this House for that part of Canada rather than having the information backdoored through defeated candidates?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, it is true that some officials of my department, in order to save some person-years, have done studies in order to merge some of the activities of the post office in western Canada. I am very pleased to be able to report that, thanks to what the hon. member described as twinning and thanks to some Liberal senators, such bad mistakes were avoided.


IMPLEMENTATION OF OIL CONVERSION PROGRAM
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the minister aware, as is reported in Canadian Renewable Energy News this morning, of the high degree of concern within his department that a too quickly implemented off-oil conversion program will undermine gains about to be made in Canada's conversion program?

May 26, 1980
Oral Questions
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, I understand the question refers to certain concerns within my department about the quick implementation of a certain program. I have received no indication leading me to believe that the quick implementation of the conversion program I announced should threaten anything. On the contrary, that decision was made in agreement with my department, and I am quite determined to put in place as rapidly as possible all measures likely to encourage Canadians to reduce their consumption of gasoline in favour of other forms of energy.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Is the minister concerned about this, because his department has stated it is not ready to put in this program as he intended? Also, is he concerned about the confusing reports given to Canadian people about conversion or conservation?


Marc Lalonde: The hon. member must surely be mixing things up. If there are concerns within my department, then the minister reports on them. As far as I know, there are no such concerns. On the contrary, I have received no indication from my officials that there would be any difficulty or danger. I am pleased to inform the hon. member of that.


REPORTED STATEMENT OF ASSISTANT DEPUTY MINISTER
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, maybe I can clarify the matter for the minister. One of his assistant deputy ministers is quoted at some length in the article to which my colleague refers as indicating that it was the view of the department that you cannot give the public too many confusing signals and that the department had decided it was too confusing to be told to get off oil and to conserve at the same time, although it is hard to understand why that would be too confusing for the Canadian public. Was that assistant deputy minister enunciating government policy when he made that statement, if in fact that statement was reported accurately?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 am glad the hon. member has drawn the particular article to my attention. 1 will certainly read it. I can at least say that one should not assume it necessarily reports correctly what the assistant deputy minister may have said. Second, if he did say it, I agree with my colleague that I fail to see how it would be confusing to tell the people to conserve and get off oil. I do not see any contradiction between the two.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Recently leaders of the B.C. native community made certain allegations that they were offered weapons, including supplies of high powered AK-47 rifles, dynamite and plastic explosives, training in the use of these weapons and money by undercover RCMP agents, including one Warren Hart. Can the Solicitor General inform this House under what mandate these agents, including Hart, were acting, apparently in 1975, whether this was the March, 1975, cabinet mandate and, second, at what level these particular activities were authorized?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I do now know if there is any truth at all to those allegations, but if they are to be considered, perhaps they should be considered by the McDonald commission that is looking into other matters involving Warren Hart.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, once again we see the McDonald commission being used to stonewall the political responsibility of the Solicitor General.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Will the Solicitor General explain to this House when we can expect the report of the McDonald commission? Will he assure this House, particularly in view of some of the possible political ramifications of the report, including involvement of former Liberal solicitors general, that the full report will be reviewed by either the justice committee, sitting in camera where necessary, or a special committee of this House? In other words, will the full, unexpurgated report of this commission be given to us, not a version which is being doctored by the Privy Council office?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I have already informed the House, and I believe hon. members are aware, that the McDonald commission will be making its principal report this summer and the final report cleaning up smaller matters will be made public before the end of the year. I expect that all of the aspects of that report that deal with responsibilities of individuals will be made public, but hon. members will understand that, if that report is to be of any value to the government in security work, it will contain recommendations which should not be made public. I understand that the McDonald commission may well recommend which aspects of this report should not be made public, but certainly all those aspects that can be made public will be, and in particular references to individuals in connection with various allegations.
May 26, 1980


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. According to the press he is quoted as having told a meeting in Alberta that, and I quote:
-provincial moves such as Newfoundland's decision to reserve jobs on oil rigs for Newfoundlanders do more to damage Canada in the long run than any nationalism that has surfaced inside Quebec.
Will the minister acknowledge that, in following the procedures it has, the government of Newfoundland has simply followed the practice in the province of Quebec under legislation which precluded Ontario construction workers from gaining employment in that province?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to see such interest in my speech to the annual meeting of the Alberta Liberal Association.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Was the meeting held in a telephone booth?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I urge the hon. member to attend the next time and perhaps he will be able to get the answer directly. 1 do not believe the hon. member's question could be properly answered in the time that could be allotted by the Chair. Let me just say to the hon. member that as a Canadian I happen to believe that the essence of this country is having a common market in which Canadians can move to any part of the country and be employed without restrictions on the basis of what province they come from.


John Albert Gamble: Madam Speaker, I am delighted with the response of the minister. Let me ask him, if I may, what specific steps he proposes to take to ensure that his hopes and expectations for the future of Canadian workers everywhere in this country will be realized, recognizing that the federal government has authority to disallow provincial legislation of this kind.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I thank the hon. member, but I am sure he is aware of the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour and its limitations. I assure him that the minister of manpower is very capable of handling the responsibilities of his department, and 1 am sure the minister would be happy to brief him some time on the responsibilities of his department.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On May 20 the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence put a motion before this House, which was passed, asking the
Point of Order-Mr. Cosgrove
government to bring to the attention of the government of the U.S.S.R. certain aspects about the Helsinki Accord and the reunification of families, specifically the case of Colonel Len Ovsisher, a colonel in the Russian army and a hero who has been refused the right to leave for Israel. I ask the minister whether representations as set out in that motion have been extended to the government of the U.S.S.R. and, if not, when will they be? Is the minister prepared to report to this House at an appropriate time as to the result of these representations?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I am certainly prepared to look into that and report to the hon. member.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Madam Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young)-Veterans Affairs-Veterans suffering from cancer because of exposure to atomic bomb testing; the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn)- Finance-Capital gains tax-Effect on investment-Reference to committee.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Friday last I might have given the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young) an incorrect impression as a result of an answer I gave him concerning the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Although the leases about which he asked are not with the corporation, the corporation does, in fact, control them through a master lease and is moving to increase rents. However, the hon. member will be happy to learn that a 25 per cent formula gearing rent to income has been introduced and this should assist those who are in need.


Mr. Young:: Madam Speaker, 1 wonder if 1 might be permitted to ask the minister a question in response to what he has just said?


Madam Speaker:: I would suggest that the hon. member direct his question to the minister tomorrow. I would be glad to recognize him on that occasion. Otherwise I would have to
1398

May 26, 1980
Order Paper Questions
ask unanimous consent to revert to oral questions in order to enable him to proceed today, and considering the lateness of the hour 1 think we had better continue with the agenda.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
{English]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 99, 135, 239, 290, 689, 695.
[ Text]


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 437 of the first session of the Thirty-first Parliament which states, in part, that travelling to certain countries is stamped as restricted only in diplomatic and special passports and not in passports issued to other Canadians, is it government policy that members of Parliament, in particular, should have less privileges than other Canadians?
2.	Is such stamping because of no Canadian diplomatic representation in the countries concerned and, if so, in what way could the government be of assistance to persons with ordinary passports in such countries but could not be of any service to members of Parliament with special passports in the same countries?
3.	Will the government re-examine the policy introduced by the former government in this regard with a view to changing it?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. It is not Canadian government policy that members of Parliament should have fewer privileges than other Canadians. Members of Parliament, like any Canadians, may travel on ordinary passports to locations for which diplomatic and special passports are invalid.
2.	The use of diplomatic and special passports for travel to such places is restricted because travel on official passports is not appropriate to entities whose governments Canada does not recognize and with which it has no diplomatic relations. Travel on official passports, even if ostensibly private, would acquire an official character inconsistent with a policy of non-recognition. This limitation on the use of official passports does not relate specifically to the lack of Canadian diplomatic representation in the places in question, although it is indeed a consequence of non-recognition and lack of diplomatic relations that there will be no such representation.
3.	The government has no plans to change this policy.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	In each of the past three years, has the government discovered the issuance of false charitable receipts for income tax purposes where the sums of money
shown were not given to the charity concerned and, if so (a) on how many occasions (b) what was the total amount and what is the breakdown by province (c) what are the names and addresses of the organizations concerned including the name of the person responsible for issuing the receipt?
2.	For the same years, how many persons were charged in each province and. if any penalties were issued, what were they?
3.	How many prosecutions are before the courts and how many charges are pending?


Mr. Yves Demers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: 1. Yes.
(a)	Seven charitable organizations have been identified as apparently having issued false charitable receipts.
(b)	About $4,000,000 in amounts shown on the receipts; province of Quebec.
(c)	Secrecy provisions in the Income Tax Act prevent disclosing the names and addresses of the institutions concerned and persons involved.
2 and 3. One person charged on 247 charges; charges are still pending.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What is the estimated cost, by province, of the maintenance of unprofitable passenger rail service?
2.	What amount did the government contribute in each of the past five years towards such losses?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. The Canadian Transport Commission estimates the passenger service losses incurred by federally-chartered railways in 1978 to be $250.7 million. The table shows losses for passenger services aggregated by province. Losses for interprovincial services have been allocated on a mileage basis. The provincial breakdown cannot be interpreted as representing where passenger service losses actually occur. For example CN, CP and Via headquarters expenses all occur in Montreal, but are distributed in the table over-all passenger services. Losses from commuter rail operations are not included. The losses shown are for Canadian National Railways, Canadian Pacific Limited, Algoma Central Railway, Toronto-Hamilton-Buffalo Railway Company, and part of the Ontario Northland Railway. Via's losses for the Western Transcontinental passenger service as paid by Transport Canada are also included from the take-over date of October 29, 1978.
	($ Million)	Per Cent of T otal
Nova Scotia	14.8	6New Brunswick	12.2	5Quebec	47.6	19Ontario	108.1	43Manitoba	17.9	7Saskatchewan	15.3	6Alberta	13.9	6British Columbia	20.9	82.	Subsidy is paid at 80 per cent of the railways' losses, as approved by the commission. Transport Canada pays 100 per
May 26, 1980

cent of Via's losses. Payments to Via for the Western Transcontinental from the take-over date of October 29 are included in the 1978 figure. Payment to the Northern Alberta Railways Company is included in the 1974 figure. The table shows amounts that are not yet finalized and may well increase by a few percentage points when final payments are made. The amounts paid to date by the government in each of the past five years towards such losses are as follows:
1974	$135,090,600	1977	$198,689,6701975	$169,244,489	1978	$204,160,2671976	$193,374,466	
The Canadian Transport Commission is currently preparing a breakdown by province of the estimated passenger service losses incurred in the year 1979.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	(a) What was the amount paid by the government for the purchase of Eldorado Nuclear Ltd. (b) in what form was the payment made and to whom?
2.	Was there any outstanding indebtedness at the time of purchase and. if so, what was it?
3.	What was the authorized (a) share (b) issued capital of the company at the time of purchase?


Marc Lalonde: 1.	(a) $5,271,812.10
(b) Payment was made to shareholders at the rate of $1.35 per share surrendered.
2.	Information no longer available.
3.	(a) $4,000,000 authorized, divided in shares of $1.00 par value.
(b) 3,887,344 shares


Mr. Clarke: 1.	For the fiscal year 1978-79, how many contracts were let by the Department of Labour for professional services, to persons who at any time within the past five years, had been employed in indeterminate positions under the Public Service Commission?
2.	How many contracts were (a) for less than one year (b) for one to two years (c) over two years?
3.	How many contracts were let outside the National Capital Region?
4.	What was the total cost of all such contracts?


Gerald Augustine Regan: 1. Two.
2.	(a) Two; (b) None; (c) None.
3.	None.
4.	$18,000.
Old Age Security Act


Mr. Clarke: 1.	For the fiscal year 1978-79, how many contracts were let by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for professional services, to persons who at any time within the past five years, had been employed in indeterminate positions under the Public Service Commission?
2.	How many contracts were (a) for less than one year (b) for one to two years (c) over two years?
3.	How many contracts were let outside the national capital region?
4.	What was the total cost of all such contracts?


Marc Lalonde: 1. 1978-79-24.
2.	(a) 20; (b) 4; (c) 0.
3.	3.
4.	$154,357.00.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, May 21, consideration of the motion of Miss Begin that Bill C-16, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, when this bill was under debate on Wednesday, May 21, three of us had spoken to it-the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), the hon. member for Rose-dale (Mr. Crombie) and myself. There is one aspect of this matter which all three of us touched on, namely, the relationship between the amount pensioners have to live on and the level of poverty as established by Statistics Canada.
Those who followed the debate last Wednesday will recall that both of the first two speakers apologized for the fact that pensioners who have to live on old age security and the guaranteed income supplement are being forced to exist on amounts below the recognized poverty level. Incidentally, the

May 26, 1980
Old Age Security Act
poverty level which was talked about last Wednesday is the level established by Statistics Canada, which is the lowest of all the poverty levels which are computed. Indeed, if one looks at the computations of any of the social agencies in any of our larger cities, one finds that the poverty level is much higher.
1 appreciated and understood the apology which the other two speakers made for asking senior citizens to live below the poverty line, but 1 suggested it was not good enough just to try to narrow that gap. The only suggestion made about anyone ever reaching the poverty line was by the minister who thought that possibly by July married couples living in the smaller cities or rural areas would reach the poverty level. I suggested then, and I repeat now, that we should not let this subject of pensions rest until we have established for all our senior citizens a guaranteed level which is above the poverty line. 1 suggested the other day the figure of 125 per cent. One might go higher but one certainly should not go any lower. No longer do we think of pensions as simply a means of keeping older people alive. Surely we have reached the point at which we assert the fact that older people have helped to build the economy and that they have the right in retirement to continue to enjoy the standard of living they have built up for themselves during their working years. 1 hope it will not be long before we cease making these apologies for pension levels which are below the poverty line and establish the fact that pension levels should in all cases be above the poverty line.
There was also a fair amount of discussion last Wednesday about the methods of indexing which have been used, and it seemed to be agreed by the three of us that indexing has not worked to give our people the level of pension income they require. 1 want to make the point again that the fault is not so much with the system of indexing as it is with the basis upon which we started, or in other words the amount of pension income made available at the beginning. One can take the beginning to be at any time-back in 1926, or in 1952 when we moved from the means test to the principle of universality. Take the beginning at any point and it was never enough; if you establish a basis which is below the requirement for decent living, then no amount of indexing by the rise in the consumer price index will place pensions at a decent level.
I say the time has come to establish a level of pensions below which no one should fall, and that the level should be at least 125 per cent of the figure accepted by Statistics Canada as the poverty or existence level.
During the election campaign we advocated not just an increase in the guaranteed income supplement, as does the bill now before us, but an increase in the basic amount of the old age pension. Whereas the present figure is $35 added to the guaranteed income supplement, we proposed it should have been $40 added to the basic amount.
Some will say right away: that is giving it to a certain number who do not need it. Madam Speaker, that problem is with us all the time. The way to correct it is through adjustments in the Income Tax Act which will take money away in large measure from those who do not need it. In my view, there is a world of difference between making people prove
their poverty in order to get supplements to their pensions and letting people receive the amount and then dealing with it when they file their tax returns. It is also a fact that no matter where you draw the line-I am thinking now of the guaranteed income supplement-there are always many people above that line who are really in a state of poverty.
I did some calculating some years ago-and my recent calculation leads me to believe that the figures stand-that our senior citizens can be grouped into four categories, and for the purpose of simplicity these categories are in round figures. There are three categories of 30 per cent each, and then there is a 10 per cent category at the top. The 30 per cent at the bottom have nothing else, and that is attested to by the fact that they draw the full amount of the guaranteed income supplement. Then there is the 30 per cent group that has something else but not enough, so they draw a portion of the supplement. At the top there is the 10 per cent group whose income is such that they do not need any increase in the old age security, but the way to deal with those people is to increase the amount of income tax a person pays if he or she draws the full old age security benefit.
But in between the 60 per cent level and the 90 per cent level there are 30 per cent of our senior citizens who are really in trouble. They do not get some of the benefits and prerequisites that go with being a recipient of the guaranteed income supplement. They are just over the line. They find it very difficult to see that some of their neighbours who have a little bit less get something additional and are able to carry on while they are stuck in that category. The answer to that whole problem, in our view, is a position we have taken for a long time, namely, that the best thing we ever did was to put old age pensions on a universal basis, and we should get back to that as soon as we can.
I am going to come back to that before I conclude my remarks, but before 1 do so I want to speak about some of the groups that are still left without the consideration and the attention they deserve. That group consists mainly of women who are alone or unattached. A good deal has been said about this $35 supplement that we are going to give now, and are giving in many cases to single women. They get $35, whereas a married couple would only get $17.50 each on a monthly basis. But we are still labouring under what I think is one of the most unfair pieces of social legislation we have ever produced in this country, and that is the spouse's allowance. No amount of trying to fix it up, as the former Liberal government did just before it was defeated or as the Conservative government did while it was in power, got us away from the fact that the spouse's allowance continues to be an unfair arrangement. 1 know this works both ways; it applies to men if they are the younger ones, but there are not that many of them.
According to this arrangement, women in the age bracket 60 to 65 who might be in need get no consideration at all unless they are married to, and living with, an older spouse. The woman in that age bracket who is a widow, divorced or
May 26, 1980

single receives no consideration at all. I know there are a few cases of women in that age bracket who were spouses and were receiving the spouse's allowance but then lost their husbands and now receive the spouse's allowance until they are 65 years of age. That touches only a small part of the problem. That fact that it is done for some widows underlines the fact that any woman who was a widow at the age of 60 or who became a widow before her husband was over 65 does not qualify.
I remember the night when this program was first announced in the election campaign of 1974. I could hardly believe that we were going to bring in a program which would be so discriminatory. It is still there, and I suggest that the time has come to correct that. The only way that it can be corrected is by providing whatever you are going to provide to the spouse between the ages of 60 and 65 without regard to marital status. This business of saying to a woman, "You will get consideration, you will get the pension, you will get the allowance, only if you have a man," does not fit with our thinking today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I urge very strongly that the whole business of the spouse's allowance be reviewed. My view is that what we should have instead is a pension available at age 60 to all persons who are out of the labour market. That would catch the single people and the widowed people, whether male or female.
It would do some other things as well. It would encourage many people in that age bracket to retire and thus would open up employment for younger people. I think that is the direction in which we should move. I understand all the talk that goes on against a mandatory retirement age. We do not have a mandatory retirement age in this country by law, but by custom we seem to have it at age 65. I hope to work a lot longer myself-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have already gone seven years beyond that age. 1 press the point as strongly as 1 can that the right to retire when you want to, freedom to make that choice, has far more meaning if you let people retire early than it does if you talk about the right to go on.
For the number of people who want to work beyond 65, there are many times that number, particularly those in the kinds of industries that are in my constituency, people who have a really difficult time keeping up with the rat race, who would like to be able to retire at the age of 60, but they cannot do so if there is not sufficient income. The answer to that, in my view, is to establish a pension at the age of 60, and I would do it both for old age security and the Canada Pension Plan for all those who are out of the labour market.
If the government is not prepared to take that step all at once, if it wants to move part way, then it should impose some kind of an income test between the ages of 60 and 65-


Mr. Blenkarn:: A means test?
Old Age Security Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: I said income test. The hon. member should not get off the point. I say, do not apply a marital test. If I have to explain it again for the benefit of my hon. friend, there is no question where I stand. I do not want an income test at all. There is no point in suggesting it to the Tories because they would not do it, but I suggest to the government that is over on the other side today that if they want to take one step in that direction, it should be to expand what they are doing, which is a pension provided a woman has a spouse, to a pension provided you are in need of it. Let us get rid of the marital test.
Every time I speak on this subject I speak on behalf of the woman. I know the law works the other way as well, that a man between the ages of 60 and 65 gets the spouse's allowance if his wife is over 65 and gets a pension. There are men who are short changed too because of this legislation, but their number is very few. Custom is such that in most cases the spouse's allowance is being paid to a woman because in most cases she is the one married to the older spouse.
While I am talking about the unfairness of our pension system to women, I want to mention again the fact that the Canada Pension Plan does not have any kind of coverage for homemakers. I want to say right away that I think I understand the Canada Pension Plan very well and I am not suggesting that a pension for homemakers should be made part of the Canada Pension Plan itself. But I do think there should be a parallel plan whereby those women who work in the home and make their contribution to our society and our economy in that way should qualify for benefits equivalent to those that are available to women who are working under the Canada Pension Plan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should say that really the trouble assumes large proportions at about the age of 55. It is women from 55 to 65, especially those who are unattached or alone, who have the greatest difficulty, and one of the reasons for that is that in working years they get lower pay and therefore they build up lower pension rights or, in what might be regarded as their working years, they do the job of a homemaker without any pay, without any pension entitlement, and so this all compounds by the time they reach the age of 55 or 60 and they suffer grieviously, as we all know. There are plenty of statistics about this. Plenty of reports have been written by social agencies of all kinds, by government departments, and of course more reports are being produced all the time. But my contention is that it is time something should be done about it.
As I have said, there are other ways in which women are the victims of ideas that we had in the past, but surely we have got over them. A man and wife live together, raise their family and work. The result of it is that the man goes on a pension and the two of them try to live on that pension, and then the day comes that one of them dies. If the wife dies first, the husband's pension is 100 per cent. But if the husband dies first, the

May 26, 1980
Old Age Security Act
widow's pension in most cases is only 50 per cent of the pension that the two of them had earned by their joint effort both in the home and out in industry. This notion is really for the birds. It has got to go.
One of the places for it to go first should be in the public service. We have done a little better for ourselves as members of Parliament. If a member of Parliament on pension dies, his widow receives 60 per cent. That is a little better than in the public service and in most other employment. But even that, I suggest, is not good enough. Maybe some of the members of Parliament could take a lot less so that the widows could have a better pension.
But apart from that, this is an element of discrimination which just seems to be part of our fabric. It was 50 or more years ago that pension plans were produced in some places where there was no provision for the widow at all. It was a man's world. It has taken decades to get women considered as being entitled to something more than they get just because they happen to be attached to a man. As I say, this means we must do something about a plan that is the equivalent of the Canada Pension Plan for housewives or homemakers. We must do something about this business of the survivor's pension. We must take other steps that I have in mind. This has to apply outside of government. It has to apply to railway pensions, both the CNR and CPR. It has to apply to private pensions. Indeed one thing we need to do in the whole pension field is to take a much closer look at what is going on out there in the private pension world. It is just not good enough, they way things are at the present time.
I said earlier in my remarks that one of the reasons I wanted a guarantee of a pension level to be at least 125 per cent of the poverty level is that our concept has changed about pensions. When pensions were first started in this country as a result of the efforts of my predecessor, the late J. S. Woodsworth, in the middle 1920s and a pension of $20 a month at age 70 was produced, there was great rejoicing. One wonders how there could be rejoicing over that amount. But it was a beginning, and it was brought about in a day when it was felt that if we at least kept the old folks going, we were doing something that was half decent. Surely we have gone beyond that now.
I can remember when we were discussing the Canada Pension Plan in committee a few years ago. One member found certain statistics and he said, "If people get two or three pension plans together, they are going to end up having just as much income in retirement as they had when they were working". This particular member was shocked at the idea. What is wrong with it? If people have helped to build our economy to the point that it produces a certain standard of living, why should our elderly people not have the right to continue to enjoy that standard of living? Therefore, I contend that all of our pension thinking, whether it is the old age security plan itself, the guaranteed income supplement, the Canada Pension Plan, the public service plan, the armed forces plans, the railway plans or private plans, should be geared to the idea of a level of pension that will enable people when they
retire from their productive years to continue to enjoy the standard of living they have had during those years.
It is not often that I go to anything that is connected with the Senate. Hon. members are looking surprised-what have I done? A couple of weeks ago an evening testimonial dinner was held over in Room 200 in the West Block for Senator Croll on the occasion of a report in his name that had been tabled. Actually the party was supposed to have been held earlier this year, but we got into an election and the senators put it off. I went to that party, I admit it. I went to the party for the senator.
1 listened with a great deal of pleasure to the speeches that were made about Senator Croll. I listened to the very good humour that a number of those speakers had, but then I listened with particular delight to David Croll's speech. He is a little older than I, but not much. At least he was talking about a portion of history in this country from the 1920s on with which I am very familiar. I could go along with everything he said in that speech, but as he got toward the end of his speech he said, if I quote him with reasonable correctness, that there are two diamonds in the crown of social legislation that we have built in this country and do not let anyone take away those two diamonds. Now, what were they? One was old age pensions on a universal basis and the other was medicare on a universal basis. Of course, one can imagine that I was ready to stand up and cheer when I heard Senator Croll say that. He elaborated on what it means to our older people to have the guarantee of pensions. I think it is the finest thing we have ever produced in this country, the concept of universality with respect to old age security. I dislike anything that detracts from that universality. I hope we will take heed of the kind of message that Senator Croll gave that night to those who were in Room 200.
There is a lot of talk and a lot of writing these days, a great deal of it misinformed, about pension plans. One reads headlines in the paper which indicate that a great pension robbery is taking place, that the funds will dry up, that we will go into the red, and all that sort of thing. It is a lot of nonsense, really. Let me make my point by saying this: the old age security scheme in this country is the fairest, clearest and most honest pension scheme we have. Why? Those who are working pay in and those who are retired draw their pensions. There is no question about a fund running dry. The pensions are guaranteed by the government and they are paid out of current production. If one is producing, one pays in; if one retires, one draws the pension. It is clear in the case of old age security. The same principle really applied to the Canada Pension Plan.
There is a talk about a fund, but what really counts is the production in any period of time that will make pensions possible. The same is true of all kinds of plans. Let us not get wrapped up in or too concerned about these stories about pension plans being in trouble. We have a basic concept here that is good with old age security on a universal basis. We have the Canada Pension Plan to provide an addition to that so that part of one's retirement income is on an earnings related basis. We have the other things that they can do to improve
May 26, 1980

the picture by taking care of women in the work force, by taking care of spouses and by taking care of widows. If we just give our attention to this, we can have a plan of which we can be really proud.
1 believe as the time goes, mine is just about up, so 1 will not try to go beyond six o'clock. I simply say again that in my view, as one who has followed this subject for half a century, like David Croll, I believe the best thing we have done in Canada is to recognize that our old people on a universal basis deserve the result of the work they have done. Let us put that principle into practice by making our pension of an amount that will enable our older people to live in security and in dignity for the rest of their years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address this House for the first time. I take this opportunity to extend to Madam Speaker, the assistant Speakers and to you, sir, my best wishes and my determination to show a spirit of co-operation throughout Parliament. I am proud to represent the people of Willowdale in our national Parliament, and under different circumstances it would give me a great deal of pleasure to be able to speak about my constituents.
But within the context of this debate on Bill C-16, to increase the Guaranteed Income Supplement for our senior citizens, let me just say this about the people of Willowdale. In my riding there are many senior citizens, many of whom live in homes they built themselves. The people of Willowdale have worked hard to make a contribution to Canada, and they are among the thousands of senior citizens who are watching the passage of this bill with great interest because on July 21 it will mean a few more dollars to help them cope.
For some senior citizens this bill will make it easier to keep their homes, for others it may mean better food and for still others it may mean extra visits to their families. This bill, though, is more important to senior citizens everywhere in Canada. I was pleased to hear in earlier debate that it will receive the support of all parties.
I would like for a moment to examine the broader principles underlying this bill. Canadians are aware of the severe economic challenges confronting all industrialized countries and they realize that Canada is intimately linked to the rest of the world through trade and capital markets. Yet, in the face of fiscal deficits in Canada, and even the possibility of little or no growth this year in our economy, we are increasing this
Old Age Security Act
program of assistance to Canadians in need, a program to which this Liberal government attaches the highest priority.
The philosophy behind this bill was expressed in the throne speech which said:

Canadians recognize the need to live within their national means and they understand that in doing so the state cannot meet every demand or satisfy every group. Therefore, in employing the limited resources available, my ministers will help first those who need help most.

This is a philosophy which I support, because we must strike a balance between fiscal responsibility and assisting those groups in society which are unable to provide for themselves. What does this balance mean to me? It means that, despite the reforms I see as necessary to bring a greater sense of fiscal responsibility to government, it is intolerable that senior citizens are forced to live on incomes which do not provide an acceptable standard of living.
In writing about the plight of the aged, Simone de Beauvoir
said:
We are told that retirement is the time of freedom and leisure: Poets have sung 'the delights of reaching port'. These are shameless lies. Society inflicts so wretched a standard of living upon the vast majority of old people that it is almost tautological to say 'old' and 'poor': Again, most exceedingly poor people are old.
Throughout this debate, Mr. Speaker, it is almost as if aging were a new problem. We have heard the shocking statistics, and we have been told of the terrible plight of one group in particular, elderly women, especially widows and other single women. From all the numbers we have heard it is clear that our senior citizens need help. There is an urgent need for this bill and indeed, for much more than this bill.
1 was glad to hear the minister say in her remarks in this House that this bill was only an interim measure to alleviate the situation of pensioners until greater assistance can be given. Let us therefore look at the context in which pensioners and senior citizens in Canada today are required to provided for their retirement. In particular I should like to discuss pensions and the broader aspects of reform that I perceive to be necessary.
As hon. members are aware, Canada has three basic ways in which it provides retirement income. One is through the Old Age Security Act, of which this GIS is a part. Another is the Canada and Quebec pension plans, and then there are the private pension plans, both those which are employer sponsored and individual plans such as RRSPs.
As hon. members also know, the Canada Pension Plan has problems, the most urgent coming from projections contained in the Lazar and other reports. They show that the Canada Pension Plan funds will be depleted by the end of the century. To make the plan fully funded it is estimated that contributions must be increased from their present rate of 3.6 per cent to 6 per cent first of all, and perhaps to as much as 9 per cent or 11 per cent in the near future.

May 26, 1980
Old Age Security Act
There are, as well, very serious problems with our private pension plans. Less than 40 per cent of the entire working force is covered by private plans and there is little or no protection for part-time labourers, including many women. Figures for 1975 show that 81 per cent of unmarried women, 74 per cent of elderly men and 60 per cent senior couples receive no private pension income based on the work they have done throughout their working lives. In fact Canada has one of the lowest rates of coverage by private plans in the western world. Many of these plans have no portability, and three-quarters of the employer sponsored plans in the private sector require at least ten years of service and/or 45 years of age before pension benefits become those of the people who contributed to them.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Right. 1 cite just one case illustrating the urgent need for portability in our pensions, Mr. Speaker. A woman I know worked for 26 years for a company in Manitoba. That company moved from Manitoba to Saskatchewan, but the woman could not move because of her husband's job in Manitoba. In spite of the money she had invested in her pension plan over 26 years of work, she got only a paltry pension. This is only one example of the many problems of vesting created by our pension plans today and the lack of portability.
As a result of these problems, only 12 per cent of the income of our senior citizens-12 per cent, Mr. Speaker-comes from private pension plans. Nearly half of all income for seniors comes from the public sector, the old age security benefits. I think it is unfortunate that private pension plans have not responded better to modern working conditions. It is estimated that Canadians now change jobs an average of seven times during their working careers. At the same time inflation shows no signs of abating to zero. Pension plans must be designed to react to these realities which working Canadians face every day, if we are to have valuable supplements to the public pension system.
These problems which I have outlined mean that Canadians have less confidence in the private system, less encouragement to save and invest for their future than if a decent return on their investment were assured.
I strongly believe that the pension system will work best when there is a healthy mix of private and public plans. Where possible, people have a responsibility to look after themselves and I endorse the notion that people should save and invest throughout their working years in order to provide for their retirement. But saving and investing will mean nothing if inflation eats into their income and if they lose their contributions because they have changed jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Our current system of providing retirement security for Canadians cries for change and reform. We have 2.3 million seniors today; in 20 years the number will reach 3.4 million, and six to eight million within 50 years. Within 50
years there will be 2.5 times more senior citizens in relation to our working age population than there is at present. We have only a few years now to deal with the dramatic problems that this change in our society, the composition of our work force, is going to create.
Without drastic changes, employer sponsored plans, particularly in the private sector will provide only minimal benefits, locking people into unwanted plans because of onerous vesting provisions, ignoring large parts of the work force, especially women and part time or seasonal workers, and offering little protection against inflation.
The Canada pension plan will become grossly underfunded. The clear message is that Canada will not be able to provide the necessary dollars to meet even the most parsimonious needs of our senior citizens.

I would like to quote from the report of Senator Croll, because I believe it gives an accurate summary of the problem. He said:
It is a tragedy for senior citizens, as well as a blot on the national conscience
that so many old people are being denied a reasonable share of the good things
produced in a wealthy and dynamic society.
The senator went on to say:
It should also be borne in mind that the magnitude of the problem will
certainly increase unless some remedial action is taken.
Mr. Speaker, where are we going now?

I welcomed the announcement in the throne speech of a national pension conference this fall. I was further encouraged when the minister said last Wednesday in this House that a broad cross-section of interested parties, including pensioners, would participate. The national pension conference is one of the ways we can make the phrase "renewed federalism" mean something tangible for senior citizens right across Canada.
I should like to make some comments about the remarks of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), a man who, 1 am glad, and 1 am sure all of us are, to see back in good health and back in opposition because of his very great contributions.
1 do take issue, however, with what he said last Wednesday, and I quote:
When the minister talks about the national pension conference, I gather she sees that as the substitute for legislation.
And then he continued:
An increase of $35 a month does not amount to a pensions policy, nor docs the holding of a conference. The issues have to be dealt with.
I agree that an increase in the GIS is not a policy in itself, and we have not claimed that it is, but I do not think we should dismiss the conference as a substitute for action. It is, rather, as I see it, the spark for action, the start of legislation. 1 think that conference will be very important because it will bring together all those responsible for the pension system- government, private companies and pensioners-"to sit down to work out new directions." This is the best forum to deal
May 26, 1980

with the issues. 1 expect very positive legislation is going to result from this conference.
We have, as others have pointed out, done much of the field work. Now that we have a good idea of the problems, we have to get to work and hammer out the solutions. Without prejudging the results of that conference I should like to make six suggestions.
First, employer sponsored plans must be revised to allow national portability.
Second, private plans must be changed to improve coverage, indexing and adequacy, and private pension plans will have to come up to scratch.
Third, 1 hope the conference will look favourably upon the Croll report recommendation calling for larger contributions to the Canada Pension Plan, otherwise it will be under-funded.
Fourth, the national pension conference will undoubtedly raise important questions about the revenue raising powers of Canada's three levels of government. In this light it is essential to remember that, except for Switzerland, Canada is the most fiscally decentralized of all the countries in the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development.
On the average, tax revenues of local or regional governments among OECD countries are only 44 per cent of that of the federal government. In Canada this figure is 88 per cent.
1 believe that the federal deficit cannot be balanced by fiscal management and restraint alone. The question of fiscal powers must be raised early at a national conference on revenue sharing. It is critical to the building of a new Canadian federalism.
Fifth, Senator Croll recommended against compulsory retirement at age 65. Age does not mean that one is unfit to serve or that one is unfit to work. We must adopt a flexible plan with respect to retirement age.
My final point is one raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who is admired and respected for his work on behalf of retired citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Flear, hear!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: He recommended legislating a pension level of 125 per cent of the poverty line, and made suggestions about the type of indexing that should be used in calculating pensions.
Let me say that I trust that all of us recognize the very real economic needs of our senior citizens. We want to do something for them. The points mentioned are ones that should be at the forefront in our pension conference this fall, and we must find a way to pay for them. This, of course, relates to my point about revenue sharing. Under the current system the federal government would have to bear the full load of any increase. This would be the same with the Canada Pension Plan. The rights of our senior citizens and the funding of the
Old Age Security Act
programs to support them should not be left to the federal government alone.

To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I support enthusiastically the increase in the guaranteed income supplement for senior citizens not only as a necessary measure, but as one which will give rise to a new era of reform.
Our aim must first of all be to enable senior citizens to live in dignity and security without fear of being pursued by poverty every time they go to the supermarket or to the doctor's office.

But, Mr. Speaker, when we have achieved these measures, when we have achieved all these reforms, we will have taken only the first step, that of helping provide financial security for our senior citizens.
The second step, a step even more important than the first, involves a complete change in our attitude toward our senior citizens. They must not be "out of sight, out of mind". They must not be relegated to the ash heap of uselessness. Until we have learned to tap fully the resources of our elderly, their wisdom, their experience, their love and their concern, until we allow seniors a more useful role in our society and until we have taken the second step we, as a nation, will have fallen far short of our great potential.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, one way that history rates civilizations is to determine how the old, the physically and mentally disabled have been treated or are treated. When we look at some of the civilizations of the past, we deplore things such as the killing-even though they call it mercy killing-of people who are disabled, sub-normal, crippled or old. Our civilization will be rated by future historians on how we treat our senior citizens and how we treat our crippled and our disabled, whether they are disabled physically or mentally.
I will not be too long tonight because I know there are many other members who want to make a contribution to this debate, but I do want to deal with about five or six items that come under the principle of this bill.
The first one was dealt with by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) under the topic of universality. There was a time when I was very vocal in regard to universality, and I felt that the pension was the right of citizenship and that everyone should receive it. I have changed my mind, for two reasons. In the first place, the government is short of funds. The government has to establish priorities. When priorities are established, it is not always that senior citizens or the disabled who get high enough on the list.
When I enter a home of a senior citizen who has worked his entire life in a coal mine, I find that in the last three days of the month that person has to eat bread and soup occasionally because his pension has run out. Then I look at those who are in that upper group, the 10 per cent or 15 per cent of people who do not need money at all. Even though they pay some
1406

May 26, 1980
Old Age Security Act
back in income taxes, they do not put it all back. Because of these two things I have come to a conclusion that a better policy than universality would be to keep the same amount of money for this particular vote but to distribute it on a different basis so that those who needed it would get it, and those who do not require it at all would not get it.
I know there are many people who are over the age of 65 who have not applied for the old age pension, and properly so in my view. They do not need it, they are still working. I can see no reason to pay a pension to people who are still working. We talk about leaving the choice of retirement at age 65 or at whatever age a person wants to retire. That fits right into my philosophy of life, freedom of choice, which is part of the philosophy of the party I represent in this House. But if we are going to say that people who are able and who want to will continue to earn wages well past the age of 65, then 1 can see no reason at the same time to be paying them a pension out of public funds because they are senior citizens. I would much rather that that money be distributed to those who need it so that our senior citizens will not have to live during the last four or five days of the month on dry bread or watered-down soup.
We have to be realistic about dealing with this matter of universality. I can see no reason to pay the pension to those who are well off and who are well able to live without it and, at the same time, not pay enough to those who really need it so that those people can at least live reasonably well through the period in which that pension is paid.
I have changed my mind about the pension being a right of citizenship. I do not want to go back into any rigid poverty means test. I simply say that those who are working and continuing to earn good wages after 65 should not, in my view, be drawing the old age pension. That money, whatever amount, would bring into the pockets of those who really need it a little bit of extra cheer, without costing the government any more if the priority prevents the government from increasing the amount of money for this particular vote.
The second item that I want to deal with is directly in connection with the guaranteed income supplement as set out in this bill. During the election there was a good deal of misunderstanding. Many people said, "we will be getting S35 each after the election if Mr. Trudeau is elected." According to my understanding of the bill, that was right. I said, "yes, I believe that is what is planned." It has been rather sad for many married couples to find that it is $35 per household, or $17.50 each. It will certainly be helpful and help those who are having a difficult time, but it is another aspect that I do not like.
One married couple said to me, and I was horrified when they said it, "We could very easily separate and get $35 each." I hope the department will keep very close tab on that particular item. The laws of this country should be encouraging marriage, not separation, or common law which is becoming more acceptable and more common in many areas.
In my view we should be sticking to the family which is the foundation of this nation, encouraging the family to stick together, work together, and, as 1 often said, pray together. When we pay so much per household, it has an adverse effect. When we pay $17.50 each to a married man and a married woman, both of whom are pensioners, and pay $35 to a bachelor, it does make our senior people think.
I would like the government to think that problem through and see if there is something that can be done to do away with this aspect that many people feel is discriminatory. They are all old age pensioners, yet they are being paid different amounts. Many of them have the same expenses, the same rent and everything else, but they get a different amount of money. I hope that our legislation will not drive married people apart but will be aimed at keeping them together to the greatest degree possible.
The third item I want to deal with in connection with this bill has already been mentioned by other speakers, that is, those who do not qualify at all. They feel that this is discrimination. Take the spinster who is 58 years of age. When she reaches 61 or 62, she still gets nothing. She has to wait until she is 65 before she can get any assistance.
What about the widow whose husband died when she was 58 and he was 59? She has raised her family and now she is alone. She will get nothing until she is 65. This is a sad group, an unfortunate group to be in. Such a person would look at her sister or brother who happens to be married, and would see that they get enough at least to keep them alive. Some of these people feel bitter. Some have said, "Why didn't the spinster who worked all her life provide for her old age?" There are many reasons. Many of these people are spinsters because they were providing for a widowed mother or a disabled father, or for a brother or sister who was unable to look after themselves. They sacrificed their life earning and providing and keeping a home through all those years, until they suddenly found that they were old. But for them there is no help until they are 65.
Rather than universality, giving something to everybody, 1 hope that we will try to give something, even though it is not the greatest possible amount, to those who need it. There are those who have planned for the future who today are having a nightmare of frustration. They worked hard all their lives, built up a farm or a business, and now they are ready to retire. They think they have enough put aside. They paid taxes throughout the years. Now they feel they are able to retire and live on what they have provided for themselves.
When they go to sell their farm or their business, the government steps in and says, "Just a minute, we want half of that to be taxed as capital gains." They have already paid their taxes throughout the years, paid it on every cent they have made. They have been scrupulously honest. Now their government is taking another handful.
It has reached the point where one farmer in my riding said to me, "Now I am on the poverty line, all my plans have been cast aside because this capital gains stuff came in." It not only kills initiative, but it ruins the hopes and the plans of people who have built and worked long hours and long days, in many
May 26, 1980

cases without holidays. They did this in order to build up something for their old age, but now they find there is not enough there.
One of the last speakers mentioned inflation. If we need to have capital gains, and 1 do not think we do-I would like to see it done away with entirely-why do we include the inflationary aspect when we start to value capital gains? A businessman said to me he would not have minded paying on the true capital gains, but he had to pay on the inflated value. We index pensions but we do not index capital gains. There has to be some fairness in this. If capital gains were eliminated, many businesses would expand. Many senior citizens would be able to retire. If this were to happen on the farm, a young man could farm more land, raise more cattle and more food. It would be a boon to the economy. As long as we keep capital gains over the heads of people, they are not going to use that initiative.
As I think I told this House before, one businessman said to me, "I'll work 14 hours a day to build up something for my wife and my children, but I am not going to work 14 hours a day to build up something for some blankety-blank government." He was not referring to any particular stripe of government, just government which would take part of the earnings he built up for his old age. Well, they did plan, but it hasn't worked out. Small businessmen face the same thing.
Small business-the last member spoke feelingly about encouraging business to provide a pension plan of some type- is faced with the problem of just staying alive without including anything else. If we are to have pension plans in our small businesses there has to be some government encouragement, not government help but government encouragement. Just look at the figures presented by the government the other day. There were 5,000 bankruptcies in the month of April alone. Five thousand businesses went under; those were businesses without any retirement plan. It is said that the best of plans sometimes go astray, and I can feel the bitterness from some of our people who have planned and worked only to find that through no fault of their own they are left in a precarious position in the senior years of their lives.
The next point I would deal with is the matter of social legislation. In this country we are getting to the point at which we are including everything under social legislation, including veterans pensions and pensions for prisoners of war. Veterans pensions should not be under social legislation, neither should pensions for prisoners of war, veterans and their dependants. That is not social legislation. That is a national obligation. These people left part of their lives on the battlefields so that we could live a life in freedom with our own government. Then we put them under social legislation. It is not social legislation at all. It is a national obligation. We say we will pay so much to widows of pensioners who were getting less than 47 per cent, down to 37 per cent, so that in five years they will be able to get their proper pension. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it is realized how old these people are. Some of them served in World War
Old Age Security Act
I, and others in World War II. They haven't long to live. We say to the widows, "Wait for another four years and then you will get the pension your husband would have received had he lived." I do not think we should include veterans and prisoners of war under social legislation at all. It is a number one national obligation which we owe to these people.
The last point I want to mention concerns the way in which we work out pensions. It is a type of universality, I suppose. To get back to the point with which I started tonight, I think history will decide whether we are in the high category, the medium category or the low category when we are being rated according to the way we treat our senior citizens. I am not referring to the rich; they can look after themselves. I am concerned with those who are not able to look after themselves, those who made plans which went astray, or those who did not make plans but who are human beings, and the group of women who are in that category but who get nothing until they are 65. They are too old to work so we tell them to go on welfare after they have spent their lives saving money for the government because they continued to work to look after a disabled brother, mother or father.
I will support the second reading of this bill although I do not like the division of the $35 a month between a married couple. I think it is going to drive some families apart. But every bit helps. I went into a home in my riding. A man who spent 50 years working in the coal mines was eating dry bread.
1 felt a lump come into my throat: after all those years, this fine man who raised a family, could only afford to eat dry bread. He did not have any money left from his pension. We can do better than we are doing. If the government cannot find extra dollars to help these people, let us forget about the extra 10 per cent or 15 per cent at the top, those who don't need the money. Let us distribute that amount, at least, to those who are in dire need. We will be helping to raise the poverty line. Let us make sure that when history rates us we won't be at the bottom of the ladder.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the debate on the second reading of Bill C-16. I must also say, that I feel very close to this issue. As many hon. members may know, I was a family physician before the last election. But what they may not know is that my practice was largely dealing with the elderly. So you see, Mr. Speaker, I feel I have a good first-hand knowledge of the problems faced by the elderly as they relate to health and also social security measures.
I think every hon. member realizes the gravity of the problem of maintaining a decent standard of living for our senior citizens. The situation is especially acute in times like the present when governments must walk a fine line in terms of aiding those hurt by inflation and of fuelling the fires of inflation through increased government spending. In the Speech from the Throne it was recognized that, "Inflation strikes hardest at the aged and those least able to take care of themselves." It is precisely in view of this that the government

May 26, 1980
Old Age Security Act
is proceeding early with the proposal to raise the guaranteed income supplement by $35 a month.
There is no doubt that there is a real need for increased assistance to our elderly population. 1 would like to illustrate this fact with a few startling statistics. As many in this House may know, we have in our country approximately two million persons currently receiving the basic old age security pension. But what many may not be aware of, however, is the extent to which these old age pensioners rely on the government to provide additional income assistance through the GIS program. For example, over a half of all old age pensioners have little or no income apart from the basic pension. In December, 1979, 807,000 elderly persons were receiving a partial income supplement. Even more indicative of the vulnerability of our older population is the fact that an additional 381,000 were receiving the maximum benefit payable under the guaranteed income supplement. In other words, about 17 per cent of all pensioners rely solely on the federal government to provide them with the income they require.
The minister has indicated that we are falling short of the mark in guaranteeing our elderly population an income which is at least equal to the poverty level. I say that this is only the first step in bringing our elderly just up to the poverty level. This is only a first step and I support the legislation before us for that reason. The poverty level particularly affects single pensioners, and they are predominantly women. It is in an effort to bring these people closer to that mark-the mark of the poverty level, that they may live their later years in some semblance of dignity and independence-that we are seeking approval of Bill C-16 today.
Bill C-16 is not a complex piece of legislation. In general, the bill directs additional financial assistance to the low income, elderly population and, in particular, to single elderly people, who do not benefit from the combined effects of two OAS pensions and two GIS benefits.
The GIS rates, established under the Old Age Security Act, are adjusted quarterly, in accordance with the consumer price index. The maximum rate, for the quarter commencing April 1, 1980, is $153.35 a month for a single pensioner, and $127.51 a month each for a couple where both are pensioners. Up to these rates, the amount of GIS payable depends on the pensioners' monthly income from other sources. Bill C-16 provides that, in addition to the normal indexation made for the quarter commencing July 1, 1980, the maximum monthly GIS rates will be further increased by $35 for a single pensioner, and $17.50 each for a pensioner couple, or $35 per pensioner household. This increased benefit will be subject, to the normal quarterly cost of living increases, Mr. Speaker.
The proposed amendment to increase GIS and SPA benefits will provide an additional $35 per month for each household receiving GIS, or GIS and spouse's allowance payments. For a two pensioner couple receiving GIS, or an OAS-GIS pensioner with a spouse receiving SPA, the increase will be $17.50 on each monthly cheque. Single recipients will receive $35 more
each month. The larger proportional increase for unattached pensioners recognizes the fact that basic costs for one person, living alone, are proportionately greater than the expenses for two persons living together.
The Department of National Health and Welfare estimates that, as a result of this bill, an additional 45,000 pensioners and spouses will become entitled to partial GIS and SPA benefits. With the rise in the maximum GIS and SPA levels, these persons, whose other income was too high previously to qualify for GIS or SPA benefits, will now become eligible for a monthly benefit of up to $35. As well, Mr. Speaker, OAS pensioners and spouses whose income level is too high to qualify for GIS or SPA, will not be affected by the increase.
It is important to note that this proposed increase will be in addition to the regular quarterly indexation made in accordance with changes in the consumer price index. In essence, the proposal represents an increase in the real value of the GIS and SPA benefits of all eligible recipients.
In total, there will be an increase of approximately $345 million in the hands of low income, elderly Canadians for the balance of the 1980-81 fiscal year, and approximately $525 million in 1981-82, the first full fiscal year for which the increase is in effect. In terms of the estimated number of elderly recipients benefiting from the increase, the figure for 1980-81 is 1,379,000, and for 1981-82, 1,443,000. The bottom line, of course, is the amount of expenditure in total that the government is allocating toward meeting the needs of senior citizens. The figures for total spending in the old age security, guaranteed income supplement and spouse's allowance programs for 1980-81 are $7.5 billion, and for 1981-82 $8.5 billion.
So, as you can see, Mr. Speaker, the government is directing a very considerable portion of its budget as part of a continuing commitment to the elderly. The $35 increase in the GIS is a much needed and significant step on the road to providing more economic security for senior citizens. In view of this I am sure members opposite will be delighted to support a measure which helps assuage the vulnerability of older people living on fixed incomes.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my comments to future problems relating to income security for the aged. The government has already taken steps in this direction by calling for a national pension conference in the fall, but I firmly believe that we must act with the greatest dispatch in addressing this problem. At present, Canadians over 65 constitute approximately 8.7 per cent of our population. In 20 years this figure will rise to 13 per cent, and by 2031 it is estimated it will hit 20 per cent, almost three times the figure at present. As well, the ratio of Canadians aged 65 and over to those aged 20 to 65 is 15.60 per cent-that is more than six workers per pensioner. By the year 2031 this ratio will be 33.37 per cent, or less than three workers for every pensioner. So it would appear that the tax burden of the Canada Pension Plan will more than double in the next 50 years. The time to act on this problem is now, Mr. Speaker.
May 26, 1980

I think a good starting point from which to initiate discussion is the Report of the Task Force on Retirement Income Systems. While the report does not make specific recommendations, it does outline a broad range of policy alternatives that might be considered to upgrade the system. The main findings of the report are outlined in relation to the two main objectives that underlie the current pension system. These are: first, to alleviate poverty among the elderly; and second, to assist and/or require people to defer consumption during their working years through taxes, pension contributions and savings in order to ensure that the living standards they experience during their work years are maintained adequately after retirement.
Among the findings of the study were that only 48 per cent of workers were members of employer sponsored pensions plans in 1976. Many of these will never collect an adequate pension because most plans are not portable. Rules regarding an employee's right to ownership of pension credits, known as vesting, are too stringent. Moreover, the after tax income of the elderly is only about 40 per cent of younger persons. For example, in 1975 average elderly income was $4,620 after tax; compared with $11,870 for the non-elderly.
The report also notes that more than half of Canada's retired persons collecting pensions also receive guaranteed income supplements, additional benefits paid to needy pensioners. It is stated in the report:
This makes clear that many people who were not in financially tight circumstances during their working lives find themselves in that situation after retirement.
As well, it states that the Canadian employer sponsored pension system is behind most other western industrialized countries in terms of coverage and vesting provisions.
Another of the findings was that fewer than half of workers with employer sponsored plans have survivor benefits, leaving widows without any extra support in their later years.
Also, up to one half of middle-income earners making between $12,000 and $24,000 will see a significant drop in living standards after retirement unless the public and private pension system is reformed. In addition, it says government could provide more subsidized housing for the elderly, and raise old age pension and supplementary benefits payments based on wage increases.
The report also proposes compulsory establishment of an earnings related plan on an indexed scale, possibly through expansion of the Canada Pension Plan. The CPP, which pays a monthly pension of about $244 to contributors and their survivors, is based on earnings.
Before concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to dwell for a moment on the issue of health care delivery for the elderly. I believe it is an integral part of a comprehensive package of security for our senior citizens. When we are talking about financial security for senior citizens, we have to consider the total social security for senior citizens. As 1 have mentioned, this has been an area of vital interest to me. As the percentage of people over 65 increases, we will be faced with a vast array of problems relating to health, aging, poverty,
Old Age Security Act
institutionalization, isolation and depression. In my view the health care system must be sensitive to the special needs of our senior citizens and adapt to these needs rather than having the elderly adapt to the needs of the health care system.
None of what 1 have just said is new, since health care officials and the public have been aware of the problem for years. But time is catching up with us, and this awareness must be translated very soon into action.
To sum up, the same applies to the need to reform the system of retirement income. While Bill C-16 helps to redress some of the immediate financial difficulties now being experienced by segments of our elderly population, we must direct our efforts, in consultation and co-operation with the provinces, toward finding a long-term solution to this problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to make a few comments about what has been said on that very important legislation. My colleagues will no doubt support the policy of income supplement for a group of individuals for whom we have the highest respect and consideration. I think that we are dealing with people who deserve the attention of all hon. members not out of charity but respect for the contribution they have made to our history and life as many others have. I am not speaking on behalf of the thousands of unemployed but of those who are enjoying a well-earned retirement. Most of them are very concerned and are experiencing some problems because benefits have not kept pace with the cost of living increases, as measured by the consumer price index.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, to repeat how pleased 1 am to say a few words about that proposal, but I am not convinced that if there had not been elections last February such amendment would have been made so early. One thing I would like to say is that, as a government, we had made a commitment. The former minister had already shown his interest in discussing all these social issues at a conference with the provinces. Also, in reply to questions asked, he undertook to initiate a full review of the hardships of our senior citizens. And since the costing method did not seem as fair as it could be, it was clear that we were preparing a full scale study with a view to improving the situation.
1 think it is desirable to increase the benefits by a reasonable percentage in view of the poverty line. It is clear,, and the minister recognizes this, that even with this increase, thousands of people will still be below the poverty line. I do not think we can be proud of the fact that we cannot act fast enough to help these people out of this situation, because there are indeed thousands of senior citizens who are having problems. 1 remember, and I think that we must recall the period in which those $35 were promised. As I said, we will heartily

May 26, 1980
Old Age Security Act
support the bill because we ourselves had already thought it was absolutely necessary to readjust these rates. But I remember that it was quite an electoral gadget during the campaign, Mr. Speaker, in my own riding as well as in others, and 1 remember my colleagues on the other side coming to my riding. I found it unfortunate that senior citizens were led to believe those $35 were reason enough to support the party which got elected. To me, this looked regrettable, as I said then and 1 repeat it tonight, that they go and tempt the people with their concerns, that they use that $35 promise: If you elect a Liberal government, you will get $35 more. Of course, we could not say that the previous government was seriously considering this, that there was an in-depth study of difficulties faced by those people, difficulties that are still and will be faced despite the increase.
We will not oppose the $35 increase, of course, but nonetheless we know that it was an electioneering gadget! I for one was shy of discussing this, as on a number of occasions I was called upon to say if we were going to give these $35. We could have said for purely political and partisan reasons that we would be offering $50. It would have been easy, but we knew the conditions, the economic situation left by the former government. The minister of finance was aware of this problem, and so was the minister of national health and welfare. We thought that savings in other areas would enable us to adjust the pensions, that are needed, without increasing the deficit. Anyway, we now have a proposal for the $35, and as 1 say I am very happy to state in this debate that of course, as a matter of principle 1 will support the measure.
1 would also like to take this opportunity to ask this government to consider very seriously the case of single pensioners. Saturday evening last, I had an opportunity to meet a group of senior citizens. I was very happy to tell them that last week we discussed the $35 promised by the government and that opposition parties would not oppose it. But they stressed the difficulties faced by single pensioners, because a couple can still manage at 83 per cent or 85 per cent and somewhat more below the poverty line, they still approach that level. But the single person is definitely in difficulty with the benefits he or she is getting. And 1 feel that all members here, as hon. members who spoke before me recognized, there will have to be a very special effort to see what is financially possible for the single person who is faced with the responsibilities almost equal in certain cases, as far as shelter, telephone and other essential services are concerned, and indeed the single person must find shelter as well. If he or she owns a house, it does not cost any less. I think it would be interesting to study the situation of people who are alone without neglecting to reexamine the current system as well, the consumer price index. Others have already demonstrated that this system is not equitable given the cost of living increases which we have unfortunately been forced to accept in the past few years. I therefore think that the government should seriously look into
the matter to better justify these increases and change this method so that the rates are a lot more realistic than those we have known so far.
The minister has also expressed her hope that the provinces will give the entire increase to the aged, especially those living in provincial institutions. I am therefore totally in agreement with the minister and I hasten to wish that the provinces will act accordingly, because I do not think they have to, but they will let these old people receive the total amount of $35 because we are always aware of their responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong this debate and I know that others will want the floor but I repeat that there are a few considerations to take into account. I was going to forget, Mr. Speaker, that we did mention giving more flexibility to the retirement age. I am one of those who, for the past 12 years at any rate, have tended to support lowering the age of retirement and this might be a good time to let the government know this. As we know, some people at age 60 or 65 express the wish that they be able to draw their old age security. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, we know that some people 65 years of age would like to continue working without being rushed into retirement. Well, there has been some talk about relaxing the age of retirement and I do hope that the studies the government will commission and those that are under way will look seriously at those two aspects. And it is clear that there are people 65 years of age who would like to get their old age pension in view of the many years they spent working and in view also of their health. It can always be argued that at 60 they can always get help from the provincial system called the Department of Social Affairs.
On the other hand, I think that we can seriously consider that relaxation of the old age security. But here again, I know that more than ever before the economic conditions as well as the needs and the demands have to be taken into consideration and I think the government must ponder upon the matter because we know the cost of these increases are rather substantial.
So, in view of the circumstances, it is with great pleasure that I support this legislation and I would hope that the remarks I have made, which are not new, because other members have said the same thing will be heard. I also wanted to take part in this debate in order to impress upon the government the importance of continuing to improve the lot of the people in that age group who are definitely behind in view of the increases in the cost of living.
I do not think that we have the right to let them suffer any longer. We must endeavour to find the necessary funds so they may receive pension benefits as an expression of the respect and the consideration we must have for them who worked hard for many years and who certainly deserve their retirement pension and should not live in misery and hardship. People talk about a decent level for so many other things; I think that group of people deserves a decent level of income and we

May 26, 1980

should be able, in this Parliament with all the objectivity that is called for, to give them that decent level of income to enable them not only to live well their years of retirement but also to enjoy several more. They should also feel that the generation behind them has not forgotten them and wants in this way to thank them for everything they have done.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief, of course. I know there is a hope or a tendency to proceed with this bill in Committee of the Whole and possibly even third reading later this evening. 1 do not know if that is possible, but it is certainly desirable. I think all of us realize the importance of passing this bill since its benefits would be made available to senior citizens come July 1.
When I first arrived in this House many years ago, it seemed to me that the whole concept of pensions was much simpler. It was based on the concept of universality. I look with a certain amount of misgiving, perhaps, at the trend away from universality. It concerns me. I read the minister's speech last Wednesday, and it was an excellent speech. There were two things in that speech which impressed me. One, of course, is the minister's intention to bring together all the people in this country who are interested in the total concept of pensions-not simply old age pensions but also industrial pensions-with particular emphasis on the private sector, at a conference this fall or perhaps next spring.
It will be interesting if, coming out of that conference, can be some new concepts or, perhaps better still, a return to the basic concept of universality. It seems to me that it should not be too difficult to combine universality with the Income Tax Act to make certain that the number of people who benefit or obtain pensions, G1S or what have you and who do not really need this kind of income, would find it simply retrieved by the government through the income tax system.
One very persuasive member talked tonight about the need of a means test to make certain that the money goes only to the people who need it. This is a laudable concept, but I have yet to see anybody in the public service, the opposition or in my own party in caucus come up with a system or method of determining need or means properly. 1 have heard the argument that the need of a senior citizen living in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal may be greater, theoretically, than that of a person living in a smaller community in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. This is why I retreat a little from discussing the poverty line. What is the poverty line? It is certainly not uniform in this country.
I think statistics would indicate that the poverty line in one part of the country is different from that in another part of the country, so the whole matter becomes more and more complicated, more and more formulae are devised, and more and more bureaucracy is introduced, with more and more regulations. Why? Because we do not have the courage in this House of Commons to say that we are going back to universality and
Old Age Security Act
that really the whole pension plan needs improvement, and not just the GIS.
People have argued eloquently for the need for de-regulation, and I agree. We are an over-regulated society, but regulations usually come in because of a lack of restraint and willingness to make regulations unnecessary. When we depart in the slightest from the concept of universality, we are automatically increasing the bureaucracy and automatically increasing the number of regulations. Once someone says the money should go only to those who need it most, we are automatically setting up regulations, if only to determine who are the people who need it most. This has always eluded the better brains in the public service, so I am rather anxious to see the outcome of this particular badly needed conference to see if somehow we might want to get back to the concept of universality.
This, of course, does not ignore the fact that thousands of Canadians, because of hard work, because of a rich father or because of a relatively illness-free lifetime-for a lot of reasons-reach the age of 60, 65 or 70 when they desire to retire from the work force without any need of an old age pension. However, it seems to me that the logical way of retrieving or getting that money back is through the income tax system and not through having bureaucrats crawling over our bank books, peering under our beds and all the rest of it, to see whether we are actually in need. I am not exaggerating because this really was one of the characteristics of the depression days when we were very, very meticulous about making certain that nobody got something unless he or she could demonstrate it was deserved as a result of the sweat on his or her brow, as they used to say. It bothers me slightly that we seem to be getting away from the concept of universality.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) said at the beginning of her speech:
The federal government is not the only source of financial assistance to elderly Canadians. It is fair to say that more and more provinces are introducing supplementary programs to assist elderly Canadians. Does this bill affect such programs and what is the relationship between the provincial programs and the federal program?
It seems that there is a parallel or relationship between what the minister asked in that question and the experiences which we are now running into in the medicare plan. Medicare has been one of the greatest contributing factors to the well-being and quality of life of people in this country. If we look at the medicare plan in the United States, we will see that it does not come anywhere near the Canadian plan. There is no universality and, indeed, no plan.
We pride ourselves on the universality of medicare. But just a couple of years ago we introduced the concept of block funding, which is leading away from universality and from a common standard across this country. What has happened as a result of block funding? We need only look at the medicare plan in Ontario but, more important, as people study the results of block funding in medicare, we are finding that it perpetuates regional disparity. It is obvious that certain prov-

May 26, 1980
Old Age Security Act
inces are unable to match the quality or standard of medicare found in other provinces, particularly the have-provinces. I can think of, for example, Nova Scotia's plan, with which I am familiar because I recently studied it.
Once again, unintentionally of course, we have a policy which perpetuates regional disparity. My party, the Liberal party, has been able to forge a marriage of convenience between private enterprise and government. We believe that the private enterprise system of this country is the greatest generator of capital in the history of this country or of the world. Private industry is by far the most successful generator of capital. We need capital in this country, not only to provide jobs, but to provide a quality of life. We are talking tonight about senior citizens, but tomorrow we could be talking about equality of opportunity in the educational system for young people.
The marriage of convenience between private enterprise and the government is that the government insists on having some input into the distribution of some of that capital in order to provide a standard of living for all Canadians. It is only when the two partners, as in any marriage, fight over the income that the marriage has tremendous strains put upon it. Over the last ten years we have run into that situation. Private industry is, quite properly, demanding more of the available funds, and those who believe in social reform are unwilling to give a little.
Consequently, concepts are evolved by harrassed public servants in an attempt to break the conflict. So we end up with, in the case of old age pensions, a retention of the concept of universality, supplemented by guaranteed income supplement and by provincial contributions. The end result is that the changes are made in the GIS and not in the basic income. Again, it could be retrieved through income tax, particularly in these days of computerization.
What concerns me is the trend toward a continuation of regional disparity. Sooner or later senior citizens living in a have-not province, and we never know which province that may be in five years or ten years' time, cannot expect to have the same income as senior citizens in Quebec or Ontario. And it is wrong to presume that it costs any less to live in the Atlantic provinces than it costs to live in the city of Montreal. If rent is less, then food is more expensive, transportation is more expensive, and medicare is more expensive. Really, there is no big difference. If anything, the cost of living is probably greater in the Atlantic provinces than in the central provinces.
Yet, senior citizens over time, if not already in some provinces, will obtain from the various levels of government considerably more income than somebody in the less favoured regions of the country. I suspect that this is why the minister said that she hopes that the provinces would not attempt to retrieve some of the money from the $35 under one pretext or another.
The minister also said that she was pleased to be advised that Nova Scotia and British Columbia will be passing on the full increase to all GIS recipients. However, some of the other provinces may not pass on this increase. If they do not, then the senior citizens in those provinces will have less income than
those in Nova Scotia or British Columbia. Thus we begin again the whole cycle of accentuating the differences in our country rather than, at this very important time in our history, going the other way.
What must come out of our constitutional talks, whether they be next month or three years or four years from now, is a dedication to certain basic principles. Those principles could be perhaps summed up by simply saying "equal opportunity for all Canadians". Equal opportunity for all Canadians means access to the same facilities right across the country, such as education, medicare, income for senior citizens, and family allowances. When we in this House allow ourselves to depart from this basic principle, perhaps to accommodate some of the provinces or to appease other provinces, or perhaps even because of some conflict over what confederation is all about, what we have done, unintentionally I am sure, is to put in place programs which help some people and not others.
Somebody said earlier today that a certain amount of jealousy is built into the programs, that if it is not $35 for most people, then it is $17.50. It is $35 for a household, but it is only a matter of time before there will be regional differences and regional jealousy. Such a disparity will have the effect of encouraging people, once more, to leave the have-not provinces for the more favoured provinces. It is happening now in Quebec, to some degree. People there who are in their sixties are leaving because inheritance taxes and duty taxes are different. These people are planning their estates and saying, "As much as I would like to remain in this province, maybe 1 would like to move into Ontario. It is still part of Canada, but I want to go there because of the taxes."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The two new rookies could learn something if they would keep quiet.


An hon. Member:: Where were you in 1978?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: They both look like they are ready for their old age pensions.


An hon. Member:: When it comes to pensions, you are doing okay.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is not inconceivable, and it can be demonstrated that people who reach the age of 65, or in some cases 60, can receive considerably more in one province than in another. In this very mobile society, people then begin moving out of areas like the Atlantic provinces to Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, the current have provinces.
In conclusion, 1 am certainly pleased that we are increasing the GIS. I would be much happier, however, if I saw a trend back toward universality entirely and, even more desirable, a fairly decent increase in the old age pension itself.


Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment to the position which you now hold, and I do so. I should also like to congratulate the minister on her appointment. In her
May 26, 1980

opening remarks she demonstrated more than a real feeling for poor people in Canada, as she has done on other occasions. I commend her on her appointment.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), on his most excellent remarks, as well as all those who have participated in this debate, particularly the hon. member who made his maiden speech tonight.
Some time ago, Mr. Speaker, Robert Browning wrote some very famous words:
Grow old along with me The best is yet to be
The last of life, for which the first was made.
I think the concept that Robert Browning had in mind for senior citizens is a really wonderful idea, but it is an idea that has not been realized in our lifetime. Canada's senior citizens, in more difficult times than we enjoy, created for us a much better way of life than they had. They did it with a lot of self sacrifice and a lot of hard work. Today, hundreds of thousands of our fellow Canadians, our senior citizens, live below the poverty line and do not share in any measure in the prosperity that their hard work helped create.
In her opening remarks the minister indicated that 700,000 Canadians who are single, including widows, widowers and separated people, live in poverty. I have to say that their reality does not reflect Robert Browning's ideals.
1 feel that the bill before us is a step in the right direction, however, and 1 feel that the minister's dedication to seeing that the $35 per household-$35 per couple, or $35 for a widow or widower who lives alone in a household-is passed on to that person and does not become absorbed by another program, no matter how worthy, is just about as important as the amendment she has proposed. 1 support her in that regard and will do everything I can to see that hope fulfilled. 1 believe it is a step in the right direction.
There are some features of the bill that cause us to reflect on the programs represented by the guaranteed income supplement. I think of two things: one is indexing, and other is the means test. I should like to see the formula for indexing changed to reflect the actual purchases made by senior citizens on slender incomes. At the present time indexation is tied to the consumer price index, which represents the average of increases in price of a wide variety or basket of goods, whereas senior citizens on slender incomes spend their money basically on food, heat and-if they have any left-on accommodation and a very small amount of clothing. These items rise much faster than the average. I should like to see these staples used as the basis for the guaranteed income supplement and the old age pension.
As for the means test, I should like to see the House address the question of the reality of the means test in view of the decreasing purchasing power of our dollar. These two things are somewhat related but not entirely so, because the guaran-
Old Age Security Act
teed income supplement depends very much on the formula that is used for the means test.
In terms of indexing pensions in the private sector of our economy, we have had very little experience of this because they are not indexed to any great extent. In the public sector we have had some experience, and it is under study. I should like us to match the private and public experiences and look for a high interest vehicle so that all Canadians in the low and middle income groups could have their pensions indexed. The alternative to this is to see Canada's senior citizens get by with one less egg, one less piece of bread, one less vegetable every week-week after week. In an inflationary economy such as we have experienced throughout the seventies, this is the alternative to indexing. It is an alternative that cannot be acceptable to any thinking Canadian. We should use the best brains available to devise some kind of higher interest vehicle.
Today, trust companies borrow money at 12 per cent on guaranteed investment certificates and lend it out on mortgages at 14 per cent. With the 2 per cent difference they provide a profit to shareholders and defray the cost of administration. Maybe we should consider investing in mortgages because the interest rate paid on mortgages and the interest rate on guaranteed investment certificates is higher than the consumer price index and higher than the inflation index. I believe we should examine this possibility. I have a private member's bill before the House that deals with some of these things and 1 look forward to an opportunity in the near future of discussing them at greater length.
Since I first came to Parliament I have spoken on one or two occasions in favour of a $200 basic old age pension. I have not been able to convince all of my colleagues in opposition of the merit of this proposition, and I certainly have not been able to convince my colleagues in government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Try $300.


J. Robert Howie: I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is an ally in my cause. I think the time will come when we must focus on the resources of our nation with this proposition, and I hope that time will come quickly.
Another thing that is very important is to enable senior citizens to live in their own homes as long as they possibly can. When the time comes that they cannot live there any longer, they should be treated with understanding and compassion. Before the last government fell, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation was examining a proposition for a shelter allowance and attempting to identify areas where funds could be reallocated to support it. The concept was based upon the need of a senior citizen who spends more than 30 per cent of income on housing. In view of the rapidly rising cost of energy, particularly home heating, this is a very valid and real consideration. 1 would personally like to see the figure of 25 per cent used. That study should be continued and the issue addressed by this House.
When senior citizens are no longer able to continue living in their own homes, perhaps because of disability or illness, other arrangements must be made. I am very impressed with a

May 26, 1980
Old Age Security Act
concept used in New Brunswick which I should like to share with the House. The federal government and the New Brunswick government in a joint agreement, using the vehicle of the New Brunswick Housing Corporation, provides excellent housing to senior citizens where they can and do live with dignity at a rent geared to income. This is an excellent concept. In my riding there is York Manor and Dixon Lodge which look after those senior citizens capable of caring for themselves and senior citizens who require nursing care. I think this program could be a model for others in Canada. 1 hope all hon. members will avail themselves of an opportunity to find out something about it.
There is also in my riding a 20-unit senior citizen housing development with low rent which was built by the Kinsman club. Eighteen young men met the community's greatest need.
1 am very proud of these institutions, and that is the reason I mention them in my brief remarks.
Another thing we should look at soon is the concept of enabling Canadian housewives to participate in the Canada Pension Plan. The concept that is so prevalent in pension plans, including the government's, of requiring a surviving spouse to live on half the pension of a deceased pensioner is a very cruel thing. In my view the basic expenses of an individual household continue after the death of a pensioner, and it is very difficult for the survivor to exist on half of the income. In fact it is very difficult for them to exist on the income when the pensioner is alive.
I should like to say a word in closing, Mr. Speaker, about our veterans. I do not think any Canadian wants our veterans treated other than with the greatest generosity, particularly our disabled veterans. Today there are hundreds of veterans waiting for the pension board to indicate the level of disability pension. This is in part because the grounds of appeal of a decision with respect to a disability pension have been broadened and the opportunity for appeal has been increased. But the structure has not been created to deal with these extra appeals, and I think it is a national disgrace to require men and women who sacrificed themselves for this country to have to wait in line to be treated with justice.
I would like to see us review the basics of the veterans pensions, the disability pensions and the war veterans allowance. I would like to see us implement also some of the suggestions that have been made by our colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, with respect to the indexation of those pensions.
I will close my remarks by indicating that it really does not matter whether my suggestions or better ones are acted upon, but I think that this House should follow some of the suggestions made by some of my colleagues from all parties and so address ourselves with greater dignity to the problems of our senior citizens.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today on Bill C-16, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act,
because of the concerns I have for the inadequacies contained in the structure of pensions and retirement income programs in Canada today.
It is proposed in this bill to raise the guaranteed income supplement benefit by $35.00 per month for single recipients and $17.50 per month to each married recipient. Even though we in the NDP have long advocated and encouraged any pension increase that will improve the lot of seniors, over half of whom are living under the poverty level, the measures proposed by the government in this bill fall far short of what could be done. In fact the bill falls so far short of what could and should be done that most if not all pensioners see the government's proposal as a continuation of its attitude of perceiving pensions as some sort of charity rather than a social program that should allow our seniors to live a decent and dignified life.
A social right to decency and dignity in retirement should be the thrust of any income security legislation for our seniors, and that has always been the aim of those who sit on this side of the House. Even though there are those on the government's side who attempt to persuade Canadians otherwise, history shows that it was only under pressure from the CCF that the government finally introduced a pension system in Canada. In fact our pension system has always had a CCF-NDP stamp on it. The CCF was responsible for its introduction. People like J. S. Woodsworth and my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), led the fight for the replacement of means tested pensions with old age security legislation. The NDP did the same thing in the early 1960s in relation to the Canada Pension Plan.
It was an NDP government in British Columbia which led the way and which was the first province to supplement the incomes of the elderly poor by way of legislation. The only time the OAS was increased in real terms in the last 15 years was in 1973 as a result of NDP pressure during the 1972-1974 minority parliament.
This government proposal, while being of some assistance to our elderly, does nothing toward bringing much needed fundamental reform to the pension system. Many people used to think that after a lifetime of productive contribution to society they would be rewarded by a worry free retirement. Not any more, Mr. Speaker. Now to be old and to be poor are synonymous in the minds of many people, and for very good reason. More than six out of every ten Canadians over the age of 65 have annual incomes under $5,000. For women, the realities are even worse. Three out of every four women over the age of 65 are poor.
This government has failed to recognize that for many of our senior citizens it is difficult for them to do the things that we do not even have to think about doing. For many it is a choice between buying a coffee or taking a bus downtown. For many it is a choice between buying a daily newspaper or being able to buy a pork chop dinner once a week. If you were one of the 1.2 million women over the age of 65, these would be the kinds of decisions you would be making every day. Three out of four of these women live alone, single, widowed or divorced,
May 26, 1980

and these women are trying to make ends meet on $389.00 per month.
A single 65-year-old person in Ontario with no other source of income receives three monthly benefits: old age security of $186.80, a guaranteed income supplement of $153.35, and GAINS under the Ontario guaranteed income supplement of $49.00. These figures add up to the grand total of $389.15 per month. If one compares this figure to the poverty line cut-off for a single person living in a city the size of Toronto, that person needs a minimum of $470.00 a month.
I want to refer to something that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) said in her remarks the other day, which I found to be quite astounding. At page 1281 of Hansard for May 21, 1980, the minister was reported as saying:
The officials of my department estimate that there are approximately 700,000 single, widowed and divorced GIS recipients of the supplement to the pension who are living in poverty. Fully 60 per cent of them are women.
In another part of her remarks, the minister said this:
On an annual basis, the amount guaranteed by our old age security programs, that is the basic pension plus the old age supplement combined, represents roughly 80 per cent of the amount Statistics Canada defines as the poverty line. There is no doubt that an income which is slightly lower than 80 per cent of the poverty line is not acceptable in a country as rich as ours and is certainly not enough to live on decently.
Yet the same minister, and I have heard members of the Liberal party speaking here tonight express many of the same sentiments, can stand up and support a $35.00 increase in the supplement and still stand there with a straight face. It is laughable to the people of Canada, and it is certainly laughable to the people on this side of the House.
I want to tell members of the government where the money would go if they were one of the 32,000 single women over the age of 65, living in metro Toronto today. For argument's sake, let us take a month in the life of a Toronto pensioner who is a widow.
First of all, you would need a roof over your head. It is quite likely you would still be living in your own home. The old neighbourhood means a lot to you and many of your friends still live there. Even though your mortgage has been paid off, you find that it still costs you about $250.00 a month for shelter. This money goes toward property and education taxes, housing insurance, repairs and maintenance, heat, water, hydro and telephone. In talking to some of your other widowed friends, you find that they are not much better off living in a one-bedroom apartment. Unsubsidized one-bedroom apartments cost about $280.00 in metro Toronto, but the vacancy rate is less than 1 per cent, so those apartments are very hard to find.
The subsidized housing is cheaper, but you have been told there are about 3,300 people on the waiting list. And those who live in rooming houses can expect to find their fridge is down the hall, can expect to share a bathroom with four other people and wash the dishes in the bathroom sink. The stove in your room will probably offer two options: on or off. So,
Old Age Security Act
whether you rent or own your own home, your housing costs are likely to absorb a good 60 per cent of your pension income.
In addition, you find that there is a cumulative shortfall. As things wear out, they are difficult to replace and they can rarely be replaced with new items. Clothes and sheets, dishes and glasses have to come from bazaars and rummage sales and second-hand stores.
Food for even a moderate eater will run close to $80 a month. This includes an occasional meal at a restaurant; it is good for your mental health, encourages you to be sociable, and you need the occasional change of scenery. Every time you go to the grocery store you are reminded of how packaging is done with families in mind. Economies of scale are great for large families who can afford and use up five and ten-pound bags of flour, sugar and cereal. But single people pay dearly for things in small packages. Anyhow, how could you possibly carry anything so heavy over a distance of several blocks?
This raises another problem. Once the food has been paid for, how do you get it home? Bundle buggies are great in the summer, but are useless in the winter. If you shop in corner convenience stores, you pay about 10 per cent more for every item of food you buy. So you shop in chain stores, taking the bus there and back, especially in the winter when sidewalks are icy.
Your special senior citizens bus tickets, plus an occasional cab to take you places off regular bus routes, cost an average of $26 a month. This figure does not, of course, include transportation costs for occasional bus or train trips to visit out of town grandchildren or other relatives who live far away. If you are one of those privileged seniors who own their own cars, you would pay about twice the $26 transportation cost for pedestrian seniors. That $50 a month would cover gas on 4,000 kilometres per year, servicing and repairs, maintenance and insurance. Not included in this estimate are parking costs. Most senior citizens do not own cars, so for the purposes of this scenario we will use the $26 figure.
So far we have spent $250 on housing, $80 on food, and $26 on transportation. That comes to $356 for basic requirements of subsistence. I hear my Conservative friend on the far right making interjections. I am not surprised. I would not expect him to understand the problems of senior citizens.


Walter David Baker: He did not say a word.


Neil Young: He has been yelling all night.


Walter David Baker: He has not.


Neil Young: Out of our $389 pension income, there is only $33 left for the rest of the month to spend on such luxuries as clothes, dental care, glasses, hearing aids, gifts, a movie, entertaining friends, long distance phone calls, cable TV, or an occasional bingo game.
To solve this problem, the Liberals, those big spenders, are throwing an extra $35 a month into the pot. Who are they

May 26, 1980
Old Age Security Act
kidding? For the elderly woman on old age pension, it is not a question of enjoying old age, it is simply a matter of gritting your teeth and enduring it.
I am fully aware that in the Speech from the Throne the government promised another study on the needs of senior citizens. If there is anything Canada that our seniors do not need, it is another study on pensions. We all know how people in retirement have to live. What is needed is action from the government to alleviate poverty among our elderly and it surely will not be accomplished by yet another report or by the measures proposed in this bill.
We need a new deal for pensioners rather than the inadequate measures contained in this bill. The government should have brought in amendments to increase the old age security payments and the guaranteed income supplement so that older people with no other source of income would always be able to live at a standard above the poverty level.
During the election campaign, Ed Broadbent introduced a new deal for pensioners.


Some hon. Members:: Ed who?


Neil Young: If hon. members would listen, they would learn a few things.
During the last 15 years, he pointed out, OAS has failed to keep pace with growth in the incomes of other Canadians. Liberals and Tory governments have allowed the relative value of the OAS to fall. From the time of its introduction in 1952 to 1964, the OAS was equivalent to approximately 17 per cent of the earnings of the average worker. Since 1964 its value has been allowed to fall so that the OAS is now equivalent to only 13.5 per cent of average earnings. The only time the OAS was increased in real terms in the last 15 years was in 1973, the result of NDP pressure during a minority Parliament.
Our proposal recommended an immediate $40 per month increase to the OAS. This would make a pension again equivalent to 17 per cent of the average earnings. In addition, the NDP favours increasing the OAS annually in accordance with the growth in average earnings as measured by Statistics Canada. Legislated into the Old Age Security Act, this would eliminate the possibility of pensions being raised at the whim of the government.
In addition to the increase in the OAS, we also endorsed a shelter grant for pensioners. This grant was designed to concentrate funds in the hands of those senior citizens who need protection against the rising costs of shelter. Under the program, pensioners who pay rent would be eligible for grants equal to one third of rent paid. The maximum grant would be $600, or $50 a month. Those who own their own homes, and who on average are better off than those who rent, would be eligible for grants equal to 20 per cent of their property taxes. Here, the maximum grant would be $120 per year, or $10 per month. The shelter grant program would have its biggest impact on pensioners with under $200 per month of private income who rent and live alone. Women make up three quarters of this group.
These are the minimum actions that could and should have been undertaken by this government on behalf of the senior citizens in our country, and it is shameful that this government has not done so.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your position in the House. I would like to express my appreciation to the minister tonight for coming here in time to hear me declare that it is ten o'clock. I will start off at the next session with your permission, Mr. Speaker.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary to the Leader of the Government could tell us the business of the House for tomorrow.


David Michael Collenette: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We shall continue with this bill until its completion tomorrow. I understand there is a disposition to go into Committee of the Whole tomorrow and perhaps to third reading. If we do get through the bill, we will move to the borrowing authority bill. I should say before I sit down, since the hon. member mentioned it, that the minister's car broke down on the way to the House this evening. That is why she was not able to be here until just a few minutes ago.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I rise in respect to my question of May 15, 1980, which I put to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). It had to do with Canadian servicemen who had been assigned to duty at atomic bomb test sites in the United States during the 1950s and subsequently had been reported as now suffering from cancer, or at least as many as had been detected.
I asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs what actions he was taking to determine the state of health of all the servicemen so assigned, whether a program to monitor their health had been approved, and was the government willing to recognize its responsibility to these Canadian servicemen. In reply, the minister said:
May 26, 1980

There has been some detection and detection of other people supposedly involved should be made in the near future.
In answer to my supplementary question with respect to the government's liability in the matter, the minister responded as vaguely as he did to my first question. The minister said:
When the analyses and diagnoses are completed by the people within our department who are qualified, such as doctors, that determination will be made.
In the first place, I suggest the government has known for some time that this serious situation existed. The minister has been in a position to make a much clearer and much more definitive reply than he did to my question. He was certainly more knowledgeable later the same day-he was reported by the Toronto Star of the following day, May 16, 1980, as stating that at least three Canadian servicemen had contracted cancer as a consequence of that particular duty assignment. What concerns me is that the vagueness of the minister's response appears to be associated with the lack of concern shown by government officials since the matter was brought to light.
The first knowledge I had of the problem was a report dated May 30, 1977, by Jack Anderson in the San Luis Telegram-Tribune when he reported:
Forty unsuspecting Canadian soldiers may be in mortal danger from a 20-year-old nuclear test in the Nevada Desert.
The report went on to say:
We are told that the Canadian volunteers were members of the Seventh Platoon. 2nd Battalion, Queen's Own Rifles.
Mr. Anderson also reported that in response to a telephone call to military authorities in Ottawa he was told that the Canadians had no official comment. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it is high time the government began to give some forthright answers to these servicemen. Since there is no known antidote for nuclear radiation, the least the government owes to the soldiers concerned is detection and treatment of the diseases which the tests caused. Moreover, there should be no question of the government accepting liability or giving assurances to these men and their families that they will not be forgotten.
1 am extremely anxious that this not be allowed to happen. However, 1 did not draw much comfort from the minister's replies or from the experiences of the Toronto Star reporter Helen Bullock the results of whose excellent research into this matter were printed on May 3, 1980. I want to quote a few passages from that report. This reporter said:
1 asked the Canadian government who they (the soldiers) were because I needed to know the age of the people in this group. It's an important factor in estimating the expected incidence of cancer.
They wouldn't release the names but they did give the birth dates so I couldn't argue.
Again, from the same article:
For example, a spokesman for the Canadian Armed Forces said 40 men of the Queen's Own Rifles took part in shot Smokey in 1957; they were, he said, the only Canadians actively engaged in the tests.
Adjournment Debate
However, a U.S. researcher reports that 85 Canadians were at that shot although many of these were probably official observers not in the troop trenches.
And at the Directorate of History in the Department of National Defence there is a list of 157 Canadian army personnel "and there could have been others at other tests but we don't have the file."
Although it appeared at first glance that only the Queen's Own Rifles were involved, the directorate lists observers from, among other units, the Black Watch and the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery.
Having established that some Canadians were in the nuclear testing site, the next question is how close were they to the bomb?
If the minister had been properly responsive not only to me, as a member of this House, but to the concern of the Canadian Armed Forces, 1 would have expected a much more informative reply. If he did not feel he could make it at that time, 1 hope he will be prepared to do so now.


Mr. John Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, the Canadian Pension Commission is the agency designated under the Pension Act to deal with all matters pertaining to the adjudication of disability pension claims. It has the responsibility of collecting material relevant to a particular claim where such material is in government records. It is in this context that the commission recently addressed itself to the Department of National Defence with regard to reports which were received that members of the forces had been exposed to radiation some years ago. Arrangements have been made for the National Defence Department to provide information concerning amounts of exposure received by any member of the forces, or former members, asking for it. The information will, of course, also be available to the Canadian Pension Commission to assist it in its adjudication of pension claims which have been or may be received.
Some former members of the forces have called the Pension Commission indicating that they may have received radiation exposure but have no disability which seems to be related, and they asked for information on what to do. They have been told to confirm the degree of exposure with the Department of National Defence and check with their own doctors as to whether any related disability exists. If a disability exists and an application is made for pension, the commission will consider the claim. If no disability exists, the personal physician will have a record of the exposure in the event of some future problem turning up.
The Canadian Pension Commission will examine any claim received for pension based on disability caused by radiation exposure and will obtain the best advice available with respect to the type and amount of exposure in relation to the specific claim for pension. Each decision will be made on an individual basis.
The Canadian Pension Commission deals with individual applications for pension for disability or death arising out of military service. It is anxious to ensure that any former member of the forces receives any disability pension to which he is entitled. If any former member of the forces who has participated in activities involving nuclear radiation believes

May 26, 1980
Adjournment Debate
that his health has been affected by such exposure, he should get in touch with the nearest district office of the Canadian Pension Commission, or with his nearest district pensions advocate. The department has always treated its veterans fairly and adequately, and will continue to do so in the future.


FINANCE-CAPITAL GAINS TAX-EFFECT ON INVESTMENT-REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, on May 13 last I addressed a question to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) with regard to any input he might have had in a study which I understood was being conducted by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) concerning taxes on capital gains. The minister gave a rather strange response. He said that if there was a study he would look forward to receiving the results. In view of the big "if' in his response, I addressed a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance to find out whether in fact he was conducting a study regarding capital gains taxes, particularly because of the views expressed by the President of the Treasury Board before he became minister in this government. In his book "Fiscalamity" the minister clearly castigated the value of capital gains taxes.
The Toronto Star of October 18, 1979, reported the hon. member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) as having said:
I am convinced that the introduction of the tax on capital gains has stifled investment in many sectors and frozen assets in others.
The capital gains tax was introduced and came into effect on January 1, 1971. It has proven to be a tax, as set out in the minister's own book, which stifles investment in that it prevents or delays the transfer of property from those who can make good use of property because of the impact of the tax. Indeed, with respect to small business, the tax can almost be expropriatory. In fact a small business may have no value as a base on which capital gains is taxed, so that the entire sale of the business can be taxable. Of course the tax is levied on 50 per cent of the return, a tax rate that can be 30 per cent or 35 per cent of the total value of the business.
The tax creates enormous problems with pressure groups coming to this government and saying, "You are taking my farm away from me, you are taking my property away from me". Consequently, we have had representations from all sources asking that this tax be removed or indexed or that something be done with respect to it.
Second, a great deal of the tax collected by capital gains is really not a tax on a capital gain but a tax on inflation. Indeed inflation is caused, as is set out in the book entitled "Fiscalamity" by the President of the Treasury Board, by governments printing money and in fact creating a value for money that is less and less, so that one needs more money to purchase the same goods. It is not really a capital gain. Indeed it is a depreciation of the value of the currency. So, we have a tax that to a great number of people is treated and deemed to be a
very unfair tax, an expropriatory tax. Consequently it is sometimes a tax which is difficult to collect. It is a bureaucratic tax requiring all sorts of appraisal studies. Indeed in estates we wind up with situations that are most peculiar.
For example, under the present act if a person dies with a private home valued at $200,000, they pay no tax. If they happen to have invested their capital in growth stocks or equities in the country, they may wind up with a great deal of that $200,000 estate being taxed away. On the other hand, if they happen to be farmers and have $200,000 farms and have passed them on to their children, then that tax is deferred. So, deferral and deferral and deferral in effect is no taxation at all. It really depends on how one holds one's assets in this country whether one pays tax or not. Therefore a very unfair situation is developing.
It has been my suggestion to the ministry in the past that perhaps the ministry might look at a form of new estate tax based on a flat rate of tax, say, 10 per cent or 15 per cent of the amount in the gross of an estate over $25,000. A tax of this nature would be a flat rate tax. It would apply to all people, all estates. Presumably it would apply only to estates passing to survivors. As a solicitor I know that people are not unhappy about paying a tax on something they receive as a result of an estate settlement.
It would strike me that this tax is not producing a revenue for Canada. The returns for 1977 indicate that this tax produced about $250 million. Of course that was the tax divided among the provinces and the federal government. Of course I have no figures on the tax produced last year nor in 1978, but there is no question about it, that this tax is not producing, as it is presently written, any enormous revenue to Canada. In my view it is a tax that should be abolished. It could be replaced by another form of taxation that would be far more equitable. I ask the minister to bear that in mind when he brings this matter to the committee, as he has promised to do, so that we can have a look at this tax to make sure that Canadians are more equitably taxed.


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite has referred to the impact of the taxation of capital gains on investment decisions and on the desirability of referring a study which is being conducted-and the minister has admitted it is being conducted-on this topic to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
In the past few years there has been considerable discussion regarding the taxation of capital gains, and many proposals for change have been put forward. The individuals and organizations making these proposals are well aware of the effects of the taxation of capital gains on their own affairs and on investment decisions generally, but they are also concerned and aware about the impact that this tax has on the economy generally. The current study that is being conducted in the Department of Finance is designed to clarify exactly what this impact is.
Bplg


im
fg;
f::. o
*v-.-' *
Si!

May 26, 1980

However, 1 should note that the taxation of capital gains is now a fundamental part of the Canadian tax system. The remainder of our present tax system depends on the continued taxation of capital gains. We would need a quite different system if the taxation of gains significantly was reduced or if it was altered. The issues involved can be traced to the changes which occurred in taxation in general around and subsequent to the introduction of the taxation of capital gains, and these changes included the way in which corporations and shareholders are taxed in general.
The federal government vacated the estate and gift tax field, and most of the provinces have also stopped taxing estates and successions. The deemed realization of capital gains upon death is thus the only tax collected upon inheritance. As a result Canadian taxation of transfers of wealth among generations is among the lowest in all industrialized countries.
Capital gains are distributed very unevenly among income classes. In 1978, while the top seven tenths of 1 per cent of all tax filers-in other words, those people with incomes of greater than $50,000-accounted for 5.1 per cent of the total income reported on tax returns, these same people received 38.8 per cent of all net taxable capital gains. The treatment of
Adjournment Debate
capital gains thus has great significance for the distribution of taxes and also for the distribution of income. It should also be noted that the introduction of the capital gains tax was accompanied by a reduction in the top marginal tax rates of the income tax.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has indicated that such a change to remove capital gains taxes would reduce federal revenues by some $700 million this year, and the provinces would suffer an associated revenue loss of some $300 million, substantially more than referred to by the hon. member opposite.
All of the factors I have just mentioned, plus others, are being assessed in the current study, and the minister has indicated clearly that it is his intention to release this study. This will provide an opportunity for full and informed discussion. A further option would be to refer the study to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and the minister has indicated that he will take a decision on this particular question at the time the study is released.


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

May 26, 1980


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
of

[Stage Direction]
to Both Houses of Parliament in the

[Stage Direction]
on Monday, May 26, 1980
The President was welcomed by the Right Honourable P. E. Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, and thanked by the Honourable Jean Marchand, Speaker of the Senate, and the Honourable Jeanne Sauve, Speaker of the House of Commons.
['Mr. President, 1 have the honour of expressing, on behalf of each and everyone of my colleagues, the joy that we feel at hosting you here in the House of Commons of Canada.', 'We have listened to your speech with great interest because it reflects your feelings and those of your countrymen toward our people and our country.\nYou emphasized that Mexico had to bring about unity in order to establish a homogeneous community whose mission is to create the type of climate most likely to favour the prosperity and welfare of your citizens while respecting their differences.\n[ Translation]\nThat reminds us that we too, like yourself and your people, must abolish the gaps that would prevent Canadians from feeling united within this family which bears a great deal of resemblance to yours and within the larger family which occupies the entire North American continent.\nYour words bring to light the need for this constant cooperation between peoples who defend the same values and who are trying to promote a heritage with common roots in civilization.\nMexico is a fascinating country which has a special appeal to people the world over. Its spectacular geography, composed of bodies of water, forests, plains and mountains, projects an image which encompasses the multiple facets of a country whose vibrations echo the life of the old and the new world. Your culture, your civilization, your architecture, your monuments, your folklore, your music and your literature form a blend of new wealth and old treasures. Your country still retains the secret of the language and thought of its first inhabitants, a language that has not yet been decyphered but which, through its multitude of signs and its variety of images, expresses the thought, the psychology, the joy, the pains and the hopes of a people who preceeded us by far in America. It is never without deep emotion that we walk your land in the hopes of discovering old paths which will bring us back to the dawn of human life and wisdom. The meeting of the civilizations of old and of the new one which followed it have produced the jewel that is Mexico. It is with pleasure that I say to you how much we admire your political, cultural and social edifice which is greatly envied by all those who give priority to the fundamental values of society.\nLe agradecemos su visita, seiior Presidente, y esperamos que las conversaciones que sostenga con los ministros canadienses contribuyan a estrechar los vinculos que nos unen, para benefi-cio mutuo de nuestros paises.', 'Excelentisimo senor Presidente: acepte nuestro mas pro-fundo agradecimiento y nuestros mejores votos por su magni-fico pais.\nSenora Presidenta de la Camara de los Comunes: Senor Presidente, tengo el honor de expresarle, en nombre de todos y cada uno de mis colegas, todo nuestro jubilo al tenerle entre nosotros en esta Camara de los Comunes de Canada.', 'Hemos escuchado su discurso con gran interes, ya que traduce tanto sus sentimientos como los de sus compatriotas respecto a nuestro pais y a nuestro pueblo.\nHa subrayado usted que Mexico debia promover la unidad con miras a crear una sociedad homogenea que establezca un clima mas favorable a la prosperidad y bienestar de sus compatriotas respetando al mismo tiempo sus diferencias.', 'Esas palabras nos recuerdan que nosotros tambien, al igual que usted y su pueblo, debemos abolir las distancias que impiden a los canadienses sentirse unidos en esta familia tan parecida a la suya y en la todavia mas numerosa de la America del Norte.\nSus palabras sacan a luz la necesidad de esta constante colaboracion entre pueblos que defienden los mismos valores y que tratan de promover el bien comun cuyos principios basicos pertenecen a las mismas fuentes de civilizacion.\nMexico es un pais tascinante que ejerce sobre todos los ciudadanos del mundo un atractivo especial. Su asombrosa configuration geografica, sus masas de agua, bosques, mesetas y montanas proyectan una imagen que reune las multiples facetas de un pais de vibraciones profundas cuyo eco repercute en la vida del Viejo y Nuevo Mundo. Su cultura, su civilizacion, su arquitectura, sus monumentos, su folklore, su musica y su literatura son una sintesis de nuevas riquezas y de antiguos tesoros. Vuestro pais conserva todavia el secreto de la lengua y del pensamiento de sus primeros habitantes, lengua misteriosa que no se ha podido todavia descifrar pero que, a traves de sus multiples signos y diversas imagenes, expresan el pensamiento, la psicologia, alegria, sufrimientos y esperanzas de un pueblo mucho mas antiguo que el nuestro en America y nunca hemos pisado vuestro suelo sin que nos embargara una profunda emotion, con la esperanza de descubrir viejos senderos que nos hagan remontar hasta la aurora de la vida y sabiduria huma-nas. El encuentro de las civilizaciones del pasado y de la moderna que las ha seguido creo la joya que es Mexico. Me complace expresarle cuanto admiramos este edificio politico, cultural y social que es la envidia de todos los que dan prioridad a los valores fundamentales de la sociedad.', 'May 26, 1980', 'Mr. President, you have done us the honour of bringing with you a large delegation of most distinguished politicians and citizens. 1 would like to extend my most sincere greetings to these distinguished visitors and I wish to assure them not only of our interest, but also of our affection.\nIn closing, please allow me to express once again, on behalf of all members of the House of Commons, on my behalf, our heartfelt thanks. There are links between Canada and Mexico that we would like to reinforce and extend through more frequent meetings between the representatives of our respective Parliaments. I would ask you, Your Excellency, to bring this message to your countrymen as well as our warmest wishes for their welfare and progress.\n[ Translation]\nLet me now say that this House stands adjourned.', 'Senor Presidente: nos ha honrado usted al venir acompanado de una importante Comitiva de personalidades politicas y ciudadanos destacados. Quisiera extender mis mas sinceros saludos a estos distinguidos visitantes y asegurarles que les testimoniamos no solo nuestro interes sino tambien nuestro afecto.\nPara terminar, permitame expresarle una vez mas, en nombre de todos los miembros de la Camara de los Comunes y en el mio proprio, nuestro mas profundo reconocimiento. Deseariamos desarrollar y robustecer los vinculos que existen entre Canada y Mexico organizando reuniones mas frecuentes entre los representantes de nuestros respectivos parlamentos. Excelentisimo senor Presidente: le ruego tenda a bien transmi-tir este mensage a sus compatriotas, junto con nuestros votos mas sinceros de progreso y prosperidad.', 'Y ahora, con vuestro permiso, declaro levantada la Sesion.', 'Tuesday, May 27, 1980']
Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Speaker of the House of Commons):: Hon. members of the Senate and House of Commons are happy to welcome His Excellency Jose Lopez Portillo, President of Mexico.

Excellency, we are deeply moved by the honour you do us of addressing this joint meeting of members of the Senate and of the House of Commons.
[ Translation]
1 call upon the right hon. the Prime Minister of Canada to introduce our distinguished guest.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Your Excellency, Mr. President of the Republic of Mexico, Mr. President of the Chamber of Deputies of Mexico, Mr. President of the Senate of Mexico.
Madam Speaker of the House of Commons, distinguished members of the Parliament of Canada.
On behalf of the people of Canada and of their parliamentary representatives, I have the honour to extend a heartfelt welcome to you, Mr. President, to the Heads of the Mexican Chamber of Deputies and Senate, and to the Ministers and other high representatives of your Government who accompany you on this visit.
Since our meeting in Mexico City in January, 1976, Mr. President, I have been greatly impressed by your country's

DISCURSO PRONUNCIADO por el



[Stage Direction]
JOSE LOPEZ PORTILLO ante ambas Camaras del Parlamento en la sala de la
CAMARA DE LOS COMUNES, en OTTAWA
el lunes 26 de mayo de 1980
El Excelentisimo Sr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Primer Minis-tro de Canada, dio la bienvenida al Excelentisimo Senor Presidente de Mexico; le mostraron su agradecimiento S.E. el Sr. Jean Marchand, Presidente del Senado, y S.E. la Sra. Jeanne Sauve, Presidenta de la Camara de los Comunes.
[Stage Direction]
S.E. Jeanne Sauve (Presidenta de la Camara de los Comunes): Los honorables miembros del Senado y de la Camara de los Comunes se complacen en dar la bienvenida al Excelentisimo Senor Presidente de Mexico Jose Lopez Portillo.
[ Traduccidn]
Excelentisimo Senor Presidente: su alocucion ante esta reunion conjunta de miembros del Senado y de la Camara de los Comunes constituye para nosotros un gran honor.
[Stage Direction]
Y ahora ruego al Excelentisimo Senor Primer Ministro de Canada que tenga a bien presentarnos a nuestro distinguido huesped.
S.E. P. E. Trudeau (Primer Ministro de Canada): Excelentisimo Senor Presidente de Mexico, Senor Presidente de la Camara de Diputados de Mexico, Senor Presidente del Senado de Mexico:
Senora Presidenta de la Camara de los Comunes, distingui-dos miembros del Parlamento de Canada:
En nombre del pueblo canadiense y de sus representantes en el Parlamento, tengo el honor de darle la mas cordial bienvenida, senor Presidente, asi como a los Presidentes de la Camara de Diputados y del Senado de Mexico, a los Ministros y otros altos funcionarios de su Comitiva.
Desde nuestro encuentro en la ciudad de Mexico en enero de 1976, senor Presidente, me ha impresionado profundamente el
May 26, 1980
[Stage Direction]
growing stature in the global community, of nations, a growth which Mexico's many Canadian friends had both desired and predicted.
Canada welcomes your country's determination to use its stature to contribute effectively to the enhancement of global stability, which has been seriously disturbed in recent months.
In response to such dangerous threats to world order as the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, and the violation of the immunity of diplomatic persons and premises by Iran, Canada believes it is essential for other countries to give firm, practical and united expression to their opposition to such serious transgressions of international law.
[Stage Direction]
Mexico and Canada agree that the goal of global peace with justice must be approached by other paths as well and especially by responding more effectively to the needs of the world's developing countries. I therefore look forward, Mr. President, to discussing with you the critical issue of greater co-operation between the groups of nations which have come to be known as the north and the south.
We acknowledge Mexico's earned status as one of the leaders of the Third World and as a country which has helped to focus attention on the urgency of international development. The wide-ranging proposals which you yourself, Mr. President, put forward at the United Nations General Assembly last autumn were a particularly valuable contribution.
The problems of the least developed countries are especially compelling. There can be no real solution until the world community finds the will and the way to replace sterile rhetorical confrontation with a united and practical response to the poverty, hunger and stunted economies which oppress so many of the world's peoples. We look forward to working with the government of Mexico to help find the will and the way.
Mr. President, we discussed this morning with our ministers ways in which our two countries might enrich our bilateral relations. It is true, of course, that our relations do go back hundreds of years. You may know that one of Canada's most illustrious explorers, Samuel de Champlain, visited Mexico City in 1599 when your capital was a thriving community of some 100,000 Spanish and aboriginal souls. He was so taken with the beauty of your country, sir, that he did not come to our country until a few years later as a sort of second choice.
Happily, in recent years there has been more frequent travel between our countries. It has resulted from a growing awareness of how we can meet many of each other's needs and a growing consciousness of how many things we have in common, not the least of which is a friendly neighbour with whom we share a border.
prestigio cada vez mayor de su pais en el seno de la comunidad mundial; un aumento de prestigio que los numerosos amigos canadienses de Mexico habian ya previsto y deseado.
Canada aplaude la determination de vuestro pais de utilizar toda su influencia para contribuir eficazmente a la mejora de la estabilidad mundial que ha sufrido graves trastornos en el curso de los ultimos meses.
Ante amenazas tan graves de orden mundial como la invasion de Afganistan por la Union Sovietica, asi como la viola-cion de la inmunidad del personal y de las sedes diplomaticas por el Iran, Canada opina que es esencial que todos los paises expresen en conjunto, de manera concreta e inequivoca, su oposicion a violaciones tan graves del derecho internacional.
[Stage Direction]
Mexico y Canada estan de acuerdo en que otros medios pueden tambien conducir al logro de una paz justa en el mundo, especialmente una mayor sensibilidad respecto a las necesidades de los paises en desarrollo. A este respecto, sefior Presidente, me alegra aprovechar esta ocasion para discutir con usted la cuestion fundamental de una mayor cooperation entre los grupos de naciones que se conocen actualmente con el nombre de Norte y Sur.
Reconocemos el merecido prestigio de Mexico entre las naciones dirigentes del Tercer Mundo, por el papel que ha desempefiado para llamar la atencion mundial sobre la urgen-cia de una politica de desarrollo internacional. Las propuestas de largo alcance que usted mismo, sefior Presidente, ha presen-tado a la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas en otofio pasado, han constituido una contribution particularmente valiosa.
Los problemas de los paises menos desarrollados se imponen todavia mas vivamente a nuestro espiritu. No se podra alcan-zar una verdadera solution sino cuando la comunidad mundial haya encontrado la voluntad y el modo de reemplazar los esteriles enfrentamientos retoricos con una respuesta concer-tada y concreta a la pobreza, al hambre y al marasmo econo-mico que agobian a tantas personas en el mundo. Nos com-place aunar nuestros esfuerzos a los del Gobierno de Mexico para ayudar al mundo a encontrar esa voluntad y ese camino.
Senor Presidente, hemos discutido esta mafiana con nuestros ministros sobre las formas de enriquecer las relaciones bilate-rales entre nuestros dos paises. Por supuesto, es verdad que nuestras relaciones datan de centenares de afios atras. Sabra usted que uno de los exploradores mas celebres de Canada, Samuel de Champlain, habia visitado la ciudad de Mexico en 1599 cuando su capital era una comunidad prospera de unos 100.000 habitantes espaiioles e indigenas. Le impresiono tanto la belleza de su pais que no se decidio a venir al nuestro sino afios mas tarde, como una suerte de segunda election.
Felizmente los viajes entre nuestros dos paises se han inten-sificado en el curso de los ultimos afios, a medida que hemos cobrado conciencia de nuestra capacidad de satisfacer recipro-camente lo que cada uno de nosotros necesitaba y una conciencia cada vez mas clara de que teniamos muchas cosas en
[Stage Direction]
May 26, 1980
We also share similar aspirations for industrial and economic development. We have long enjoyed a mutually beneficial trading relationship, and Canada has been an important source of financing for Mexican development. I note that while Canadian imports from Mexico are still dominated by agricultural products, the pattern of trade has broadened to the point where Canada now purchases a more diverse range of products from Mexico than from any other Latin American country.
World conditions have now brought us to a moment of full potential for closer economic relations in the future. Canada looks to Mexico as a secure supply of oil for our eastern provinces. Mexico looks to Canada as a supplier of the industrial equipment and technology which you need in order to fulfil your goal of economic diversification.
There can be no doubt that your visit has produced considerable progress toward agreement which will help satisfy the needs of both countries.
[Stage Direction]
Mexico and Canada share a rich and varied cultural heritage which took root far back in our history, at the time when the original people of North America were its only inhabitants. The later contributions of European civilization have resulted in a lively cultural sharing, of which both countries are justly proud.
Twelve years ago, Mexico and Canada began their formal cultural relations with an exchange of notes. There followed in 1973 an agreement on annual exchange visits by young specialists and technicians. More recently, in 1976, 1 had the great pleasure and honour of signing in Mexico City, with your predecessor, a cultural agreement covering a wide range of activities in the fields of information, fine arts, theatre and telecommunications.
Mr. President, your visit is the occasion of a new meeting between two countries, both of whom are eager to contribute to peace and international justice. I am confident that, together, Mexico and Canada can make a greater contribution to our hemisphere and to the world. For all these reasons, Sir, we welcome you.
comun, especialmente el amistoso vecino con el que comparti-mos la frontera.
Compartimos, asimismo, aspiraciones similares relativas a la expansion economica e industrial. Mantenemos desde hace tiempo relaciones comerciales mutuamente beneficas, y Canada ha sido una fuente importante de financiacion para el desarrollo mexicano. Deseo subrayar el hecho de que, si bien los productos agricolas son todavia preponderantes en las importaciones canadienses de Mexico, los intercambios comerciales se han ampliado al punto de que Canada compra actualmente una gama mas variada de productos de Mexico que de cualquier otro pais latinoamericano.
Las condiciones internacionales nos han llevado en la actua-lidad a un momento decisivo que podria implicar un robusteci-miento de nuestras relaciones economicas en el futuro. Canada ve en Mexico una fuente fiable de abastecimiento petrolifero para sus provincias del este. A su vez, Mexico ve en Canada un abastecedor de equipo industrial y de tecnologia indispensables para el logro de su objectivo de diversification economica.
No existe la menor duda de que vuestra visita nos ha permitido realizar grandes progresos hacia acuerdos que ayu-daran a satisfacer las necesidades de nuestros dos paises.
[Stage Direction]
Mexico y Canada comparten una herencia cultural rica y variada cuyas fuentes se remontan a una epoca muy lejana, al periodo de los primeros habitantes del continente norteameri-cano. Los aportes posteriores de la civilization europea han producido esta vigorosa convivencia de culturas de la que cada uno de nuestros dos paises esta legitimamente orgulloso.
Mexico y Canada comenzaron sus relaciones culturales hace 12 anos, mediante un intercambio de notas. A este primer paso siguio, en 1973, un acuerdo sobre un programa de intercambio anual de jovenes especialistas y tecnicos. Y mas recientemente, en 1976, tuve la gran satisfaction y el honor de presenciar en Mexico con vuestro predecesor la firma de un acuerdo cultural que cubria una amplia gama de actividades en los campos de la information, artes plasticas, teatro y telecomunicaciones.
Sefior Presidente: vuestra visita brinda una nueva ocasion de reunirse a dos paises deseosos de contribuir a la paz y justicia internacionales. Estoy persuadido de que, juntos, Mexico y Canada podran realizar una mayor contribution a nuestro hemisferio y al mundo entero. Por todas estas razones, senor Presidente, le damos la bienvenida!
May 26, 1980

[Stage Direction]
26th of May, 1980
Your Excellency the Prime Minister of Canada Honourable Members of Parliament Ladies and Gentlemen:
I consider it an honour and an opportunity to be welcomed in this stately chamber that serves as a meeting place for the representatives of the noble Canadian people. The expressions of cordiality that you have shown me have augmented and reaffirmed both the official and private tokens of esteem 1 have received during my sojourn in this generous country. 1 wish, consequently, to express to you my own gratitude together with that of the Mexican people.
I am returning from a trip that has taken me away from this continent, and, as occurs in such cases, I am returning filled with reflections on geography and time. My first impression is that Canada, the same as Mexico, belongs to the New World not only geographically, but also spiritually. Despite the great distances existing on the American Continent, Canada is close to us and is inevitably linked to our own destiny.
Return to this continent leads us to the immediate and irrefutable reality that we are members of the great family that shares this continent, despite the fact that the most notable characteristic of this family and this territory is its diversity.
From this perspective, the problem of our relations should be posed as a necessity and not as something merely desirable; that is, as a geopolitical destiny more than an enumeration of affinities and specific coincidences.
Canada has gained new prestige, but it has not lost its former prestige. Despite its formidable industrial and urban growth, it continues to bring to mind an image of a nation of pioneers, an image it deserves in view of the concerted efforts expanded by this tenacious and hardworking people in every sphere.
The Mexican people are also persistent. They have been able to surmount rigorous historical tribulations and thereby strengthen their national identity. Their great historical battles are the culmination of a process of sovereignty and the initiation of new processes of sovereignty. The struggle for our independence was not won on a single occasion. It is a daily struggle that cannot be abandoned.
Canada and Mexico know the value and the price of independence, and they are open to any kind of exchange that does not imply dependence and subordination. We respect the rights of other nations and affirm here that the recognition of these rights is the basis of international order.
Consequently, although we, the three nations that constitute North America, should set down systematically revisable rules that will ensure improved co-existence and co-operation, we

[Stage Direction]
26 de mayo de 1980
Excelentisimo senor Primer Ministro de Canada,
Honorables Miembros del Parlamento,
Seiiores y Seiioras:
Considero un honor y una oportunidad ser recibido en este augusto recinto que congrega a la representation del noble pueblo canadiense. Las propias muestras de cordialidad que ustedes me han dispensado prolongan y consagran las otras, oficiales y privadas, que he recibido durante mi estancia en este generoso pais. Deseo, por ello, expresarles mi gratitud y la del pueblo mexicano.
Regreso de un viaje que me ha llevado fuera de este continente y regreso, como ocurre en estos casos, lleno de reflexiones sobre la geografia y el tiempo. Mi primera impre-sion es la de que Canada, al igual que Mexico, pertenece no solo geograficamente al Nuevo Mundo sino tambien espiritual-mente. A pesar de las dilatadas distancias de nuestra America, Canada nos resulta proximo e inevitablemente vinculado a nuestro propio destino.
El retorno a este continente nos abre paso hacia la realidad-inmediata e irrefutable-de que pertenecemos a la gran familia que comparte el espacio americano, por mas que el signo de esta familia y de este espacio sea el de la diversidad.
En esta perspectiva, el problema de nuestras relaciones debe plantearse como un hecho necesario y no, simplemente, como un hecho deseable. Destino geopolitico mas que recuento de afinidades y coincidencias particulares.
Canada ha ganado nuevos prestigios pero no ha perdido los antiguos. Sigue suscitando, a pesar de su formidable creci-miento industrial y urbano, la imagen de una nation de pioneros. Fama que merece por el concertado esfuerzo que, en todos los ambitos, desarrolla este pueblo tenaz y laborioso.
Tambien el pueblo mexicano es persistente. Ha sabido sobreponerse a duras pruebas historicas y, en todas ellas, ha fortalecido su identidad nacional. Sus grandes batallas historicas son culmination de un proceso de soberania. La lucha por nuestra independencia no se gano en una ocasion. Es una batalla cotidiana que no ha de cesar.
Canada y Mexico conocen el valor y el precio de la independencia y se mantienen abiertos a cualquier tipo de intercam-bios que no impliquen dependencia y subordination. Respeta-mos los derechos de las otras naciones y afirmamos que el reconocimiento de estos derechos es el fundamento del orden internacional.
Por ello, si bien las tres naciones que formamos America del Norte debemos fijar reglas, sistematicamente revisables, que permitan nuestra mejor convivencia y cooperation, no debemos
[Stage Direction]
May 26, 1980
must not forget that the differences in the kind and extent of our development make it impossible under present-day circumstances to form a regional economic association of either a general nature or with specific reference to energy. Let us promote our bilateral relations, but let us not seek to establish artificial entities based on a single factor-the geographical factor, as important as it may be-but rather let us promote relations in which other equally important elements for the economic integration of several countries are presently lacking.
The focal point of the European Economic Community is support for the relatively homogeneous development of the nations composing it. This is not the case in North America. As far as Mexico is concerned, we believe that the establishment of such an entity would inevitably impede our industrial development and perhaps oblige us to extract and export raw materials indefinitely for the use of the most developed societies. Even in the specific field of energy the exploitation of hydrocarbons has very different connotations in accordance with varying degrees of development. For us it will serve above all to create new sources of employment and to stimulate industry and agriculture. For an affluent society the high levels of consumption of hydrocarbons, which some deem to be excessive, serve to sustain a very high standard of living to which we cannot aspire at the present time. In such circumstances, I consider it difficult for us to arrive at a common strategy for the exploitation, future and use of energy unless they are included within a system of total responsibility on the part of mankind. This is what we have proposed to the United Nations.
The recent crisis convulsing the world is precisely the result of a lack of respect for the independence of weak nations. Local conflicts and the permanent threat of global war are the result of a power mechanism bestirred by the craving for territories and markets.
For this reason, Mexico's efforts in favour of general and complete disarmament may be considered among mankind's noblest causes. The Treaty of Tlatelolco, for which Mexico is depositary, is a decisive step toward preserving a vast geographical area from nuclear destruction. This, however, is but barely a beginning, and it will only have full validity when it transcends the regional sphere and becomes a model for other similar treaties.
Universal acceptance of the rule of law-both domestically and in relations among nations-is the irreplaceable foundation of the social order. All societies, whether simple, complex, conservative or revolutionary, need law to preserve their unity and their coherence.
In any circumstances, but particularly in a time of crisis, it is absolutely essential for the international community to reaffirm the validity of its legal institutions. Defending the United Nations means defending the standards that govern peaceful coexistence among States and the supremacy of law over force.
We recognize, of course, that the United Nations' political and administrative machinery is not always effective in solving the world's problems. The scope and pace of its procedures are
olvidar que las diferencias en el tipo y grado de nuestro desarrollo hacen imposible -en las actuales circunstancias- integrar una asociacion economica regional, sea general, sea en el ramo de los energeticos. Impulsemos nuestras relaciones bilaterales, mas no pretendamos crear entidades artificiales basadas en un solo factor -el geografico, por importante que sea- pero en las que esten ausentes otros elementos igual-mente esenciales para la integration economica de varios paises.
La Comunidad Economica Europea tiene como punto central de apoyo el desarrollo relativamente homogeneo de las naciones que la integran. Eso no ocurre en Norte America. En lo que a Mexico toca, estimamos que la creation de una entidad semejante frenaria inevitablemente nuestro desarrollo industrial y nos condenarla, acaso, a extraer y exportar a perpetuidad materias primas para su aprovechamiento por sociedades mas avazadas. Alin en el terreno puramente energe-tico, la explotacion de los hidrocarburos tiene un sentido muy distinto segun el grado de desarrollo. Para nosotros, servira ante todo para crear nuevas fuentes de empleo y estimular la industria y la agricultura. Para una sociedad afluente, el elevado consumo de hidrocarburos, que algunos califican de excesivo, sirve para sustentar un muy alto nivel de vida as que nosotros no podemos aspirar actualmente. En esas circunstancias, creo dificil que pudieramos llegar a una estrategia comun sobre la explotacion, destino y uso de los energeticos, salvo que se inscribiera en un sistema de responsabilidad total de la humanidad. Asi lo hemos propuesto a las Naciones Unidas.
La reciente crisis que sacude al mundo es producto, precisa-mente, de la falta de respeto a la independencia de las naciones debiles. Los conflictos locales y el amago permanente de una guerra global son resultado de un mecanismo de poder que agita la ambition de territories y de mercados.
Por eso, los esfuerzos de Mexico en favor del desarme general y completo se inscriben entre las mejores causas de la humanidad. El Tratado de Tlatelolco, del que somos depositaries, es un paso decisivo para preservar a un vasto espacio geografico de la destruction nuclear. Pero se trata, apenas, de un principio. Cobrara sentido pleno cuando pueda trascender su ambito regional y se convierta en modelo de otros tratados semejantes.
La aceptacion universal del derecho -en el piano interno y externo- es el fundamento insustituible del orden social. Todas las sociedades -sean simples, complejas, consevadoras o revolucionarias- requieren del derecho para preservar su unidad y su coherencia.
En cualquier circunstancia pero particularmente en epoca de crisis, es indispensable que la comunidad internacional rea-firme el valor de sus instituciones juridicas. La defensa de las Naciones Unidas significa la defensa de las normas que rigen la convivencia entre Estados y la supervivencia del derecho frente a la fuerza.
Reconocemos, por supuesto, que los mecanismos politicos y administrativos de Naciones Unidas no siempre resultan efica-ces para resolver los problemas del mundo. La dimension y el
May 26, 1980
[Stage Direction]
frequently not commensurate with the scope and pace required to solve such problems.
The political problems that have arisen in recent months call for the good offices of countries not directly involved in the conflicts. The concerted action of countries that have demonstrated their devotion to independence and for that reason enjoy international prestige may have, in certain cases, a profound impact on the solution of international conflicts.
Peace, however, is not merely the result of anti-war activities. The pacifism of the between-war period is a thing of the past. Now we know beyond the shadow of a doubt that peace is not possible without equitable development.
In order to achieve such development, we are committed to the establishment of a new international order, which is the only viable alternative to our decaying economic institutions. Inflation, unemployment, monetary chaos or the progressive indebtedness of the underdeveloped countries presage even worse evils, such as recession and famine.
The new international order in its political and economic aspects concerns-or should concern-all the nations of the world. To present it as a plan that derives exclusively from the developing countries is a grave and deliberate departure from the truth, unless, of course, we were to invent a happy world in which only consumers existed and in which neither raw materials, work nor the financing of trade were necessary. The critical elements that endanger peace are the developing countries that have to contend with social confrontations, economic crises and cravings for hegemony or spheres of influence. Everything here is related to everything else.
As part of this new international order, we have proposed the establishment of a world energy plan to the United Nations General Assembly in order to rationalize the production, distribution and consumption of energy. This plan anticipates using the resources derived from present energy sources to develop alternative energy sources.
This plan must include all the members of the international community. Therefore, each country-rich or poor, producer or consumer-must assume proportional responsibility to guarantee its implementation. At the present time the energy problem can only be resolved by the concerted action of the international community-not by the silent manipulation of dominant transnational interests.
The relations of mutual respect and friendship that exist between Canada and Mexico guarantee a proper framework for broadening our political, economic and cultural relations, and we have the will and the resources to bring this about.
In the economic sphere, we are especially interested in the possibility of making joint investments in certain specific projects.
We attach particular significance to political collaboration between our nations, since we are convinced that a common approach to certain international matters can help to strengthen the cause of peace and security both on this and other continents.
ritmo de sus procedimientos no corresponden, con frecuencia, a la dimension y al ritmo que exigen los problemas.
El conjunto de problemas politicos que han surgido en los ultimos meses requiere de la intermediacion de paises no comprometidos directamente en los conflictos. La accion con-certada de paises que han demostrado su vocacion de indepen-dencia y que por ello gozan de prestigio internacional puede tener, en ciertos casos, un impacto serio en la solucion de conflictos internacionales.
La paz, sin embargo, no es el mero resultado de la actividad antibelica. Paso la etapa del pacifismo del periodo de entre-guerras. Ahora sabemos-con certidumbre irrefutable-que no es posible la paz sin un desarrollo equitativo.
Para lograrlo, estamos comprometidos en la creacion de un nuevo orden internacional que se presenta como la unica opcion viable ante la decadencia de nuestras instituciones economicas. La inflation, el desempleo, el caos monetario o el endeudamiento progresivo de los paises subdesarrollados anun-cian males aun mas graves como la recesion y la hambruna.
El nuevo orden internacional-en sus aspectos politicos y economicos-interesa o debiera interesar a todas las naciones del mundo. Es una aberration malintencionada presentario como un proyecto exclusivo de los paises en desarrollo. A menos, por supuesto, que inventaramos un mundo feliz en que no hubiera sino consumidores y no fueran necesarias las materias primas, el trabajo o el financiamiento del comercio. Precisamente los puntos criticos que ponen en peligro la paz son paises en vias de desarrollo, con enfrentamientos sociales, angustias economicas y ambiciones de hegemonia o de zona de influencia. Todo esta en todo.
Como parte de este nuevo orden internacional, hemos pro-puesto a la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas estable-cer un plan mundial de energia para racionalizar la production, la distribution y el consumo de los energeticos. Este plan preve la captacion de recursos para desarrollar fuentes alterna-tivas de energia.
Este proyecto debe incluir a todos los miembros de la comunidad internacional y, por lo tanto, se requiere que cada pais pobre o rico, productor o consumidor, asuma una respon-sabilidad proporcional en su realization. En la actualidad el problema energetico solo puede ser resuelto por la accion concertada de la comunidad internacional y no por las manipu-laciones silenciosas de los grandes intereses transnacionales.
Las relaciones de mutuo respeto y simpatia que existen entre Canada y Mexico garantizan un marco adecuado para el incremento de nuestras relaciones politicas, economicas y ocul-turales. Tenemos voluntad y recursos para hacerlo.
En el piano economico, nos interesa especialmente la posibi-lidad de realizar inversiones conjuntas en algunos proyectos especificos.
Acordamos particular relevancia a la colaboracion politica entre nuestras naciones pues estamos seguros que el comun enfoque de algunos asuntos internacionales puede contribuir a reforzar la causa de la paz y de la seguridad dento y fuera de este continente.
[Stage Direction]
May 26, 1980
Your Excellency,
Honourable Members of Parliament:
We are embarking upon the next-to-last decade of the twentieth century under the shadow of grave international threats of war. The economic disorder of recent years is compounded by a generalized and acute crisis of confidence in all realms. This difficult state of affairs has even undermined the basic principles of peaceful coexistence among men and nations.
We have no desire to dissemble the wounds and scars of the world we live in. Rather, our aim is to transform it. We have little time left in which to do this, but we cannot renounce our commitment to forge the roads along which the new forces of life will march.
I pledge my faith in the future and in the fraternal relations between Canada and Mexico.
Hon. Jean Marchand (President of the Senate):: Mr. President Portillo, Mr. Prime Minister of Canada, Madam Speaker, honourable colleagues of the Senate and of the House of Commons, ladies and gentlemen, in 1973, we had the great honour to welcome in this House your predecessor, Mr. President, who came to convey to us the solemn testimony of the friendship uniting Mexico and Canada. Your presence among us today vouches for the constancy of this faithful friendship. Before acceding to your high functions at the head of the State, you had foreshadowed in your writings and teachings what has been your government's program for three years now. You summarized it in two short and strong phrases which call for the reinforcement of the structures of freedom and justice and the enrichment of the values which are fundamental to national coexistence. We are also of the opinion that in the life of every nation, there must exist a dynamic relationship between the institutions with which a country endows itself and the values and aspirations they represent.
Mr. President, your visit takes place at a milestone of our history where that balance must be achieved anew. Please rest assured that Canadians will be up to that perpetual challenge as they have always been.

Mr. President, you called our attention to the urgency of searching also for the right equation in the international economic arena. We will ponder your views and the remarks by the Prime Minister about the growing and necessary interdependence between the economies of the world. Canadians have always been concerned about basic human needs. They are becoming more aware that the problem is complex, that there is no easy solution and that a wide range of interlocking issues will have to be tackled with patience and determination by all parties concerned.
Excelentisimo Senor Primer Ministro,
Honorables Miembros del Parlamento:
Iniciamos el penultimo decenio del siglo XX bajo graves amenazas de guerra internacionales. A1 desorden economico de los ultimos anos se agrega una generalizada y aguda crisis de confianza en todos los ordenes. Esta dificil coyuntura ha vulnerado, incluso, principios esenciales de la convivencia entre hombres y naciones.
No deseamos disimular las heridas y cicatrices del mundo en que vivimos sino transformarlo. Disponemos de poco tiempo para hacerlo, pero no podemos renunciar al compromiso de abrir los caminos por donde transitaran las nuevas fuerzas de la vida.
Hago votos por el futuro y por la fraternidad de Canada y de Mexico.

S.E. Jean Marchand (Presidente del Senado): Senor Presi-dente Lopez Portillo, senor Primer Ministro de Canada, Senora Presidenta de la Camara de los Comunes, honorables colegas del Senado y de la Camara de los Comunes, Senoras y Senores: En 1973 tuvimos el gran honor de acoger en este recinto al predecesor del Senor Presidente que nos aportaba el testimonio solemne de la amistad mexico-canadiense. Vuestra presencia entre nosotros hoy es una prueba de la constancia de esta fiel amistad. Antes de alcanzar las funciones mas altas del Estado ha anunciado usted en sus escritos y en su ensenanza lo que ha sido desde hace tres anos su programa de gobierno. Este programa lo ha resumido usted politicamente en dos formulas resueltas y concisas: robustecer las estructuras de la libertad y de la justicia y enriquecer los valores esenciales de la coexistencia nacional. Nosotros tambien pensamos que en la vida de cada pueblo debe existir una relation dinamica entre las instituciones con que un pais se ha dotado y los valores y aspiraciones que encarnan.
Su visita, senor Presidente, tiene lugar en un momento decisivo de nuestra historia donde se debe alcanzar nueva-mente dicho equilibrio. Tenga usted la seguridad que los canadienses sabran mostrarse, como siempre, a la altura de ese reto constante.

Senor Presidente: usted nos senalo asimismo que urgia tratar de establecer cierto equilibrio en el panorama economico internacional. Vamos a reflexionar sobre sus observacio-nes y las que hiciera el Primer Ministro (Sr. Trudeau) relati-vas a la creciente y necesaria interdependencia entre las diversas economias del mundo. Los canadienses siempre se han preocupado de las necesidades fundamentales de la humani-dad. Cada dia se dan mas cuenta de la complejidad del problema, que la solution no es facil y que todas las partes interesadas deben analizar paciente y resueltamente toda una gama de cuestiones estrechamente entrelazadas.
May 26, 1980

We thank you, Sir, for your visit and we hope that your talks with Canadian ministers will lead to a further strengthening of ties between our two countries to their mutual benefit.

Your Excellency, please accept our most heart-felt gratitude and offer our best wishes to your magnificient country.


Madam Speaker:: Mr. President, 1 have the honour of expressing, on behalf of each and everyone of my colleagues, the joy that we feel at hosting you here in the House of Commons of Canada.

We have listened to your speech with great interest because it reflects your feelings and those of your countrymen toward our people and our country.
You emphasized that Mexico had to bring about unity in order to establish a homogeneous community whose mission is to create the type of climate most likely to favour the prosperity and welfare of your citizens while respecting their differences.
[ Translation]
That reminds us that we too, like yourself and your people, must abolish the gaps that would prevent Canadians from feeling united within this family which bears a great deal of resemblance to yours and within the larger family which occupies the entire North American continent.
Your words bring to light the need for this constant cooperation between peoples who defend the same values and who are trying to promote a heritage with common roots in civilization.
Mexico is a fascinating country which has a special appeal to people the world over. Its spectacular geography, composed of bodies of water, forests, plains and mountains, projects an image which encompasses the multiple facets of a country whose vibrations echo the life of the old and the new world. Your culture, your civilization, your architecture, your monuments, your folklore, your music and your literature form a blend of new wealth and old treasures. Your country still retains the secret of the language and thought of its first inhabitants, a language that has not yet been decyphered but which, through its multitude of signs and its variety of images, expresses the thought, the psychology, the joy, the pains and the hopes of a people who preceeded us by far in America. It is never without deep emotion that we walk your land in the hopes of discovering old paths which will bring us back to the dawn of human life and wisdom. The meeting of the civilizations of old and of the new one which followed it have produced the jewel that is Mexico. It is with pleasure that I say to you how much we admire your political, cultural and social edifice which is greatly envied by all those who give priority to the fundamental values of society.
Le agradecemos su visita, seiior Presidente, y esperamos que las conversaciones que sostenga con los ministros canadienses contribuyan a estrechar los vinculos que nos unen, para benefi-cio mutuo de nuestros paises.

Excelentisimo senor Presidente: acepte nuestro mas pro-fundo agradecimiento y nuestros mejores votos por su magni-fico pais.
Senora Presidenta de la Camara de los Comunes: Senor Presidente, tengo el honor de expresarle, en nombre de todos y cada uno de mis colegas, todo nuestro jubilo al tenerle entre nosotros en esta Camara de los Comunes de Canada.

Hemos escuchado su discurso con gran interes, ya que traduce tanto sus sentimientos como los de sus compatriotas respecto a nuestro pais y a nuestro pueblo.
Ha subrayado usted que Mexico debia promover la unidad con miras a crear una sociedad homogenea que establezca un clima mas favorable a la prosperidad y bienestar de sus compatriotas respetando al mismo tiempo sus diferencias.

Esas palabras nos recuerdan que nosotros tambien, al igual que usted y su pueblo, debemos abolir las distancias que impiden a los canadienses sentirse unidos en esta familia tan parecida a la suya y en la todavia mas numerosa de la America del Norte.
Sus palabras sacan a luz la necesidad de esta constante colaboracion entre pueblos que defienden los mismos valores y que tratan de promover el bien comun cuyos principios basicos pertenecen a las mismas fuentes de civilizacion.
Mexico es un pais tascinante que ejerce sobre todos los ciudadanos del mundo un atractivo especial. Su asombrosa configuration geografica, sus masas de agua, bosques, mesetas y montanas proyectan una imagen que reune las multiples facetas de un pais de vibraciones profundas cuyo eco repercute en la vida del Viejo y Nuevo Mundo. Su cultura, su civilizacion, su arquitectura, sus monumentos, su folklore, su musica y su literatura son una sintesis de nuevas riquezas y de antiguos tesoros. Vuestro pais conserva todavia el secreto de la lengua y del pensamiento de sus primeros habitantes, lengua misteriosa que no se ha podido todavia descifrar pero que, a traves de sus multiples signos y diversas imagenes, expresan el pensamiento, la psicologia, alegria, sufrimientos y esperanzas de un pueblo mucho mas antiguo que el nuestro en America y nunca hemos pisado vuestro suelo sin que nos embargara una profunda emotion, con la esperanza de descubrir viejos senderos que nos hagan remontar hasta la aurora de la vida y sabiduria huma-nas. El encuentro de las civilizaciones del pasado y de la moderna que las ha seguido creo la joya que es Mexico. Me complace expresarle cuanto admiramos este edificio politico, cultural y social que es la envidia de todos los que dan prioridad a los valores fundamentales de la sociedad.

May 26, 1980

Mr. President, you have done us the honour of bringing with you a large delegation of most distinguished politicians and citizens. 1 would like to extend my most sincere greetings to these distinguished visitors and I wish to assure them not only of our interest, but also of our affection.
In closing, please allow me to express once again, on behalf of all members of the House of Commons, on my behalf, our heartfelt thanks. There are links between Canada and Mexico that we would like to reinforce and extend through more frequent meetings between the representatives of our respective Parliaments. I would ask you, Your Excellency, to bring this message to your countrymen as well as our warmest wishes for their welfare and progress.
[ Translation]
Let me now say that this House stands adjourned.

Senor Presidente: nos ha honrado usted al venir acompanado de una importante Comitiva de personalidades politicas y ciudadanos destacados. Quisiera extender mis mas sinceros saludos a estos distinguidos visitantes y asegurarles que les testimoniamos no solo nuestro interes sino tambien nuestro afecto.
Para terminar, permitame expresarle una vez mas, en nombre de todos los miembros de la Camara de los Comunes y en el mio proprio, nuestro mas profundo reconocimiento. Deseariamos desarrollar y robustecer los vinculos que existen entre Canada y Mexico organizando reuniones mas frecuentes entre los representantes de nuestros respectivos parlamentos. Excelentisimo senor Presidente: le ruego tenda a bien transmi-tir este mensage a sus compatriotas, junto con nuestros votos mas sinceros de progreso y prosperidad.

Y ahora, con vuestro permiso, declaro levantada la Sesion.

Tuesday, May 27, 1980