1980-05-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission that the federal government is discriminating against 3,000 low-paid, mainly female, public servants; the commission has decided that employees in the female-dominated food services, laundry services and related services are paid substantially less than the male-dominated stores and warehouse occupations; in view of the commission's ruling that the jobs are considered equal in value; and since the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) ignores this shocking disparity, despite repeated representations for equal pay, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That as a matter of good faith, the President of the Treasury Board move immediately to rectify this gross inequity in the public service, the result of which is to further discriminate against women, and that his action include compensation for one year's back wages.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTENSION OF PIPELINE TO MARITIMES-GOVERNMENT POSITION-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Liberal leader of the opposition in New Brunswick has raised a motion in the provincial legislature that the federal government proceed with the extension of the pipeline immediately through the maritimes, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources explain to his Liberal colleague in New Brunswick why the federal government does not feel it is appropriate to extend the pipeline at this time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that about all of the European countries, plus other members of the western alliance, intend to participate in the 1980 Olympics, and since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has stated repeatedly that Canada should boycott the Olympics only if such a boycott would be effective, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin):
That this House urge the government to reconsider its earlier decision of forbidding our athletes from attending the games; that instead, Canada assume leadership among the 103 United Nations' members who condemned the invasion of Afghanistan in the implementation of international economic and other sanctions to emphasize to the U.S.S.R. our abhorrence of such aggressive acts.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: 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 constitutional matters are the focus of government attention at this time, and that constitutional revisions are crucial to the political evolution of the two northern territories, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
1430

May 27, 1980
That this House recognize that representatives of the native people in the Yukon and Northwest Territories be invited to participate soon in discussions on revisions to the Canadian constitution.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of some urgency.
Whereas the Atlantic provinces, following years of neglect by successive Liberal governments, are totally dependent on imported oil to the tune of 300,000 barrels a day, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):
That the Minister of Finance be directed to study and report to the House the impact on the economies of the Atlantic provinces that would result from a reduction or an increase in oil price compensation payments, and disclose his preference to the House.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COST OF SYNTHETIC CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION-MOTION UNDER
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Recent developments clearly indicate that Canada will be facing petroleum shortages in the very near future. Whereas development of the Alsands project in Fort McMurray, Alberta, and the Imperial Oil in situ plant in Cold Lake, Alberta, are being delayed for lack of an oil pricing agreement, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis):
That this House direct the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to table the studies done to determine the economic cost to Canada of a one-year delay in bringing to the Canadian market in excess of 200,000 barrels of synthetic crude oil per day.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SHIPPING
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I rise, as well, under Standing Order 43, with regard to the urgency to Canadians of moving our own resources in our own ships.
In view of the arrangements to export western Canadian coal to Japan, and recognizing the need for a stimulus, soon, to the Canadian shipbuilding industry, and as an expression of support of the UNCTAD arrangements, I move:
That in any further deliberations on the transportation of coal to Japan, the Prime Minister recognize the Canadian desire to transport at least 20 per cent of cargo in 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.


FINANCE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has in this House and elsewhere promised a program of assistance to Canadian home owners who are required to renegotiate commercial mortgage interest rates in 1980 and who cannot afford the substantially higher levels of interest. Accordingly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House direct the Minister of Finance to prepare and present forthwith the promised plan or program of assistance for home owners who require relief from high commercial mortgage interest rates.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that a draft report prepared for the federal cabinet suggests
May 27, 1980

there is little the federal government can do about the serious effects of the drought situation on the prairies, but that the government must look as if it is doing something by publicity stunts, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House asserts that the federal government must not just look to be, but must truly be working on behalf of livestock and grain producers to alleviate the effects of the drought situation in western Canada, such as massive programs to obtain supplies of livestock feed, feed freight assistance, water well-drilling, water pipelines, extending farm credit, a minimum six-month moratorium on interest charges on FCC and FIL loans, and delay, without penalty, payments on such loans. And, further, that the minister personally take charge of all programs and replace the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board and the Minister of Employment and Immigration in dealing with prairie governments and farmers on this serious matter.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRIBUTE TO HON. LINCOLN M. ALEXANDER
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I wish that I had two opportunities to put a motion today, as I would like to recognize the service to this House of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), who is spending his last day in this august assembly.
[Editor's Note: Mr. Alexander received a standing ovation.]


LOTTERIES
William J. Yurko: Madam Speaker, whereas the previous government extricated the federal government from the lottery business, and whereas national government lotteries are a direct form of taxation mainly on poor Canadians and are, therefore, better left to non-profit organizations and local governments, and whereas the lottery business is a prime example of federal government interference and infiltration of provincial areas of jurisdiction, which has caused increasing federal-provincial constitutional stress and strain, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That this House condemn any effort by the federal government to re-establish national gambling practices through lotteries.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question would be for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but in his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Crosbie:: He is looking for help. Answer it yourself, Pierre.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister will recall that on May 4, 1979, an agreement was initialled between Canada and Mexico, one sentence of which reads as follows:
The government of Mexico undertakes to supply and the Government of Canada assures the purchase of up to 100,000 barrels per day of crude oil during the validity of the present agreement and in conformity with the program referred to in this article.
In 1979 it was 100,000 barrels per day, but today an agreement was signed by which Mexico will be sending Canada only 50,000 barrels per day. Will the Prime Minister tell the House what happened to that lost 50,000 barrels of oil per day?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, if the right hon. Leader of the Opposition compares the two agreements, he is right: he will see that the figure
100.000	no longer appears. In that respect, we feel the agreement reached today is not as satisfactory as the one that had been initialled last year.


An hon. Member:: Just how?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the other hand, there is an improvement in the terms of the other half of the agreement, that concerning
50.000	barrels per day. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition will recall that last year the undertaking of the Mexicans was to go up to 50,000 barrels of oil per day. Now the agreement is specific as not being "up to" but, in fact, 50,000 barrels per day.
He will also see that the agreement last year was to reach that figure of up to 50,000 some time in the 12 months following 1980, whereas the terms of this agreement make that delivery of 50,000 barrels effective this December; therefore, a year in advance.


Charles Joseph Clark: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. I would call the attention of the Prime Minister to the language

May 27, 1980
Oral Questions
of the agreement initialled last year. It does not suggest, "up to
50.000	barrels per day"; it says, "shall reach 50,000 barrels per day". That clearly indicates that the 50,000 barrels would be achieved by the agreement that was initialled and apparently abandoned.
The Prime Minister has said that somehow or other Canada benefits from having lost 50,000 barrels per day of imported oil from Mexico. Will he tell the House how we benefit from having lost, in the course of a year, 50,000 barrels per day from Mexico?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am afraid the Leader of the Opposition does not understand correctly the agreement initialled last year. It was a "best efforts" by the Mexicans toward 100,000; it was not a certain undertaking of reaching
100,000.	That part of the agreement, I admit to the Leader of the Opposition, does not appear this year. There is still a "best efforts" clause, but not linked with specific figures. I can only repeat to the House what I have just said: we have not that
100.000	figure, but we have gained 12 months in the deliverance of the 50,000 figure.


John Carnell Crosbie: You have lost 50,000 barrels.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the "best efforts" in the agreement that was initialled last year referred to the 100,000 barrels per day. It was in relation to that that the phrase "best efforts" occurred. There was a clear commitment of up to
50.000	barrels a day: "shall reach". There was a clear commitment that the exports "shall reach" 50,000 barrels a day in the agreement that was initialled in May of last year. What has happened is that this government, in the course of twelve months, has lost 50,000 barrels of oil a day for Canada from Mexico.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


John Carnell Crosbie: Fumbling and bumbling.


Charles Joseph Clark: The figures last year in the initialled agreement were spelled out in the agreement. There are no figures spelled out in the agreement that was signed today.


Miss MacDonald:: Right on.


Mr. Nielsen:: You blew it.


Charles Joseph Clark: The figures are included in a joint statement by the President and the Prime Minister, but they are not part of a formal agreement signed on behalf of the two governments. Can the Prime Minister give us a clear assurance that the
50.000	barrels a day-down 50,000 from what Canadians had a right to expect-is a firm figure and will not change, as the
100.000	barrels a day of last May changed in a year?


Erik Nielsen: You blew it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The reason it does not appear in the agreement, Madam Speaker, is that it appears in a specific contract
of understanding between Pemex, the Mexican petroleum company, and Petro-Canada. If the hon. Leader of the Opposition cares to refer to that, there is a specific agreement between the exporter and the importer that the figure of
50,000	will be reached, I repeat, this December rather than December, 1981.
All 1 can say, Madam Speaker, is that indeed it would have been preferable if the additional figure of 100,000 "best efforts" had appeared. It does not. The Mexicans did change their minds on that.
I would hope that the agreement that our government negotiated last May, and which was initialled by the two parties, had been followed up rapidly by the then Government of Canada and that the visit of the President of Mexico had indeed taken place within months of that signature, which was our intention had we remained the government. The party opposite then formed the government and postponed that visit for a full year, which gave the Mexicans time to change their minds.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister knows full well that that is not the case. But the fact remains that he has admitted that there is now a loss of 50,000 barrels a day- between May of last year and May of this year. He admits that.
Will he tell us what went wrong? Will he tell us what actions by the Government of Canada caused the Mexicans to back away from their "best efforts" commitment toward 100,000 barrels a day and to settle for only 50,000 barrels a day? What accounts for the lost 50,000 barrels a day?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I just said, Madam Speaker, that the opposition party formed the government of that period and failed to follow up on the advantage we had negotiated last May.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Rubbish.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The Prime Minister will note that as of February 8, 1980- just a few days before the election-the Mexican ambassador to Canada stated that oil deliveries of 100,000 barrels of oil would be part of an energy and trade agreement to be signed when the President visited Canada in May of this year. That was February 8 of this year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Explain that one.
May 27, 1980


Flora Isabel MacDonald: My question to the Prime Minister is this: The government has lost 50,000 barrels of oil from Mexico. Imports from Venezuela will be down from 240,000 barrels in the first quarter to 150,000 barrels in the last quarter of this year. As well as the loss from overseas, from offshore sources, the Minister of Energy is delaying negotiations with the provinces which would have the result of bringing on domestic supplies of oil.
Having had a few days to think about it, can the Prime Minister now state why the Minister of Energy went to Paris and stated that we would be oil self-sufficient by the end of this decade? Can he tell us on what projections the Minister of Energy based those comments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would first say that I disagree with several elements of the premise to the question; but in so far as the minister justifying his statement in Paris, I would tell the hon. lady that the minister is expected in the House and he will deal with that question himself.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary question. Perhaps if the Prime Minister cannot answer this and give me an assurance, I will be permitted to put it later to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. What I would like to have, and what the House would be very interested in having, is that the minister table the projections on which he made that statement.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am sure the minister will be pleased to consider the interests of the hon. lady.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCES PURPOSE OF FIRST MINISTERS' MEETING-DATE THEREOF
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Is he now in a position to confirm that there will be a meeting of first ministers of the provinces with himself on June 9; and if that is the case, can he tell us a bit more about that meeting? Can he tell us whether this is a meeting merely to set an agenda, or a meeting to get involved in the constitutional talks themselves?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker, I am not in the position to add to what was stated clearly in the House yesterday by the Deputy Prime Minister, because we have not yet as of this moment had a response from the tenth province. It has not indicated up to now an understanding that it will be present on that date.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Has the federal government committed itself to a timetable for constitutional change, so that we can have a series of meetings until the constitution is changed and fully realized, and will those meetings take place in public? Perhaps the Prime Minister can also tell us whether he has had a chance to make a decision on a suggestion made in this House last week, that the leaders of the opposition parties, and
Oral Questions
perhaps some members of the opposition, be part of the federal delegation on the constitutional talks.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the latter part of the question, Madam Speaker, why does the hon. member ask me to say more than I said last week, that indeed I would hope the federal parliament would reach a consensus on the position it would want to present for a new constitution. That is still my hope. However, if that hope is not fulfilled, I am not certain that it would be easy to have members of other parties or leaders of other parties form part of the delegation assisting the Government of Canada.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I am interested in having the Prime Minister tell us whether he has made a decision on whether there will be involvement of opposition members and leaders of opposition parties in the delegation. I would also like to ask him a question about resources, which are so important to western premiers.
The committee of ministers studying the constitution was making a lot of progress on this matter before the 1979 election. Has the Prime Minister made a decision that resources will be placed on a short list, along with items such as language rights and culture to be discussed at the constitutional conferences?
[ Translation]


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I must again answer that we have not yet heard from Quebec whether that provincial government will attend the conference and, if so, what will be the standards or the framework of the discussion it wants to lead. We have that information from other provinces but still not from Quebec. As long as we do not have complete information or we have not learned whether the Quebec government intends to co-operate, I would rather not state what will be the position of the federal government.


RELIANCE ON FOREIGN SOURCES OF OIL-NEGOTIATIONS TO INCREASE SUPPLY
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, my question is also to the Prime Minister. It relates to Canada's reliance on foreign sources of oil. According to the best information currently available to the government, the dependency upon foreign oil will increase from the present 450,000 barrels a day to approximately 800,000 by 1985-an increase of about 78 per cent.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that it is upon this projection of a 78 per cent increase that his government is basing its negotiations not only with provinces but with foreign oil suppliers?

May 27, 1980
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker, I cannot confirm that. I answered the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands a moment ago that I would take notice of her question regarding projections and I will give the hon. gentleman the same answer, namely, that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will be available to answer questions on projections on the estimates.


William Herbert Jarvis: Given indications that our historical suppliers, such as Venezuela, will be decreasing rather than increasing shipments to us, and given the difficulty, as evidenced this week, in negotiating new contracts with such countries as Mexico, will the Prime Minister indicate to the House which countries he is looking to over the next five years to satisfy our increasing dependence on foreign oil sources?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure we would look for supplies wherever they could be had. The closer, the better.


OIL-CONTINGENCY PLANS TO MEET NEEDS OF ONTARIO, QUEBEC AND EASTERN CANADA
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Since domestic oil supply is meeting a decreasing proportion of our needs, and since the government has failed to secure the 100,000-barrel objective it had in mind in the Mexican deal, since this means a potential significant shortfall in both offshore and domestic supply, since it appears that the Liberal policy as stated by its candidates both now and during the last election is rationing, will the Prime Minister tell us, what is the government's contingency plan to meet the needs of Ontario, Quebec and eastern Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as in the case of the previous question, I do not agree with the premises of this one so I do not feel an answer is called for.


Gary Michael Gurbin: In his lack of plan, the Prime Minister has failed to identify how he will divide limited fuel resources between agriculture, industry and consumers. Will he tell the House if he has decided who will suffer most?


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. David OrEkow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In the last few days, the Department of Labour reported that wages of Canadian workers increased last year by 9 per cent. Statistics Canada indicated that the cost of living increased by more than 9 per cent in the same period, so real wages have suffered a reduction.
Today, we learn from figures released by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that senior executives of Canadian corporations such as Seagrams, Imperial Oil, the CPR and Gemstar, to mention just a few, are now receiving more than $500,000 a year in salaries and other forms of income, an increase in the last year of more than 50 per cent.
Would the minister call in the officers of these major corporations and tell them that, given the state of our economy and the desire of so many government officials that ordinary people should restrain their demands on the economy, increases of the sort I have described are unacceptable?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I have noted the representations of the hon. member and will consider whether, in the circumstances, it would be useful to take the steps he suggests. I agree with him that in the present situation restraint is required in all sectors of the economy, including the group to which the hon. member has referred.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
David Orlikow: A question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Madam Speaker. I should like to ask the minister why Canadians have to get information of the kind I have just put on record, about executive compensation from the United States, through information required to be filed publicly as a result of regulations enacted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Will the minister give active consideration to amending our corporations act to make mandatory public disclosure of executive salaries and bonuses, as is now provided in the United States?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I find the suggestion of the hon. member interesting and will surely discuss it with my officials.


ENERGY CONSERVATION
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the government House leader. Because of conflicting statements forthcoming from the Minister of Energy and his senior assistant deputy minister, will the hon. gentleman show that the government is serious about energy
May 27, 1980

conservation by bringing forward bills which indicate as much, or will he continue to appear to take advice from the assistant deputy minister, one of whose statements 1 will quote: "We ought to concentrate our communications efforts on getting them off oil rather than conserving energy"?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, 1 am unaware of such contradiction, I cannot accept the premise of my colleague. I can assure him that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is endeavouring to see that the best policies are carried out in the interests of every Canadian.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Part of my question was: would the government House leader show that the government is serious about energy conservation by bringing forward bills which indicate that seriousness?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: The hon. minister will do every thing that is necessary in the best interest of the Canadian people as a whole, and that includes policies on energy conservation.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Yesterday, in a speech he delivered in Montreal, the minister said that we were experiencing an excess of regionalism in Canada. In light of the recommendation in the Pepin-Robarts report that one of the two greatest challenges in Canada is to allow for a new and deep expression of the forces of regionalism within the constitutional system, I should like first of all to ask the minister whether he was speaking on behalf of the government.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, 1 was expressing my own views but, in any case, when I suggested that there was a problem in that area, I was referring to the report-


Madam Speaker:: It seems to me that since that question does not deal with the minister's parliamentary responsibility, it should be directed to another minister whose responsibility it is.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, perhaps you will recognize the validity of my question. I was simply asking the President of the Treasury Board, who is a member of the cabinet, whether he was speaking on behalf of the government when he
Oral Questions
made this vitally important statement, in view of the Prime Minister's statements on renewed federalism.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member has been sitting in this House long enough to know that he has another recourse, and that is to direct the question to the member of the government empowered to answer such questions as to whether the minister was speaking on behalf of the government or was expressing a personal view.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, with your permission, I would like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada. I think he understood the question 1 asked one of his ministers, the President of the Treasury Board, on the excessive regionalism we are presently experiencing in Canada, contrary to the recommendation contained in the Pepin-Robarts report for which I have the utmost respect. Was the minister speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I did not see in the minister's text where he spoke of excessive regionalism. I saw the expression "knee-jerk reaction" used in the context of decentralization and in that sense I fully agree with the minister. There is a pronounced tendency to think that we can solve all problems by greater decentralization and, in my view, that is not the only solution.


FISHERIES
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. As the minister knows, last Saturday a train derailed and plunged into the Miramichi River near Juniper, New Brunswick. I would like to ask the minister what he is doing to mitigate the effects on fish of the chemicals spilled into the Miramichi River.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, there is very little that we can do-


An hon. Member:: Double-track.


Roméo LeBlanc: An hon. member has derailed over there. There is very little we can do once a spill has occurred, especially since we were notified only two days after the incident. I will, of course, be looking into that aspect of it, because I consider it to be quite serious that the railway authorities did not notify the proper departments. I am told that the damage is not as serious as had been feared at the beginning. But we are monitoring the situation to see the extent of damage. I only wish we had been told when the

May 27, 1980
Oral Questions
products were still in the water, and we could have conducted testing.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for CMHC, who is also responsible for the failure of Canada's home repair program.
Given the fact that families rarely qualify for RRAP home repair grants because the government refuses to adjust the unrealistically low 1974 income guidelines, or they cannot afford RRAP loans because CMHC has raised the interest rate from 8 per cent to 14'/2 per cent, or they do not live in an area designated for RRAP-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: will the minister tell us whether this government is deliberately phasing out RRAP, which is so essential to upgrading older housing stock in Canada, as these increasing restrictions would indicate?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, it is not the intention of the government to phase out the program. Indeed, the government is studying and is attempting to infuse new activity into this program, as indeed we are into others.
It is a question of which program receives attention today, tomorrow and the next day. We have many requests from members of the party of the hon. lady who asked the question; but I can assure her that it is not our intention to let that program go. It is a valuable program, it has been encouraged and supported, and I intend to encourage it in the future.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, if new activity means disregard of recommendations in reports which have been in the minister's department for two years, I wonder about new activity.
In view of the fact that 200,000 low income families across Canada urgently need home repairs, and in Vancouver 1,000 hardship cases are waiting while close to $1 million of RRAP funds were unspent last year, will the minister assure this House that income guidelines will be adjusted, area restrictions removed completely, and interest on home repair loans rolled back so that these blatant disincentives are eliminated?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, through the last few years, in the short history of this program, we have gradually raised the number of homes which qualify. If we need to take the next move, which is to update the group which falls into it, that takes into account thousands of homes from coast to coast. To respond in equity from coast to coast would take a large infusion of funds. So we cannot do that. However, we are
looking at modest ways by which we can approach strengthening the program in other ways.


FOREST FIRES
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, in his role as half of the western Liberal party.
On a tour in Saskatchewan last Sunday, the minister told us in the House that the devastation of the forest fires and, I think, the drought situation in the western provinces was surveyed. Could the minister tell us whether at the meeting last Sunday in Regina he and his colleagues came forward with any meaningful plan to alleviate the hardships imposed on the people of the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and parts of British Columbia?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, in reply to the hon. member, the discussions we held in Regina were with the officials who comprised the drought task force, which was established in 1977 when the prairie region went through a similar difficult period of dry conditions.
Those officials are from several departments. They have been meeting, advising and assessing the situation on a constant basis. They also have been negotiating with provincial governments. We have met with them. We discussed different proposals which could be made. Those proposals are being drafted and will be presented to cabinet, we hope, within the next week.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear the minister say that meaningful steps are being taken. A Canadian Press story from Regina, leaked from cabinet documents prepared for the cabinet as to what the role of the cabinet should be in the drought on the prairies and Saskatchewan, indicates in part that there is little the government can do about the drought in the west-"but it is of critical importance that we be perceived to be doing something; that we should arrange and stage a public relations effort so that the actions-"


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member please ask his question.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, in light of this cynicism, can the minister explain what meaningful program regarding drought cost-sharing with the prairie provinces his government will enter into? Saskatchewan has committed $20 million. Is the federal government going to pay 50 per cent of the $20 million in the province of Saskatchewan?


Some hon. Members:: May 27, 1980


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member should know that when it comes to meaningful action, the federal government is already heavily involved in a number of initiatives to relieve the problems in western Canada. We cannot relieve the drought: that is beyond our control and, I suggest, the control of all mortals. However, through agencies like the PFRA we are providing the opening of the community pasture system in the prairie region, and a number of water services.
Major initiatives are being taken at this point in time by the Department of Agriculture, and DREE, in their programs to aid and assist farmers. We have indicated in our discussions with provincial authorities that when they are prepared to put forward specific proposals about cost-sharing, those would be considered by the government, as they have been in the past.


Mr. Malone:: We want rain, not a snow job.


OIL-SOURCES OF SUPPLY FOR EASTERN CANADA
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The very serious blow with respect to the security of oil energy for Atlantic Canada which has come with the agreement signed between Canada and Mexico today is one to be regretted. It causes some real alarm, which I am sure the minister appreciates.
Given the fact that the need to import oil to meet unsecured domestic sources of oil in eastern Canada over the next seven or eight years will go up some 75 per cent or 80 per cent, can the minister tell the people of the maritimes, Newfoundland and Labrador what sources he is looking at to replace not only the valuable 50,000 barrels lost today, but also the increased requirements to meet basic needs in that part of Canada?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I would like, first of all, to alleviate some of the fears of the hon. gentleman by saying that Canada has not lost today 50,000 barrels a day; it has won 50,000 barrels a day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: That has happened.


John Carnell Crosbie: Less is more!


Marc Lalonde: 1 understand the nervousness on the other side: they did not do anything about it for a year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: I say that this gain of 50,000 barrels a day has been made in spite of the fact that during the time they were in office, hon. members opposite did not do anything about increasing supply either from Mexico or from Venezuela. We
Oral Questions
had to work at double time to catch up with what they failed to do when they were in government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: I only want to add that the hon. member should not, again, spread useless fears about shortages in eastern Canada, for the very good reason that while it is true that Canada is importing oil, we have a policy in this government of making sure-through the Emergency Supplies Allocation Board, that if there were ever a shortage in this country, no one area would suffer at the expense of another area.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, it would be interesting if the minister, or the Prime Minister, could indicate to people in Atlantic Canada just how they would transport oil or natural gas beyond Montreal and Quebec City to lend effect to the wild statements the minister just made. They were totally irresponsible.
My supplementary question arises from a very clear awareness, from comments made earlier today by the Prime Minister and, just now, by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that they neither understand nor care about Atlantic Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Nor the people in the west.


J. Michael Forrestall: I should like to ask the minister this: with respect to the 50,000 barrels of oil for which we have now signed an agreement, and I remind the minister that as late as February 8-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Especially on a supplementary question, I feel the hon. member should put his question quite shortly.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, 1 would remind the hon. minister that as late as February 8 there were assurances from Mexico-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


J. Michael Forrestall: -that it would be-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Make it short and snappy, as Madam Speaker said.
1438

May 27, 1980
Oral Questions


TRANSMISSION OF SUPPLIES TO EASTERN CANADA
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question either to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or to the Prime Minister.


John Carnell Crosbie: Take the Prime Minister, he's easier.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In view of the government's decision not to proceed with the maritime portion of the natural gas pipeline, an action which would go a long way toward relieving the concern of Nova Scotia over a possible shortage of energy, I should like to ask the minister: would the government consider the establishment of a tanker service, either an intermediate or a small tanker service, between Montreal and Elalifax in order to supply our area with Canadian oil?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am glad that at least this other hon. member from the maritimes knows that there is such a thing as maritime service in this country to help areas where there may be shortages at times.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Marc Lalonde: In answer to the non-question of the previous member, I might point out that that hon. member does not seem to realize-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. minister pursue his answer, please?


Marc Lalonde: I should like to point out to hon. members, in case they do not know on the other side, that the Panama Canal was constructed many years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: For years we have been able to ship oil from Vancouver, via the Panama Canal, to the east coast and to St. Romuald, near Quebec City. So that possibility always exists.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is why there is so much now.


Marc Lalonde: As far as the specific question raised by the hon. member is concerned, he also knows that the government indicated that, while it agreed with the Energy Board decision to proceed with building the pipeline only to Quebec City at the present time, our preferred option remains to have the full building of the line as soon as the environmental concerns have been answered and as soon as we have sufficient information concerning the reserves off Sable Island. This is still the policy of this government and this is what we intend to abide by.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Where is Allan MacEachen when we need him? Surely he can stand up for the maritimes.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Since we are now paying over $20 a barrel to compensate imports of foreign crude oil, costing this nation more than $3.1 billion in 1980 alone, is the government giving any consideration or planning to liquefy the natural gas which is available in huge quantities in the Baffin Island area, for delivery to the maritimes; and if so, when can we expect an announcement of this possible development?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, indeed the government is considering the possibility of liquefaction of Arctic gas for transportation. This will be a very major project indeed. Petro-Canada is working on this particular question right at the present time. As the hon. member may know, it is called the Arctic Gas pilot project. Petro-Canada intends to apply to the National Energy Board some time this fall for authorization to proceed with the exploitation of those reserves.
As far as bringing that gas to the maritimes in order to increase supply to the maritimes is concerned, it would appear that the more economical way of doing it would be by shipping gas to the maritimes via a pipeline from the west, rather than through liquefaction from the Arctic. But the Arctic gas, the liquefied gas, might be gas that would be available for export if the Energy Board finds these are surplus reserves.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In view of the fact that a marine veterinarian has warned that the increasing incidence of marine mammals washing up on the west coast of British Columbia is an indication of deteriorating ocean ability to harbour man's pollutants, I should like to ask the minister if he could inform us whether his department is aware of this dangerous precedent and if any research is being carried out on marine mammals to indicate the cause of death, so that we can prevent threats to marine mammals and further threats to more marine resources in the future?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, of course I will inquire about recent incidents, if some are reported. When an unusual situation arises, there is great scientific interest in trying to determine the cause of unexplained death of species washed up on the shore.
I do not have in my briefing notes any comments on recent incidents, but I will inquire from the hon. member. Then, of course, if there is a substantive answer I will provide it.


Edward Allan Miller: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Several of the most important and dangerous accumulative poisons are lead, arsenic and radium, which are heavy metals that accumulate in the body fat and interfere with normal functioning.
May 27, 1980

These heavy poisons have been permitted to be dumped in Alice Arm by Amax Mines, and permits for the dumping of mine waste and mine tailings in Alice Arm, beginning next year, have been approved by the British Columbia Pollution Control Board and by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Could the minister inform us, in his capacity as Minister of Fisheries, if he has directed his department to investigate the decision, in view of its seriousness? In effect, would the minister consider reversing the decision made during the last election?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I was informed of this problem, or this situation when I was last in British Columbia and I asked for a full report on it. I would not reverse the decision unless there was evidence to show that the decision should be reversed. In this case, scientists made the judgment-and I understand the province was involved in these discussions-that it was better to use an underwater site for dumping than to use a land fill site, where rain causes leaching and in fact accentuates the problem. But I will look into this matter and report.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. I was wondering whether, in his weekly evaluation of the interest situation, he is taking into account the serious drought situation in western Canada as it affects not only the grain industry, but the cattle and the tourist industries as well.
1 wonder if it has entered the mind of the minister, or the governor of the Bank of Canada, that continued high interest rates, even at the present rates, will cause a serious recession not only in western Canada but in the total Canadian economy? Will he ascertain from the governor of the Bank of Canada whether or not it might be advisable at this time to continue a lower interest rate policy in order that we might avoid an unnecessary recession which would affect the unemployed and the total economy of the country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will be aware that there has been a very significant drop in interest rates-in fact, a very substantial drop in interest rates-in the past number of weeks. When I became Minister of Finance when this government took office, the bank rate was 14 per cent; today it is 11.83 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is quite a result. If the hon. member could live with a 14 per cent bank rate, I think he can reconcile himself to an 11.83 per cent bank rate.
Privilege-Mr. Nowlan PUBLIC SERVICE


SETTLEMENT WITH CUPW-COST TO TREASURY
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In that he has been strangely silent during the post office negotiations with CUPW, 1 felt he should be given an opportunity to tell the House how well he has guarded the treasury.
Would the President of the Treasury Board indicate whether he can assure the House that the settlement with CUPW will not result in additional costs in excess of $26.1 million?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, it is not our practice to carry on negotiations in public. I would expect my predecessor to be aware of that. The matter has not yet been ratified by Treasury Board. When it is, full details will be made available.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, again my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In that the "A" budget, which is now in our estimates, contemplated a 6 per cent settlement for wages, plus any known scheduled increases for the CUPW, and there are no unexpended funds available for the Post Office budget and there are no reserves, will the President of the Treasury Board indicate whether he contemplates that special supplementary estimates will have to be brought into the House to satisfy the increase with regard to the settlement with CUPW?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I would very much like to satiate the hon. member's curiosity; but, as I said, full details will be made available after the proposed contract has been ratified by the Treasury Board.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I hesitate to bring forward the perennial point of privilege about a situation that members on all sides sometimes experience but, quite frankly, Your Honour, my patience has almost come to the end. Any sensitivity for the issues before this country would have perhaps given some direction to the Chair as to why I have been rising right from the beginning of the question period for two days, having asked three to four questions in English and one question in French during the total time of this session. I do not rise frivolously in most cases, and I have not asked a frivolous question this session.
I have a matter that could potentially grievously affect my province in Atlantic Canada, and particularly my riding. There have been three members on this side of the House recognized today, fellow colleagues, admittedly, who were also recognized by Your Honour yesterday. The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), for whom I have great fondness

May 27, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Nowlart
and affection, was not on any list on Monday and was not on any list today, but you recognized him twice and still have been able to have a blind eye for this seat.
I would like to know what system the Chair uses. Admittedly you recognize front benchers, and you have help to guide the Chair, with which I fully agree; but I felt that once the question period was open the priority related to when members commenced to rise. I do not mind getting my exercise, Madam Speaker. I certainly enjoy getting exercise. But at some time I would like to know why my rising does not take precedence over other hon. members.
That is my question of privilege, Your Honour. I do not think either of the two ministers involved in the questions I wish to ask are going to be here tomorrow and I have given notice to both of them.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have already explained to the House what is my policy in conducting the question period. I did say that, of course, when front benchers want to get into the question period and I know they might have a supplementary to a question asked by another member, I allow them to ask those supplementary questions because I want the question period to be as lively as possible and to bring out as much information as possible.
As for the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), his name was on the list of those who have risen in the House for several days. I do acknowledge that. I recognize hon. members in the order in which they have risen and the hon. member's name was the fifth to come up on my list, but we did not get to him before three o'clock.
Many members rise and I try to recognize them in the order in which they do so. I am assisted in that regard, to be as fair as possible, by the Clerk who tries to give me that order. 1 do my best in trying to recognize members as soon and as often as possible, but it is not possible to recognize everyone every day. On subsequent days I bring back the names on my list, but if hon. members are not in the House it is quite obvious I cannot recognize them. I cannot keep them on the list for five or six days in a row. That is my policy and the system that I have tried to establish in order to satisfy all members, but we all know that is impossible.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I accept and appreciate the explanation. I do not like to say things in this House that reflect upon the Chair because the Speaker occupies a very onerous position, but when I see my colleagues, the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight), the hon. member for South Shore and the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger), all of whom were recognized yesterday, recognized again today on legitimate questions, I feel your system has to be revised to become a little more perceptive, with respect.


MR. CLARKE-LACK OF PUBLICATION OF COMPOSITE PHOTOGRAPH OF MEMBERS OF THIRTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, 1 hope to be able to convince Your Honour that I have a question of privilege in relation to a matter which affects most hon. members of this Parliament and, indeed, many of the members of the Thirty-first Parliament. It is a matter that has just come to my attention through an inquiry made to the office of the Clerk of this House. The problem is that a custom, nay a tradition, of Parliament may be destroyed by a simple administrative decision.
The Thirty-first Parliament was unique to many people for many reasons. For example, for some it was their only stint as a member of Parliament. It may or may not have been the shortest Parliament on record; the record will show whether it was or was not. It was unquestionably the first Progressive Conservative administration for 16 years. I am confident that it will prove to have been the first, but not the last, of which the right hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) was prime minister. It may be the only one during which the right hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau) was leader of the official opposition, as they tell me he is going to retire again.
Members of the House and, indeed, visitors to the Parliament buildings stroll through the corridors here and view various contributions to the history of this country. I am informed reliably now that composite photographs of the members of the Thirty-first Parliament of Canada will not be produced.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has not given me notice of this question of privilege. I listened to him in order to determine whether it flows from the deliberations of today's session, but I find that it does not do so. Therefore, if the hon. member wants to give me notice I will hear him at another time.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: With respect, Madam Speaker, this is the earliest opportunity I have had to raise the matter. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone):
That the matter of the lack of publication of a composite photograph of the Thirty-first Parliament of Canada be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Madam Speaker:: I want to say to the hon. member that if those photographs have not been put out, as they usually are, it is simply because a lot of the members were absent and we could not take their photographs. This is done as a matter of course. I hope this explanation satisfies the member; if not, I would ask him to give me notice and I will hear him another time.
May 27, 1980



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Finance,Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Cullen.
[Editor's note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table three copies, in both official languages, of the Annual Economic Review of the Department of Finance.


RESIGNATION OF HON. LINCOLN M. ALEXANDER
Hon. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, I hope that you will forgive me if I take a few moments of the time of this House. 1 know that there are matters of significant importance which must be debated, but I feel that it is necessary, after having spent 12 years in this House, to give some credibility to what is already a fact, that I will be leaving my "family", as I would like to have it known, this House of Commons, because I have accepted a position with the Workmen's Compensation Board of Ontario.
I wish you well, Madam Speaker. 1 saw that you were being tested today. I think that you have the fortitude and excellence of mind to handle yourself in your new position. I am sorry that 1 did not have an opportunity to become more involved and to challenge you as well, but I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to the House.
I have been touched by the excitement of this place. I have been moved by the challenges and touched by the joys and disappointments. But what is more important to me is that I have been touched by the friendships which I know I have made, because I have received so many letters wishing me well. When my friend from Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) triggered that spontaneous standing ovation, it was a good thing that I did not have to speak at that time because there were tears in my eyes. I am not ashamed to say that I was not able to control myself. That was a great tribute and one 1 will never forget.
That is why I feel so sad at this particular time. This is a great family and a tremendous institution. When I think of the
Resignation of Member
criticism which comes from all quarters, I say to my colleagues, "Forget it, because you are serving". Let those who criticize try to get into this place. There are so many who try to get in, but who cannot make it.
However, I have been blessed. I am grateful to three of four people, who I would like to single out, with your patience, Madam Speaker. The late Right Hon. John George Diefen-baker is the one who asked me to run, who believed that I should be here in this House and who believed that I had a role to play. No matter where he may be, I hope that I have not disappointed him.
I remember Bob Stanfield. He plucked me from what is called the back benches and honoured me by making me a critic in the shadow cabinet.
Of course, there is the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) who made me a cabinet minister. Madam Speaker and my dear colleagues, I stand here naked because in my wildest dreams I never believed that I would represent my country as a member of Parliament or that it was possible I would represent my country as a cabinet minister.
Yes, I will have some very fond memories of this place, but 1 think it must be recognized that there are many around us who make our lives more successful. It is not only the "me's" and the "I's" who are fortunate to be sitting here temporarily, but I think of those who are involved in Hansard, the maintenance department, the office of the Clerk, the Sergeant-at-Arms, security, the post office, public servants and even the media- although, there are a couple I would like to mention specifically, but I will let them know that I have love and forgiveness in my heart! Frankly, I could not care less what they think about me anyway.
I care about what the hon. members of this House think of me, and I care about what the people of Hamilton West think of me. 1 am pleased to have concrete evidence that they thought enough of me to send me back to this House on five occasions. But to those people to whom I made reference, I would like to say thank you, because without their assistance and help the Alexanders and anyone else you would like to mention, Madam Speaker, would not be effective in this House of Commons. They are the people who protect us and who look after us. I would like publicly to thank them now for looking after me for the past 12 years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: These people have made my task very easy and very pleasant. I would like to extend a special thanks to Labour Canada. Although I was not there long, they did keep me out of trouble, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart. I wish them well because they are a fine group of people. When a new government takes charge and new ministers are appointed, there are some who believe that perhaps the public servants are not on their side. I can stand here and say that I had the confidence of my department, for which I am very grateful and I thank them.

May 27, 1980
Tributes to Mr. Alexander
Last but not least, I want to thank the constituents of Hamilton West who gave me their confidence, loyalty, and faith over the years. It is in this area that I feel a little confused and a little sad because they were counting on me. However, I will not disappoint them in the future because I am going into another area of service. I can advise them, as I can advise my colleagues here, that you expect much of me, that you want me to do a good job and I will not disappoint you, as I have tried not to disappoint you in all the years I have been here.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would like to tell you in all sincerity and from the bottom of my heart that I will miss this place. But I think having served in this place I am a much better person, and for that I am grateful. Thank you very much.
[Editor's note: Mr. Alexander received a standing ovation.]


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Madam Speaker, I would now indicate to you that I resign my seat in the House of Commons for the constituency of Hamilton West effective midnight, May 28, 1980.


TRIBUTES TO HON. LINCOLN M. ALEXANDER
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I think this is one occasion on which 1 can truly claim to speak on behalf of all members of the House of Commons when I say to the member of Parliament for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) just how very much he will be missed in this assembly, in the work of Parliament and of government. I think it is true to say that no member of Parliament is better liked in this House and that no member of Parliament will be more sorely missed by his colleagues.
The hon. member for Hamilton West served here with distinction for 12 productive years. He became a symbol of Canadian democracy and a spokesman for Canadians in need across this land. He served his constituency with care and sensitivity. He served in cabinet as an outstanding minister of labour. But more importantly to him and to us, he won the respect and affection of all who were associated with the House of Commons.
We all wish him well in the new responsibilities which he has accepted, but this House of Commons will miss Lincoln Alexander and will long remember him as one of the outstanding individuals ever to have served in this Parliament.


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) was perfectly correct when he said that on this occasion he was speaking for everyone in this House of Commons. I should just like to make that very clear and very certain by associating the New Democratic Party with the sentiments that have been expressed.
I rise to speak on behalf of my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), who, like the hon. member for
Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), first came here in 1968. I also speak on behalf of all my colleagues.
We enjoyed the remarks the hon. member made today in his final speech in this chamber. I think what appealed to us most-at least, it appealed to me-was his emphasis on the friendships he has developed in this assembly, friendships that he will carry with him through the rest of his life. We have not always agreed with the hon. member. He and I have had some interesting discussions, but more often than not we have agreed and we have common interests. He has served this place with distinction. He has put forth his best effort and he fully deserves the tributes we have been paying to him in these few moments today.
We say goodbye to Lincoln Alexander from the House of Commons and we wish him the very best through all the years that lie ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to have the opportunity of saying a few words in tribute to my colleague and friend, and my colleague from law school as well. We both went to Osgoode Hall law school and got to know each other very well over the years. Of course, he has been much more successful than I, and I guess he was more successful in law school as well. He has certainly been more successful politically. Although we were both elected in 1968, I sort of took a sabbatical from 1972 to 1974 while he continued to serve here. We have both been around since that time, Madam Speaker.
On behalf of this party I want to echo the sentiments of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who spoke for the New Democratic Party.
I have enjoyed working with the hon. member these many years. He is going on to his reward with a new career-a career with the Workmen's Compensation Board in the province of Ontario. As a member from Ontario, I know that I shall be working with him and seeing him from time to time. 1 can only say au revoir, good luck, and God be with you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Lincoln):: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for permitting me this opportunity of adding my voice to those of the leader of the Conservative party and others in paying tribute to one who is best described as a very personal friend.
When the hon. gentleman arrived in this House in 1968, I was then the minister of labour. In a comparatively short period of time I was very much aware of a rather brash, talented new member of the opposition party. In no time at all, as I recall, the hon. member became the Official Opposition critic of the labour portfolio. One day I called him over after a rather tough question or two and expressed the opinion that he
May 27, 1980

had perhaps been a little unfair. He reminded me that he had patterned his particular style after mine, which made it very difficult for me. He is a very charming individual.
I repeat what has often been said, that this is a very unique institution. I recall the hon. member and his wife coming with us to the ILO convention in Geneva in the early seventies. 1 had an opportunity to break bread with him and get to know him well. I must admit that 1 have always had a particularly soft spot for the hon. gentleman, particularly since he is the member of Parliament for the riding in which my mother lives.
I am not just sure how she voted in the last election, since very early in the campaign she received a personal visit from the hon. member.
In conclusion, I want to say as one who left this House in 1976 that it is not at best a very easy decision. If we are selfish we tend to remain here because we enjoy the company of members, the challenge and the unpredictability of the House of Commons if you are a House of Commons man.
I recall on a similar occasion that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) expressed the wish that perhaps one day fortune would be such that I would be back in the House of Commons. I hope that what happened to me does not happen to the hon. gentleman.
I know, from the hon. member's record in this House of Commons and particularly from his compassion when he was minister of labour for those wonderful Canadians who do manual work for a living, that he is more than adequate to fulfil the role of head of Ontario's workmen's compensation board. I bridled and went to the defence of the hon. member when, shortly after his appointment, it was suggested by certain members of the press that he lacked the qualifications for the job. I think, Madam Speaker, that the qualities which the hon. gentleman has exemplified so many times here- compassion, concern, curiosity, willingness and devotion to work-are all the qualifications he needs to fill this very sensitive position, and I wish him well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. I know that all of us in this House would like to pay special tribute to the departing member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). We are extremely fond of him. As a matter of fact, I do not think it would be too much to say that we love him.
He is one of the four surviving members of the Conservative party of the class of '68; I am one of the four survivors of the class of '68 in my own party.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Retreaded.


Mark Willson Rose: Recycled and retreaded. I should like to tell him that I express no flim-flam at all when I suggest that the kind of friendship he has developed with all members of the House on both sides is unique. He is unique in a lot of ways. He is a person with drive, intelligence, forcefulness and a tremendously big heart.
Order Paper Questions
We plan to have a meeting of the survivors of the class of '68 on June 25, which is a very important anniversary. Although he intends to resign from this House today or tomorrow, I should like him to know that we intend to award him special status and hope that he will be able to come to Ottawa and join the survivors of '68. There are some 25 members left out of approximately 100 who were elected, which tells something about job security around this place.
We offer the hon. member congratulations on his new career and want to let him know that we will certainly miss him. I know that he will miss us, and I hope he comes back some day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues I also want to pay tribute to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). His contribution to the Parliament of Canada has been exceptional. He dedicated 12 years of his life to representing his constituents and Canadians as a whole in the best way he could, and I believe the circumstances justify that, on behalf of the government, I should offer him our best wishes, good health and a successful career outside this House.
I do not want to add further to what was said by those who knew him more intimately, but I would like to say that I personally had the opportunity to come in contact with him on several occasions. He proved himself to be a seasoned parliamentarian but always polite and always aware of that spirit that must stir us of being adversaries, of course, but at the same time people working for a common cause-the improvement of the well-being of Canadians as a whole.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I have recognized a good sense of humour in the hon. member for Hamilton West. I am sure he will agree with me when I say that the House of Commons will have a "missing Line."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 14, 91, 289, 292, 381, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395 and 593.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

May 27, 1980
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was or is an individual named Janis John Grimba or Janis John Gimba employed by the Department of External Affairs and, if so (a) under what circumstances (b) was he involved with security (c) what were his duties?
2.	(a) To the knowledge of the government, is he presently on bail in the amount of $100,000 from a penal institution in Kingston, Ontario (b) what was the nature of the charge for which he was convicted including all available details and date of conviction?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Solicitor General as follows:
1.	There is no record of Janis John Grimba or Janis John Gimba having been employed by the Department of External Affairs.
2.	It has been ascertained from provincial authorities that there is a Janis John Grimba presently on bail from the Toronto East Detention Centre. The honourable member should therefore re-direct his question to the Attorney General of Ontario.


[Stage Direction]
(d) 1974- 50,000
1975-	110,000
1976-	110,000
1977-	150,000
1978-	140,000
1979-	140,000
1980-	130,000
Metric Monitor Distribution-1979
Audience	Per cen(
Federal Government	7 55
Provincial Government	3 57
Municipal Government	2.50
Parliament	n 37
Media	2.'l4
Metric Commission Canada	0.11
Metric Related Organizations	1.32
Steering and Sector Committees	1.79
Canadian Libraries	154
Chambers of Commerce	16.93
Corporations	25.00
Corporate Metric Conversion Officers	14.29
Institutions	g qo
Canadian General Public	7 gg
ti.S.A. and Foreign Public	0.71
Public Enquiries	7 7]
Total	|00
Metric
Monitors
11,000
5.000
3.500 800
3.000 150
1,850
2.500 2,300
23,700
35.000
20.000 8,400
11,000
1.000 10,800
140,000
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the tabloid newspaper "Metric Monitor" published by the Metric Commission of Canada, P.O. Box 4000, Ottawa, Ontario and paid for from public funds and, if so (a) on what date did this publication commence and specifically was it in September, 1973 (b) how many issues have been printed (c) what has been the cost of each issue and what has been the total cost of all issues combined (d) how many copies of the "Metric Monitor" were printed for each edition and generally to whom were they circulated?
2.	For what reasons is the government continuing to print such publications at a time when introduction of the metric system has been under review by a committee appointed by the former minister of industry, trade and commerce?
3.	Is it the government's intention to continue with the review?


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State, Small Businesses):: In so far as Metric Commission Canada is concerned:
1.	The Metric Monitor is published by Metric Commission Canada. The costs for printing and publishing are decided by Supply and Services Canada on a competitive bid system.
2.	An ITC news release (ITC 16/79) dated October 4, 1979, states that "The Honourable Robert de Cotret, Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and the Honourable Ron Huntington, Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry, announced in Ottawa the establishment of an overview committee to study progress on metric conversion". The release also stated: "I am convinced that the present and future will demand that Canadians accept the fact metric is here to stay. It is not the government's intention to create problems or unnecessary delays in metric conversion. The overview committee has, therefore, been asked to review the progress achieved to date, to examine areas causing concern and to report to the government expeditiously".
3.	The government continually reviews its programs such as the metric conversion program.
(a) The first issue	appeared in	March 1974;	
(b) 61 issues;			
(c) Year		Average Cost	
Total	Per issue	No. of issues1974	$ 53,012	$13,253	41975	$151,205	$15,120	101976	$181,446	$15,120	121977	$204,087	$17,007	121978	$176,674	$16,061	111979	$171,000	$17,100	101980	$ 34,200	$17,100	2(to date)	Total	$971,624


Mr. Herbert: 1.	(a) What was the amount paid by the government for the purchase of Canadair Limited (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?


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1.	(a) Paid by the Canadian government $38,150,000. (b) A progressive series of payments by cheque to the General Dynamics Corporation of St. Louis, Mo.
May 27, 1980

2.	$25,615,000 in total made up by:
Notes payable to banks	$15,520,000
Notes payable to government	$9,350,000
Long-term debt	$745,000


[Stage Direction]
3.	(a) Authorized: 5,000,000 common, no par value (b) Issued: 1,408,063
Mr. Herbert: 1.	(a) What was the amount paid by the government for the purchase of de Havilland Canada 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?


Ralph Ferguson: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1.	(a) The government paid $40,498,902.59 for the purchase of the de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited.
(b) Payment was made by cheque, to the Hawker Siddeley Group and various minority shareholders, in Canadian dollars from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. (Hawker Siddeley $40,367,332.43; minority shareholders $ 131,570.16).
2.	Total liabilities at the time of purchase amounted to $32,427,370.
3.	Authorized share capital: 50,000 Class A without par value; 10,000 Class B without par value.
Issued share capital:	32,000 Class A
10,000 Class B $306,000


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Is there a surplus of potash available for export?
2.	Are facilities at west coast ports adequate to increase the export of potash into the Pacific Region and, if not, are the facilities to be improved?
3.	Are transportation facilities adequate to take increased shipments of potash to west coast ports and, if not, is any improvement contemplated ?
4.	Are orders for the export of potash presently being refused?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the National Harbours Board as follows:
1.	No. Potash can be regarded as universally in tight supply from all world producers.
2.	The potash handling facilities at the port of Vancouver are considered adequate to handle forecasted increases in potash shipments.
3.	With respect to the transportation facilities, it is expected they will also be adequate but as the major potash producers in
Order Paper Questions
some instances own their own rail cars, they, together with the railroads virtually control the transportation system for potash.
4.	Yes. Under market conditions of tight supply, Canadian suppliers give priority to established long-term buyers, and the basic requirements of those buyers are being met in full.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits of the Canadian General Atomic Corporation Limited?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on the corporation (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to the corporation (c) investment by the government in the corporation both before and after any write-off?


Ralph Ferguson: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
Canadian General Atomic Limited-(Non-Operating)
(a)	1977	(b) 19781.	Revenues	-	-
Net Earnings
2.	(a)	Grants, Subsidies	-	-
(b)	Loans, Advances or
Guarantees	-
(c)	Investment	Nil	Nil


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits of Canadair Services Limited?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on the corporation (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to the corporation (c) investment by the government in the corporation both before and after any write-off?


Ralph Ferguson: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
Canadair Services Limited
1.	Revenues Net Earnings
2.	(a) Grants, Subsidies
(b)	Loans, Advances or Guarantees
(c)	Investment
(a)1977
$2,546,114 $	24,067
Nil
(b) 1978
$9,141,670 $	62,383
Nil

May 27, 1980
Order Paper Questions


[Stage Direction]
Canadair GMBH-(Non-Operating)
Mr. Herbert: 1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits of Canadair International Limited?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on the corporation (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to the corporation (c) investment by the government in the corporation both before and after any write-off?


Ralph Ferguson: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
Canadair International Limited-(Non-Operating)
(a)	1977	(b) 19781.	Revenue	-	-Net Earnings	-2.	(a) Grants, Subsidies	-	-(b)	Loans, Advances or Guarantees(c)	Investment	Nil	Nil


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits of Canadair Incorporated?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on the corporation (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to the corporation (c) investment by the government in the corporation both before and after any write-off?


Ralph Ferguson: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1.	Revenues Net Earnings
2.	(a) Grants, Subsidies
(b)	Loans, Advances or Guarantees
(c)	Investment
(a)1977	(b)1978
$1,307,030 U.S.	$3,844,169 U.S.
$	19,302 U.S.	$	53,887 U.S.
Nil
Nil


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits of Canadair GMBH?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on the corporation (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to the corporation (c) investment by the government in the corporation both before and after any write-off?


Ralph Ferguson: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
(a) 1977	(b) 1978
1.	Revenues	-	-Net Earnings	-	-2.	(a) Grants, Subsidies(b)	Loans, Advances or Guarantees(c)	Investment	Nil	Nil


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the complete details of the pension, allowances or emoluments of any kind that were extended to the hon. member for Lincoln when he retired as President of Air Canada?
2.	Is the hon. member receiving any benefits whatsoever from his former position and, if so, what are all the details?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Air Canada advises as follows:
1.	The hon. member for Lincoln is the former chairman of Air Canada's board of directors. He was at no time president of the company.
2.	Air Canada regards remuneration and other conditions of officers' and managers' employment as proprietary.


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 Monday, May 26, consideration of the motion of Mrs. 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.
Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, I am not so certain that the continuation of this debate at this time is appropriate following on the heels of the announcement by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) that he is retiring from the House of Commons. As we are all aware, it is not his intention to retire from active life and he will continue to serve his country in another function for many more years to come.
May 27, 1980

1 have been listening with great interest to the debate on Bill C-16 as it has continued, and I must say that the speech presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is of great interest to all members of this House, particularly on a subject which is so near and dear to him. I think members would do well to take heed of the remarks of the member from Winnipeg North Centre on a subject about which he is so knowledgeable.
1 listened also with great interest to the speeches made by my colleagues in the House of Commons, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) and the hon. member for York-Sun-bury (Mr. Howie). Both of these gentlemen made excellent representations, and I am certain their impact will be felt in the presentation of this bill and their support of it.
I must add that I was interested to hear what the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) had to say. Probably he should know more about pensions than anybody else in the nation. Unfortunately, like most of the others in the country 1 was disappointed with his remarks. I suppose if anybody in this House of Commons should not have been dealing with that particular subject, it might be said that the member for Lincoln, who has been somewhat chatted about in recent months, should not have entered into the paiticular question of pensions.
However, I am glad to say that I can support Bill C-16, which will give a $35 increase to recipients of the GIS. But I am somewhat concerned about the method in which it was presented to the country. As hon. members are aware, this bill came about as a result of a Liberal promise made during the past election campaign, and although the fine print dealt explicitly with its being made available only to those who could pass a test, which presumably is the means test, it was in the minds of most individuals, certainly most recipients of old age security, that all people who were 65 years of age and over would be receiving the $35 increase.
For that reason I think it unfortunate that it had to come in the fashion it did, because the plight of senior citizens in Canada surely must be of more concern to the consciences of government than an election campaign. It was in that same vein that I was disappointed in the approach of the other opposition party in this House, that it too utilized senior citizens somewhat as a tool in its effort to have members elected. That is on the record, if anyone should choose to inspect it.
There were pressures on the government of the day to include that type of promise. However, we determined that we should not use senior citizens to that extent, and our decision was that the entire plight of senior citizens should be examined thoroughly and the decision would be based on a realistic evaluation of the difficulties that these people face.
By the year 2001 the number of senior citizens in Canada will have increased to about 3.4 million souls. Presently there are about 2.1 million senior citizens here. They represent approximately 12 per cent of the population. By the year 2030, we will have over 7 million senior citizens in Canada. Senior citizens are defined as those people over the age of 65. There
Old Age Security Act
will be about two to three times as many senior citizens in Canada by the year 2030 as there are now. By the year 2031, it is estimated that in Canada there will be only two people working to support one senior citizen. At the present time there are seven working people who support one pensioner.
The question that we must deal with as members of the House of Commons is to determine how these people are living and to examine their plight. I think that most of us recognize and appreciate that senior citizens are living poorly. Old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada Pension Plan account for more than one-half of the total income of people over the age of 65. Private sources-that is, private pensions-amount to something less than 12 per cent of the total income of senior citizens. In 1978, 54 per cent of recipients of the OAS were eligible for the guaranteed income supplement. That indicates that over 54 per cent of our senior citizens in 1978 were below the poverty line and were less well off than they were prior to 1978, prior to becoming senior citizens.
The average income of the elderly is about one-third that of the non-elderly. After tax considerations are taken into account, it increases to about 40 per cent. Even after the allowance for wealth, which includes such things as houses and other properties and the number in the family that they are responsible for, the gap gets narrower, but there is no question that the gap is still considerable.
Financing to support senior citizens is becoming an increasing burden on society. Today the expenditure of keeping senior citizens amounts to about 3 per cent of the total value of goods and services. By the year 2031 it is expected that the total expenditure will amount to about 7-plus per cent of the value of goods and services. It costs about three times as much in Canada to keep an elderly person as it does to maintain a child. That shoots down the argument that when the year 2031 rolls around there will be fewer children so there will be more money available to support senior citizens.
We recognize that as compassionate Canadians the objective of government has got to be the alleviation of poverty among our elderly citizens. In those terms Canada does not do such a bad job as far as other nations of the world are concerned. The only nations in the free world that exceed Canada's contribution to its elderly are Sweden, Italy and France, but in real terms, the terms that we must deal with, are they being treated fairly? The fact is that senior citizens in this country, the elderly who are recipients of old age security and guaranteed income supplement, are substantially below the minimum income standards that most of us know.
It is also interesting to note that elderly couples are better off than singles in this country. Because women live longer than men, they are worse off when living alone in unsubsidized housing. They are at the bottom of the heap, so to speak. Twenty per cent of the elderly couples in this country and 60 per cent of individuals who are senior citizens are living below the poverty line. Their plight increases every day because of

May 27, 1980
Old Age Security Act
inflation. The fact is that their pensions are based on the consumer price index. However, the CPI does not reflect that increase in the commodity which so much affects them as individuals. That of course, is primarily the price of food. It is way out of line in comparison to the CPI. For that reason, it is unfair that these pensions are indexed on the CPI scale.
We then come to the question: Can we continue to afford to support them? Can we look into the future and can we see ourselves as a nation being able to pay the bills? In this country, as I mentioned, the pension schemes include the old age security, guaranteed income supplement and Canada Pension Plan. The old age security and guaranteed income supplement are programs that are financed by taxes that are collected during the year, and the Canada Pension Plan is partially funded.
As I stated, we must not forget that it is our responsibility as legislators, as members of Parliament, as the voice for senior citizens in this House of Commons, to ensure that their poverty is not only alleviated and helped, but indeed that they are brought to a level whereby then can live as properly as they should. That is our responsibility, and I want to reinforce my support for any type of legislation that will bring these senior citizens, who in so many cases are below the poverty line, above the poverty line.
In that regard, I will support Bill C-16 although the help of $35, or $17.50 each in the case of couples, is not very much. It is a mere pittance, but it is a step in the right direction. However, this House should not regard that as being a permanent solution. Surely the government will take it upon itself to do something about the difficulties of these people before another general election is held. These are hard decisions, the financing of the plan, which must be taken now. We cannot wait until the time is upon us when we no longer have the funds to assist our senior citizens.
Some people say that all funding should come out of general revenue, that the younger generation, the people who are now in the work force, should be paying to support the older generation. With respect to the old age security and guaranteed income supplement, I can support that kind of thesis. This is the type of system we have had in this country for a good number of years. I believe there is room in our system to support this type of approach.
However, I reject it with respect to the Canada Pension Plan. It is in that regard that I believe we must take responsibility now to ensure that the Canada Pension Plan remains at a level that will alleviate the drain on the treasury which it is bound to make and will as a result affect the guaranteed income supplement when the time rolls around that there are no longer any funds left in the Canada Pension Plan.
At the present rate, by 1985 pay-outs will apparently exceed contributions. By the turn of the century, the year 2000, the fund will be depleted entirely. It is obvious to me, and I trust obvious to the government and to other members of the House, that the time is now here to adjust the formula. We must prepare for the future of our senior citizens now.
There has been some suggestion that lower retirement should be brought into play, that it should be made available to those individuals who want to opt out of the work force. The entitlement to old age security and the guaranteed income supplement has been age 65 for close to a decade. I reject the suggestion put forward by some members that the retirement age should be reduced to 60. The fact is that people are living longer in this day and age and are expected to continue to live longer as the years go by. They are living longer because they are healthier. I do not reject out of hand all cases. I think there are special instances.
I was pleased to see the previous Conservative government take steps to protect widows between the ages of 60 and 65 who lost their spouses who were over 65 and were no longer entitled to spouse's allowances. I was pleased to see that government take steps to ensure that spouses continue to receive the spouse's allowance. That is a healthy attitude. That is an attitude I feel we should see continue in this House.
I would like to plead the case for those widows who had husbands or widowers who had wives in the work force who predeceased them and who are below 60 years of age, for example age 56, 57, 58 or 59. These people have a difficult time trying to cope with life. At that age it is difficult for someone who has never had any experience in the work force to try and go out and make a living and a contribution not only to themselves, but perhaps a family as well. I would like to think this government would have compassion enough for those people that they would take into consideration the situation in which this very special group of people find themselves.
I would also like to plead the case on behalf of the families of veterans whose breadwinner, or the veteran himself, has died. Those people should be allowed a special place, an entitlement to pension benefits and to consideration from us as legislators. I feel the mandatory retirement age of 65 is no longer realistic. I would like to see that phased out. In too many instances at age 65 we have people who are prepared and able to cope with many more years of service in the work force. People need that income as a means to support their families and themselves at the level to which they are accustomed. When we force them into retirement at age 65, in too many instances we are forcing them into a state of poverty.
These people should be able to maintain their eligibility to work and their eligibility to their pensions as well. At age 65 they should continue to receive their old age security benefits. They should be allowed to continue to work if that is their decision. In a good many instances, they are competent, capable individuals. We have seen many examples in the House of Commons of individuals who have much to contribute and who have contributed much past the age of 65. Of course, the fact of the matter is that as they become more of a force, they become a more significant group in the country and, with fewer people entering the work force we are going to need their contribution.
May 27, 1980

The special Senate committee on retirement has recommended the abolition of mandatory retirement one year at a time over the next five years. 1 believe that report was published last November. 1 support that approach. 1 believe it is a realistic attitude for the nation to adopt. I would like to see this country head in that direction.
In closing, may I say that the economy needs our senior citizens. It will rely on the competence and capability of these people more and more as the years progress and I believe we should not be forcing them out. I believe we should be providing greater amounts of money to our pension scheme, the one which is partially funded at this time, the Canada Pension Plan, to ensure that there are dollars there in the years to come to continue paying out the full benefits of the plan without relying on the taxpayers of the day to do that job, and that there will be ample funds in the old age security fund and the guaranteed income supplement fund to ensure that those who do require assistance have access to funds.
The overriding consideration must surely be to bring the elderly above poverty limits. I do not believe we should use the lowest poverty limits in this country as the example; I believe we should strike a happy medium. As I have mentioned, the CPI is not a realistic index with regard to those commodities which so closely affect our senior citizens. 1 believe that these people should no longer under any circumstances have to suffer, and I primarily believe that the elderly, the senior citizens in this country, should no longer have to fear for their future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Before I recognize the next speaker, who will be the hon. member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer), may I point out that according to the motion before us the bill is to be sent to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs following second reading. The Chair understands that there may be a disposition among members to carry the bill into Committee of the Whole. I would simply say that, when I have finished recognizing hon. members who wish to catch the eye of the Chair, I shall seek the will of the House as to whether or not the bill should proceed to the standing committee or to the Committee of the Whole.


David Michael Collenette: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since you have raised this matter, may I say there have been discussions among the parties and it has been agreed that this bill should not be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, but, rather, that we shall go into Committee of the Whole after the list of speakers on second reading has been exhausted. I might add that there is also a disposition to give third reading to this bill today, before ten o'clock. That is my understanding after discussion with the leaders of the other parties.


Erik Nielsen: As far as we are concerned, that can be made a House order.
Old Age Security Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Then as I understand what has just been said, it may be desirable to amend the motion now. The Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) suggests that the words "and be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs" be amended in the motion to read "and be referred to the Committee of the Whole". Also, that the bill be further considered on third reading. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Agreed and so ordered.
Motion amended.


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-16, to amend the Old Age Security Act, because it directly affects many of the people who live in my constituency. Okanagan North is a constituency which boasts very beautiful scenery and very beautiful weather. This attracts very many senior citizens. In fact, in the community in which I live, the community of Vernon, some 40 per cent of the population are senior citizens.
When passed, Bill C-16 will fulfil the government's election promise to increase the monthly guaranteed income supplement for pensioners and those receiving spouse's allowance by $35 per person. In the case of married couples, however, their pensions will increase by only $17.50 each. This was not the understanding of many among the electorate during the course of the most recent federal campaign. People are dismayed, upset and astonished, particularly married senior citizens. Surely, only the Liberal party believes the myth of the 1930s that two can live as cheaply as one.
I would like to speak for a few moments, though, on behalf of those elderly Canadians who will not receive this increase and those Canadians who need more, much more, than this increase will provide. I should like to call attention to the inequities inherent in this legislation and, indeed, in all legislation dealing with pensions in this country.
Mr. Speaker, 36.4 per cent of all Canadians age 65 and over have an annual income of less than $5,000. In 1975, 60 per cent of households in Canada headed by pensioners aged 65 and older had incomes of less than $4,000. The elderly people of this country are poor. Many of them are shockingly poor. The increase which is now proposed reflects the government's band-aid approach to vital reform, an approach which cannot continue. Increases of $35 here or $40 there over the next 20 years will not solve Canada's pension problems. We cannot expect senior citizens to be content if federal legislators continue to treat their concerns on an ad hoc basis. It is our responsibility as elected representatives to review conscientiously the situation as it exists today, recognize the inequities and, more important, act to correct the problems.
The very nature of pension financing requires that decisions be made earlier. If we are to have an effective pension program in the year 2000 we must make decisions now,

May 27, 1980
Old Age Security Act
decades before our reforms will directly affect the individual pensioner.
The changing structure of Canada's population is well documented. We are witnessing lower birth rates and lower immigration levels. If this pattern continues, and there is no reason to believe it will not, the older generation will eventually be larger than the younger. We must take this into consideration when dealing with the complicated issue of pension financing. Under current conditions, the ratio of old to young in this country will more than double between the years 1975 and 2050. If we continue the present pattern, as I suggest we shall, it can only mean it is going to cost the individual worker more and more money to support the retired population. We must now question the advisability of this situation.
I should like to take a few moments in which to outline what I believe to be one of the most urgent problems facing us today, one which the government must be prepared to deal with, and deal with now. Even a cursory examination of our public pension schemes demonstrates that we are fast approaching a crisis. The government cannot be allowed to ignore the issue of financing. History will record its attitude toward social responsibility in this area. It is a fact that the contributions scheduled under the Canada and Quebec pension plans will not be sufficient to finance pensions to which current workers are entitled. Without an increase in contributions, according to the department of insurance, the fund will be exhausted in 2003. The total contribution rate of employees and employers now equals 3.6 per cent of earnings. This must rise to 9.1 per cent by the year 2030. It is almost unnecessary to say that if future workers are unwilling or unable to pay the necessary increases in taxes and contributions, today's workers will lose all of their benefits.
By way of example of what can be done, the provincial government of British Columbia has recently moved to determine future increases in pension payments by the amount of money paid into the plan, by the amount of money contributed. The provincial government has acted to limit cost of living increases in civil servants' pensions on the understanding that open-ended indexing that is tied to the consumer price index will only result in an increased deficit. The province was worried, and justifiably so, about the unfunded liability which has been created by its own and the federal government's pension plans. These liabilities amount to $1 billion provincially and $7 billion federally.
I should point out that I am not necessarily lending my full support to the B.C. government proposal in this area. I am only saying that at least it is statistically correct, and that at least it is a fiscally responsible decision. I am not saying yes or no to the social aspect of that proposal.
This government has made a political decision to use scarce government funds-or, rather, tax moneys of Canadians-to subsidize the Canadian automobile driver. This government currently subsidizes the gas and oil consumer to the tune of some $3 billion per year. That amounts to about two hundred
tax dollars per year for every man, woman and child in this country. I realize that this government has limited funds at its disposal, although this is hardly noticeable when one considers the gay abandon with which the liberal administration spends taxpayers' dollars. As I said earlier, I realize that choices have to be made, but I am not one who would have used scarce dollars and scarce tax revenue to subsidize the driver of the automobile. Gas guzzlers are used for pleasure as well as business. If I had had to make a decision in that area, I think I would have decided to spend taxpayers' dollars on some more worthy social purpose than to provide cheap automobile transportation and encourage the over-consumption of an already scarce resource.
By way of example, I suggest that the almost $3 billion subsidy spent every year would provide a pension increase of over $1,500 a year for each pensioner in Canada. By way of another example, $3 billion would go a long way toward properly funding our present pension plans. I might add that if the $3 billion was spent in Canada rather than handed over to the oil-rich countries as it is now, that would provide an enormous boost to our economy, with resulting beneficial effects on business, productivity and employment.
I urge this government to reconsider its choices and priorities and place the needs of pensioners at a much higher level on the list.
In the throne speech this government listed its second principle of action as follows: "My ministers will help first those who need help most". It seems to me that this government has chosen to subsidize the car driver and to allow the elderly to continue to live in poverty.
What of the elderly woman in our society? Two out of three elderly women in this country have income levels which are below the poverty line; 66 per cent of all widows over 65 live at sub-poverty levels. It seems that the position of women in the pension system has been largely ignored, for perhaps a number of reasons. Perhaps it is partly because the issue of women and pensions is tied to the relationship between women and the working world. In this regard the government should act toward strengthening survivor benefits, since many private plans have little or no death benefits, and most widows' pensions amount to 50 per cent or less of pensioners' benefits. This government has to recognize the fact that $35 a month is only a small step toward providing any real relief for individuals who are forced to live at sub-poverty levels.
I would like now to express my concern to this government regarding an issue which was brought to my attention by several constituents and many other people in and around this country. I understand that this is not a peculiar problem to British Columbia but is evident across Canada. I am told that the current formula for receiving old age security and guaranteed income supplement forces those over the age of 65 who wish to get married to live together without, as we used to say, the benefit of clergy. This is most distressing to a large number of elderly people.
At the present time a married couple receives funds totalling 100 per cent of the poverty line, whereas a single pensioner
May 27, 1980

receives moneys totalling 78 per cent of the poverty line. This means that it is not, then, economically sound for two single pensioners to get married and give up up to 56 per cent of their combined income, particularly when they are living below the poverty level. This is a very real concern to many Canadians, and I speak on their behalf and on behalf of these senior citizens to encourage the government to re-evaluate this situation.
In conclusion, 1 reiterate that I support this bill and encourage its speedy passage. I am concerned, however, that the present government recognize the fact that this increase is only the first step.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I will try not to delay the House too long. We want to get this bill into the Committee of the Whole House as quickly as possible and possibly get it out later this afternoon.
First, I feel I should mention that this bill comes about because of the promises made during the election campaign. The Liberals said they would increase the pension by $35 a month, and the NDP immediately bid $40. I must say that among the 22,500 old age pensioners who live in my constituency it does not go over well for them to have this insulting auction go on every election as to how much it will cost to buy an old age pensioner's vote. In fact, I do not think many of them were bought. The attitude I perceived from pensioners was that they would just as soon take the Conservative promise that they would be treated fairly, although this seemed to be an unfortunate election in which to run on high principles.
The NDP promise turned out to be considerably more, really, than the Liberal promise, which started to deteriorate right after it was made. First, it was not a promise to pay $35 as an increase to old age pensioners, despite what we might even read in tomorrow's press.
Every time I have read about this in the media, it has been a $35 increase to old age pensions. This is far from being a $35 increase to the old age pension. It is an increase of $35 per household, and only to the guaranteed income supplement. My records indicate that there are 486,047 people getting the guaranteed income supplement at the married rate. That is according to Statistics Canada. I will probably have more to ask about this during the committee stage.
There are two other points I would like to raise. I was rather concerned about the comments made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), as recorded at page 252 of Hansard, when he was questioned about why he did not bring in the Liberal equivalent of our Bill C-28, brought in by the Conservative government. One of his excuses was, and I quote:
Further, a continuing joint study has been undertaken with the Department of National Health and Welfare in order to achieve a greater level of harmony in the administration of income security policy and to identify opportunities for streamlining the administration of the MVA Program-
Old Age Security Act
Further on he said:
While I am very anxious to introduce changes to the War Veterans Allowance Act as quickly as possible, it is necessary that they be examined in relation to other social policy initiatives.
However, here today we have one of those other social policy initiatives coming about, and I expect that the comments of the Minister of Veterans Affairs really will not be borne out because we have clear evidence now that it is not being done in co-ordination.
The other point I would like to ask about is reciprocal pensions. Not everyone might be aware that the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) said to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs in December of 1978, and I quote:
I am investigating the possibility of reciprocity of pension but the Brits really are not helping at all. I hope this will be put on the agenda of our two Prime Ministers if they meet very soon-
Parenthetically, they met a week or so later.
-which is what we heard in the press yesterday.
I will continue with the quote of the minister. It reads:
As soon as I know whether it is to be on the agenda or not I will inform the House and that will, of course, change completely and speed up, I hope, my course of action. That is my priority. Italy was a priority. Great Britain was one. Italy is done and I am very proud of it, but I want to unblock the Great Britain dossier. It is very important.
When the minister speaks, I hope she will clarify what happened to her priorities. It is quite obvious that nothing came about because of the meeting of the Prime Ministers of Canada and Britain.
I do not want to delay the speedy passage of this bill any longer. I will have a few comments to make and a few questions to ask during committee stage, but as far as my party is concerned at this time, we are ready for it to go on.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to add my voice to those members who have congratulated the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) on her reappointment to her portfolio. Most certainly it is one of the most important portfolios, especially as many of its activities touch millions of our citizens in a very direct way. As time goes on, and considering some of the constitutional proposals currently in vogue, it may very well be that it will be even more important that we maintain whatever meaningful, direct contact we can between the federal government and citizens across Canada.
It is precisely because the old age security program is one of the few federal programs that touch many, many Canadians directly, along with a few other programs such as the unemployment insurance program and family allowance program, that I wish to spend most of my few minutes discussing the issue and principle of universality. Yesterday two of my colleagues, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young), dealt at some length with many of the other issues involved with and related to this bill, such as the continuing discrimina-

May 27, 1980
Old Age Security Act
tion against women in our current old age security system and the steps required in an attempt to end that discrimination. Second, they touched upon the fact that our pension levels are still inadequate in relation to realistic estimates of the poverty line, the history and development of pensions in Canada and the reduction of the retirement age. Also they put forward detailed proposals enunciated by our party in the recent election campaign, including our suggestion that the basic old age security pension should be increased immediately by an amount of $40 per month.
Of course, it goes without saying that 1 am in full agreement with their remarks and the proposals which they outlined, especially, their reference, and also the remarks of the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) when he spoke yesterday, urging a return to omit the principle of universality and a move away from the needs or means test.
I am very much afraid that if we allow the principle of universality to be eroded further in programs such as the old age security system, family allowances and UIC benefits, then we will sooner or later precipitate a backlash from those middle income wage earners who work hard and pay most of the tax bill in this country only to find themselves, especially in the last few years in one program after another, cut off from the very benefits for which they have been paying.
Sometimes people have a very difficult time even reaching retirement age, not to mention-depending on the type of industry they have worked in-whether they are able to enjoy that retirement for other than perhaps a very few months. I am thinking particularly of the mining industry and the logging industry with some of their environment hazards. If we continue to adopt a system that cuts off those people who pay the majority of the bill from the benefits of one program after another, then sooner or later a backlash will take place in spite of the leadership which they or their organizations have given.
The cut-off levels for some of these programs are being set almost exactly, as we watch them year by year, in tune with or just a little above the average industrial wage. In the union which I was proud to represent prior to being elected to the House of Commons, a number of us noticed for many years that every time we negotiated our wage agreement, we were within a very few dollars of where the cut-off levels were being set to deny unemployment insurance benefits, to phase out family allowances, or in some provinces to eliminate them. Because of the erosion of the basic old age security pension, that which is paid out without a needs or a means test, we do not see many of them gaining any increasing benefit from the increasing share of the tax load which they have been paying.
No matter how idealistic some of us may want to be on occasion, sooner or later these people will be driven into a more socially conservative approach in spite of their usual willingness not only to support but to lead the fight for these kinds of programs and many other social programs which very often have tended to benefit others more than themselves. I am referring to people who in some cases have not had the benefit of being able to negotiate pension programs of their own and many other benefits.
One almost begins to wonder, noticing this tendency in the last few years, whether the continuing move away from the principle of universality is consciously or unconsciously designed to set a social backlash in motion. I cannot believe that that would be the intent of the minister today. Certainly the remarks of the hon. member for Lincoln, if he reflects any body of opinion at all across the floor, would at least lead me to hope that that is not the conscious or unconscious intent. But many of us have begun to wonder. I suggest that it could not be better calculated to provoke that kind of social backlash than if it were intended.
That to me would be regrettable. It flies in the face of everything that I and my colleagues have stood for over the years. It flies in the face of the kinds of social leadership which I believe not only my colleagues but many people in other parties have advocated over a long, long period of time. It would be a move backwards in spite of some very enlightened social leadership under rather pressing conditions which Canada has been very lucky to find in the labour movement in this country over past decades. Very often they have sacrificed many of their own abilities to gain benefits for themselves in order to set into place mechanisms which would aid those citizens who have had less power to further their own ends and interests.
I do not want to say very much more, but there is a rather common phrase in my father's country of origin, Denmark, which I think is apt to many social security programs. Their hope was to build a society where "few have too much and none have too little." Unless we can move toward the principle of universality, I believe we will fly in the face of that kind of social objective. I think that would be wrong. I think it would be dangerous for the entire fabric of our society. Of course I have to support the motion before us. It will be of some help to many people. But unfortunately, perhaps it leads us even further away from the principle of universality which I and many others believe is so important to the entire social fabric and future of our country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I should like to inform hon. members that recognizing the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) will close the debate at this stage. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to say how pleased I am with the general support of this bill from speakers of all parties. Of course, I am quite pleased, as well, that members in every corner of this House have expressed the desire to do more to alleviate the financial problems of senior citizens in Canada.
The $35 a month will be a substantial increase and, according to the pleasure of the House, will start with the cheque in July. This is a total injection of about $500 million to this group of Canadians. We all know it is not enough.
May 27, 1980

Could the House please let me say, before we start discussing the details of the bill in Committee of the Whole, that I am the first one to recognize what I identify as the next step for us to take in Canada, namely, to liberate and free another sum of money. I wish the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) were here. We will liberate another sum of money as soon as the economy is in better shape and is more alive, amounting to about $730 million. That is what is missing to bring all senior citizens above the poverty line. 1 use that expression "poverty line", a cold, statistical phrase, as a measure which we can all understand and use to show our progress year after year, decade after decade, in providing a better quality of life for Canadians.
Perhaps I could answer just a few points that were made during the debate after my opening speech, and I will be very brief. The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) stated that he did not agree with the approach of a conference on pensions which 1 announced or reiterated at the end of my speech. He said that when he was the minister he had plans for a comprehensive review and the reference of the whole subject area to a standing committee of this House. In this regard I would like to say that 1 am sure we both share the same objective, which is to improve pensions in Canada, particularly private pension plans. However, I am in total disagreement as to the way by which this can be achieved.
As I said, all major studies have been done on private, public, semi-public or parapublic pensions, like the CPP, except one which is being finished and is due at the beginning of next fall, and I refer to the Ontario royal commission on pensions.
What is needed? Do we need one more committee and, by the way, could a committee of the House study and put together 15 or so reports, and how would it do so? Our assessment in light of all that we know of House of Commons proceedings, with the tools of work at our disposal, with the workload of members of all parties, is that a committee of the House of Commons may not be the best tool for doing this. We think that a committee, if given such a reference, would have to take at least two, if not three, years to do the work.
What is the work to be done? It seems to me the work to be done involves a technical step; namely, putting together these studies and listing in a comparative form the various recommendations. That is what I call a technical piece of work that the committees of the House are not equipped to do. In any event, that is what our departments are for. They have the expertise and the researchers to digest these various reports and present recommendations in a summarized way. [Translation]
How should I put it? I will finish in French: having themselves put some order into all the recommendations and compared them one with another. Thus I have asked the department to prepare that table to summarize the recommendations contained in the more than twelve or fifteen reports already drafted on pensions.
Old Age Security Act
Now what is the second step we consider the most important? Action is the answer. We think it is high time that the parties concerned, the economic partners, meaning employers, governments as employers, unions and pensioners themselves publicly discuss those recommendations. We think we are ready to have Canadians, and particularly the economic partners directly involved, to start talking about the different ways they favour and those they dislike, and telling us why, and second, for the negotiation and decision-taking process to be well under way within the next two or, at the most, three years. Indeed, we thought that a committee would have lost precious time with a tool which is far from being the most appropriate for making studies and recommendations based on various reports. In conclusion, I wish to emphasize the importance of making the first steps. We believe that a national conference in the fall would be the best way to do so.

Could I now make a short comment concerning a member who made the national news today. I just know him by his family name and I did not have time to check what riding he represents. I know he is a Conservative.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Bow River.


Monique Bégin: The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) made national news with something I would not like to use to make national news. It is true that it is his choice, but I would like to know why he did so. He said he believes honestly that by giving to people living alone, single, divorced, widows and widowers, a sum of money twice as great as what each partner of a couple will get will create the incentive to divorce. That seems to me to be pure fantasy, to say the least. 1 could also say that it seems to be pure Tory policy, or pure Tory belief about human nature. There is no need to say that. You do not divorce for $17 more a month. I cannot accept that. I asked the department how many divorces we created in Canada the last time we gave an increase to single people. They are very polite and they did not burst out laughing in my face, but they did not know what to tell me. To our knowledge this never happened.
I am saying, in other words, that no government has provided a sum of money which would change the behaviour of people to the point that they would choose divorce at age 65 just to get $17 more a month. I will not speak more of that, but I find that concern bizarre. I do not understand it and I do not think it is accurate. This does not happen and that is why I seem to be considering it very lightly.
Let me conclude by saying a few words about the statements of my friends in the New Democratic Party. I listened very carefully and have reviewed rapidly, though not in depth yet, all the possible indicators of inflation which can be used in indexing pensions. The results would indicate there would only be a few pennies, at most $1 or $2 more or less every three months. I will continue to explore the question to make sure there are not significant benefits lost to the seniors because of our way of indexing their pensions. The question I will pose to

May 27, 1980
Old Age Security Act
my department 1 am already aware of, because it is the question that will give me the answer. The question is: If we were to choose a different way of indexing instead of the way we do it in Canada now, how many more millions of dollars will it cost initially? When I get the answer I will know immediately if we are talking business, if we are talking of something very serious, or if we are talking of a nuance with so little relevance it could not really affect the lives of our seniors.
During this debate I listened carefully to the members of the New Democratic Party who spoke and particularly, of course, to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I remember very clearly the promises of that party during the last election campaign. Only today did I come to the conclusion that they speak the way they do because it is a strategy to maintain universality. I came to that understanding only today, and I am not even sure of my observations.
Quite honestly, I had great difficulty understanding the sudden promise of the NDP party during the election campaign, that they wanted to raise the basic OAS pension for every Canadian by $40 a month. Such an increase would amount to $2.5 billion a year. That is a huge figure. I was very surprised at this promise because there was no consensus in Canadian society that such an urgent step was required. There is this urgency in certain quarters, among specialists and experts, but not among the general public.
The idea that the general basic OAS pension should be slightly higher in order to correspond to, for example, 15 per cent of industrial wages or to some other measure is a theoretical concept developed among specialists. To my knowledge, this opinion has never reached the Canadian public and surely there is no consensus of urgency. For me the consensus of urgency is giving those pensioners on the GIS-in other words, those who need it-a better deal. The measure being used to make sure that there is a unique message, one which we keep repeating in order to achieve success, is: "Bring them above the poverty line". That is what we are trying to do with this bill.
As I said, one more step is required before these people will be brought completely above the poverty line. This time we are coming closer to that realization with the sum of $.5 billion. Another large sum of money will be required to make sure that they are brought over that poverty line once and for all. So if it was not an election campaign promise, I would say to the NDP members what I have already told them in public, that they have the academics but they still need an accountant in their party. One cannot find $2.5 billion just like that.
If I stress this point, it is because the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) spoke often of the need for returning to the principle of universality. The hon. member does not know it, but he has raised the scarecrow of the loss of universality in old age pensions and, by way of consequence, family allowances. I think that this is the strategy of that party. That party wants to raise the OAS pension issue to put
back into the minds of the Canadian public the need for saving pensions for all.
I can tell the hon. member that that is a battle which was won just a few months ago. I honestly think that members of this House from the government, the New Democratic Party and others who were interested in the fight in favour of maintaining universality against the trend of neo-conservatism which Canada, as well as other countries in the western world, has already gone through was won last fall and during Christmas and that it is now a battle of the past. I am very pleased about that.
I have no reason to believe that universality of social programs is under question, under fire or in threat of being lost. I must insist on that point because it takes so much energy to win such a battle, and I prefer to save my energy for the next battle. The hon. member for Kootenay West was talking about a battle of the past, and that does not interest me much. I prefer to identify the next step and tell Canadians that the next time we will have to do more for those people who have reached the age of 65 and who are living in conditions of poverty.
I do not want to leave Canadians today with the slightest hope that the basic old age pension will increase. Well into the future, the next step will probably be to help those people who are between the ages of 62 and 65. That will be the next step, to help those in need within that age group.
At this point I would like to thank all those who participated in the debate. Many hon. members were kind enough to agree to a speedy passage of this bill and to reserve their remarks for other occasions. I ask all hon. members of this House, whatever their political party or political beliefs, because they have all said nice things about the need to combat poverty among senior citizens, that they give their help by any means at their disposal and, particularly, help obtain from the provinces a commitment that this $35 will be passed on to all senior citizens living in institutions.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
[ Translation]


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Ethier in the chair.
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I had hoped that this bill would get through before five o'clock, but the minister's remarks were a little too pointed to leave much hope for that. I do not think that getting after individual members on this side of the House is the way to encourage the speedy passage of any bill.
I should leave to the New Democratic Party the minister's funny calculation on what $40 a month raise in the old age pension would cost nationally. My figures are around $1 billion, not $2.5 billion. We will see who needs an accountant.
May 27, 1980

The number of people who are receiving the old age security pension, the guaranteed income supplement and allowances from the provinces total 2,206,000. If one multiplies to million by $500 a year, it adds up to roughly $1 billion.
I would like to go over a few questions which I had in mind before the minister summed up. I am not certain whether the minister would prefer me to ask individual questions to which she could give individual answers, or whether she would like three or four questions at a time. I believe that the minister is awaiting her advisers.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, I do not know the type of question which the hon. member intends to ask. It is no problem for me to take his questions either one at a time or all together.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Then I will run through my questions and the minister can suit herself as to whether she wishes to answer them one at a time or not.
In a press release which was put out by the Minister of National Health and Welfare it was estimated that an additional 45,000 OAS pensioners and spouses would become entitled to partial GIS and SPA benefits as a result of this amendment, and I was referring to the entire amendment as outlined in Bill C-16. I am curious as to just what aspect of the amendment will allow an additional 45,000 people to become entitled to partial allowances for the first time. I can see where a great number of them will get an increase in the GIS, but I would be curious about the estimated 45,000. Just what particular section of the bill does the minister anticipate will bring in 45,000 new pensioners?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, I hope you will excuse me, but this is my first bill in this session and we have forgotten the ritual which accompanies the passage of legislation.
The figure of 45,000 recipients of old age security not now entitled to the guaranteed income supplement who will receive part of the $35 following passage of this bill comes from the fact that we are automatically increasing the eligible income scale for all recipients. Let me explain. All recipients of an old age security pension receive by mail once a year a booklet, which I am now looking for and which I shall have in a few moments, which gives a table of incomes eligible for an old age pension supplement to the nearest dollar. This table shows a basic amount over which the recipient is not eligible. We are increasing this basic amount by $35 a month or $420 a year.

We increased the base of the table that people of little income can make and still get some GIS by $420 per year. Automatically, a certain number of seniors in the gray area who have just too much income, although very little, to start qualifying for the GIS will be able to qualify. I suspect that the calculation of the 45,000 was done by computer.
Old Age Security Act


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, my next question concerns the minister's speech as reported at page 1282 of Hansard. She was quite definite when she said:
I do want to make that clear for all those who are listening. I would add that couples receiving a supplement, whether part or all of the supplement, will have $17.50 each added to their cheque, which makes a total of $35 for a couple.
The bill makes mention of the increase being added to the maximum guaranteed income supplement. If that is where it gets added on, then what the minister said at page 1282 of Hansard for May 21 would not hold. The explanatory note on page 2(a) of the bill reads as follows:
These amendments would increase the maximum monthly amount of the Guaranteed Income Supplement by $35 in respect of a single pensioner and a married pensioner whose spouse is not a pensioner and by $17.50 in respect of a married pensioner whose spouse is also a pensioner.
Taking the example of someone who just barely qualifies for some of the guaranteed income supplement-


Stanley Howard Knowles: By $1, for example.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Or $10. If a person is receiving a supplement of $10 per month, is that person now going to get $45?


Monique Bégin: Yes.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: So it will be added on at the bottom and not at the top. The bill is not too clear on that and it gives an indication that it was written by people who thought you could now get a guaranteed income supplement $35 higher provided you currently received 100 per cent of it. The part about $17.50 each being added to their cheques, this will be done in the household by two separate cheques. Each cheque will have $17.50 added to it, no matter whether both pensioners are at a very low level of guaranteed income supplement at the present time. If they are both getting $5, they would both get $17.50 extra and a single person would get $35.
Something that has been mentioned several times and which appears in the press release always bothers me about pension cheques and indexation. When the minister speaks of this supplement being on the July cheque, unfortunately a lot of senior citizens think they will get their July cheque on July 1. I would rather the minister explained when they will get their July cheque than do it myself.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, first of all, to close on the matter of the scale of incomes eligible for a supplement, this scale, of which I now have a copy, ends at the present time with these two figures.

Please let me give the current points right now for the scales of low income for people who can still receive some GIS. The existing cut-off point for single people receiving GIS is $3,696. With passage of Bill C-16, this will become $4,632. Everybody receiving some GIS who is in the single category-widowed, divorced, separated, single-has his or her cheque increased by the full amount of $35.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Unless they are married.

May 27, 1980
Old Age Security Act


Monique Bégin: 1 am speaking of single people. Common law marriages are recognized as legal marriages by the old age security administration.
For married people the cut-off point today of $6,144 will become $7,152 per year. People who do not yet qualify for any GIS and who may be in the grey area will receive less than $35 per month, or less than $17.50 each if they are a couple, depending on their income.
A pamphlet explaining this will be inserted with the July cheque which will come late in the month. The third last banking day of the month is the date on which the latest cheque will be received, so it will be late July.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, first may I say that I welcome the questioning that has taken place so that one or two points can be made clear. I think it is important for recipients of the pension to know that their increase will be in the cheque they receive at the end of July and not in the cheque they receive toward the end of June which they spend in the month of July.
I think it is also important and useful that it has been made clear that anyone who is getting any portion of the supplement at the present time, even if it is only $1 per month, will get the $35 in the case of a single person or $17.50 each in the case of two members of a married relationship.
Before I get into the one or two questions that 1 should like to put to the minister, I should like to say a word or two. I am not going to indulge in a long speech about our relative philosophies in this area but I was pleased that the minister, when she made her speech and tried to get straight in her own mind what our strategy is, said categorically that the battle for universality has been won-that no one is going to go back on that.
I hope the hon. member for Bow River heard that. When he made his speech yesterday, he said that he used to believe in universality but that he does not any more. He wants to take it away from some of those at the top of the scale, supposedly to enrich the pension to others. I trust the battle is won but there are still a few stragglers around who think they would like to change that principle. I agree with the minister as to its importance, and my colleagues and I feel very strongly about universality.
I was glad to hear the statements made last night by the hon. member for Lincoln, and I suspect that there are other Liberals on that side who have the same view. Likewise, I remind the minister again of my approval yesterday of the statements in this connection made by Senator David Croll on the occasion when a testimonial dinner was held for him over in the West Block.
It is still my view, Mr. Chairman, that it is wrong to make persons prove their poverty to get additional money. I think it is better for the amount to be paid universally and for the income tax to be used much more steeply than it is now to take it back from those at the top. However, that is an ongoing issue and we can discuss it time and time again, on and off the
record. As I say, I am satisfied to let that part of the discussion end for today with the minister's ringing declaration that universality is here to stay. Let it be that way for sure.
Taking the bill as it is, namely a bill that does not increase the basic rate of the old age security pension but increases only the amount of the guaranteed income supplement, there are two or three questions I should like to put to the minister.
In the first place, I should like to ask her whether she and her department are giving study to some other basis for establishing the guaranteed income supplement level than that which we now have. I am inclined to agree with her that we put too much blame on the method of indexing. We say that it is wrong and that it does not produce the right results, but is not the real trouble that the base was too low at the start? It is no use for government members to say we have got indexing so we keep the pension value up where it was, when to begin with it was too far down.
What about my suggestion the other day that, instead of starting with a figure just drawn out of a hat and then indexing it, we start with a figure that bears some relationship to the cost of living at the level sometimes defined as the poverty line?
As I say, for the veterans on the disability pension, we have established a formula. We get away from it at times, but it is there and we keep coming back to it, namely that the 100 per cent disability pension shall be the average take-home pay of five designated categories in the public service. Why not establish, I said the other day, 125 per cent of the poverty level as the line below which no pensioner should be allowed to fall, and then either index that to the consumer price index or index it to the changes in the poverty level as established by Statistics Canada?
As the minister knows, when we take that computation we are taking the lowest one around. Any social agency will produce a level that is higher and, of course, there are problems about different costs in city and in country. But surely something better than just a figure drawn out of a hat, that no indexing ever makes adequate, would be better. I would like to ask the minister, when I give her a chance to reply, if she will tell me whether some study is being given to that in her department.
Second, I ask the minister, and I press this upon her as strongly as I can, whether in this term of office she is enjoying she is going to do something about the disgrace of the spouse's allowance legislation. The original motive may have been good-to give something to people who needed it. But the result is for women between 60 and 65 for the most part-I know it works both ways but there are not very many men involved-there is applied a marital test. If a woman has a man or has one that dies while she is in that age bracket, she gets the pension. But if she does not have a man because she is a spinster or divorced or became a widow before age 60, or she became a widow before her husband was over 65, there is no pension there.
May 27, 1980

The other day when I was talking about this, one of the Tory members here tried to chide me a bit. He thought I was actually standing up and advocating a means or an income test. I am not, and the minister knows that. But surely in that 60 to 65 age bracket something in the nature of a supplement or a pension because people need it is far more civilized, far more modern, than this pension based on the test that is applied to every woman, namely, has she got a man? It just does not wash any more. There is not a doubt in my mind that the minister does not like it. She was not connected with this department when this test was brought in; she was in a more esoteric area, the area of external affairs. I often wonder what she thought about the test when it was being put through. My urgent plea to her is that something be done about this.
We heard comments made today when the minister was turning down our request for an increase in the basic amount of the pension, at least turning us down for now. There is always the future in this business and there are the increases that come about because of the rise in the cost of living. Anyway, when she was doing that she said that the area where something was needed to be done was that respecting unattached women-I think the age bracket she gave was 62 to 65.
I would rather see the bracket of 60 to 65, and there is the problem of those from 55 up. That is where the problem assumes rather large proportions.
I was glad to hear the minister say that, just as I was glad to hear her say that the battle for universality has been won. But I relate this to the unfairness in the spouse's allowance. What is she going to do to meet this problem which all of us know is so real? We can give our statistics about pensioners, we can tell about the problems that people have, single or married, in large cities, and all the rest of it, and I can make my speeches about the desirability of universality. But I agree with her that the most pressing problem for senior citizens is the problem faced by unattached women from 60 to 65, as well as those between 55 and 60. I hope that the minister will tell us that the department is going to do something more about that area than is done in this bill.
I had another question down. I was going to leave it to my friend from Victoria, but he mentioned it in his second reading speech although he did not raise it again in Committee of the Whole. But with my respect for him, since he comes from a place where so many of them are involved-I know from the correspondence I get from the member's constituency-I will raise the matter, and that is this question of reciprocity.


Erik Nielsen: That is why he gets elected all the time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is because the people write to me and I answer their letters? This is an interesting place, isn't it?
A long time ago we were told that pensioners from the United Kingdom living in this country could not get their United Kingdom increases because there was no reciprocal agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom. After a while we passed one piece of legislation and then we passed another to make reciprocal agreements possible. But the people who write to the department tell us when they write to
Criminal Code
us that the blame is put on the British, and when the British write these people, they put the blame on the Canadians.
We have a reciprocal agreement with one or two other countries. We have moved a lot slower in this field than I had thought we would and that I had hoped we would, but surely we can talk to the people in the United Kingdom and come to some understanding about this matter. Perhaps the minister can answer me at eight o'clock.


Denis Éthier: Order, please. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress, and request leave to resume consideration of the said bill later this day.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 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 Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski)-Sports-Financial assistance from lotteries; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Consumer Affairs-Increase in interest rates of department stores and oil companies-Detrimental effects on Canadian consumers; the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight)- Transport-Study of "at and east" freight rates.

It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills, private bills, notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Item No. 3, the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.

May 27, 1980
Criminal Code


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent. Shall all items up to No. 13 stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton) moved: that Bill C-213, to amend the Criminal Code (reporting names of accused), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to address myself to this topic and to this bill in particular. I naturally hope that this bill might go to the committee for consideration and will not be talked out. I happen to think that the subject matter at least is very important; it is one that we have shied away from addressing straight on. 1 hope there will be some exposure of it today. Maybe it could be dealt with at length in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I first introduced this bill back on July 12, 1977. I introduced it again on October 29, 1979. Interestingly enough, I find that in the provincial legislature of Ontario, Albert Roy, the provincial member for Ottawa East, copied the principle of this bill and introduced one of his own back in November, 1977, and had it debated in that assembly. It is more appropriate to debate this bill in this House and to amend the Criminal Code.
First, I would like to refer to section 2, subsection (f) of the Bill of Rights, which states that a person charged with a criminal offence has the right, and I quote:
-to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal-
I agree with that 100 per cent. I might also point out in advance of going into the details of my comments today that 1 have received opinions in support of this bill from such diverse groups as the South Okanagan civil liberties society and the report of the committee of the social planning council of Ottawa-Carleton concerning the publication of the names of persons accused of crimes.
A lot of the detail I will go into comes from a magistrate in England, Magistrate Margaret Jones, who in 1974 did quite a lengthy paper, which was her thesis for her Ph.D., dealing with this topic of whether or not there should be broadcasting or printing in the printed news media of people's names prior to their having been convicted.
I am pleased that today we will have an opportunity of considering this bill. The bill is designed to recognize one of
the fundamental concepts on which our system of justice is based, and that is that an accused is presumed innocent until proved guilty. Toward that end, this bill would prevent the naming of an accused in the media until he or she is convicted of an offence. Since 1 first introduced this bill I have received many letters, some from journalists, some from civil liberties groups, and some from individuals who felt that they suffered unjustly because they had their names appear in the local media only to be subsequently acquitted of the charge.
I believe this bill is quite straightforward. It would prevent the publication or broadcasting of the name, address or occupation of an accused in any manner in connection with the commission of an offence or the judicial proceedings arising out of the commission of such an offence. For the purposes of the bill, I have defined an accused as anyone who has been charged with an offence and who is awaiting trial, undergoing trial, has been acquitted, or has received an absolute discharge or pardon.
I realize that this bill is not perfect, that the argument surrounding the question of a free press versus a free trial is not about to be resolved this afternoon. The files I have compiled and the letters I have received on this bill have shown just how divided public opinion is on this issue, even among sectors such as the civil liberties groups which usually have no problem finding a consensus.
Basically I have introduced this bill almost as a devil's advocate. I am willing to be persuaded now as to whether we should continue with the system which we presently have where people's names can appear in the press prior to conviction, or whether this bill should be passed, or at least go to committee for detailed consideration of whether persons' names should be commented upon before there is a conviction.
I hope the bill will not be talked out because it is a non-partisan issue. I believe it is a topic which does merit further study in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I hope that at least the subject matter will later today be referred to that standing committee.
In Canada, there is no encompassing standard for court reporting. Coverage is randomly selective, based on a vague notion of newsworthiness, a notion which could never be defined unanimously by any group of ten editors that one could assemble. There are only two common qualities to cases which are deemed to be newsworthy: first, it is a selective process, and secondly, it is the product at the discretion of the news editor's judgment. Unfortunately in journalism, as in all other fields, selectivity leaves the door open first for injustice, and secondly for exploitation. Perhaps the greatest irony in this debate is that while judges have strived over the years to achieve a greater consistency in sentencing, the press has achieved anything but consistency in their coverage and in their decision of what is of importance and interest to the general public.
Magistrate Margaret Jones of Britain, who has written a doctoral thesis on the subject of naming of accused, has characterized the practice of the British press as "the arbitrary infliction of publicity on a random cross-section of the
May 27, 1980

accused". It is a characterization that easily adapts itself on this side of the Atlantic. Canadian practice is a hodge-podge of guidelines and traditions and editorial edicts from each and every news organ in this country. In some cases, it is the practice not to cover shoplifting, petty theft, wilful damage under $50 and so on, but the ban gets lifted should there be a significant "human interest angle". Most editors will agree that "little crime by little people" does not deserve coverage, that is unless there is a possibility of a person's misery becoming a human interest anecdote for the lighter side.
I would like to say that this is a moral issue, and in its defence the press uses moral arguments. 1 intend to look at these, but I would like to say that first and foremost the press is an industry. Criminal proceedings are but one more source of grist for the information mills. It is the task of the media to use every available pool of information to make a selection of stories, which are then displayed in a particular order to make as good a newspaper story or broadcast as possible.
A court case is no different from any other type of story. The decisions made about coverage remain journalistic, nonjudicial. In general, the sexiness or saleability of a story is paramount. A morals charge, in practice, receives automatic attention. Leaving the scene of an accident will not, unless it is in connection with an accident of major proportions or involves a socially or politically prominent individual. An accused may see published not only his or her name, but address, occupation and even, perhaps, parentage if such happens to be newsworthy.
In this city a few years ago a case involving an alleged male prostitution ring made every front page and newscast. Many of the alleged clients were charged and their names and addresses were published. There was a preliminary hearing. It was lengthy. Then they went to trial, but prior to that one of the accused committed suicide after receiving death threats and harassment at work. So here in this city at least one death has resulted from this journalistic practice. Eventually, Mr. Speaker, all the accused were acquitted, the Crown withdrawing the charges because they did not depend upon the reliability of their young witnesses. But many of the accused had already lost their jobs or been obliged to leave the city to re-establish elsewhere because of the penalty of publicity.
Recently there has been another case in this city involving a trial for rape. The accused, who was later convicted, had not only his name, address and occupation published, but his racial origin as well. Somewhere along the line his race was deemed as integral to his trial and as newsworthy. For years the Ontario human rights commission has bluntly said that the needless accentuation of racial or ethnic origin in court reporting can only lead to the polarization of communities and suspicion. It cannot help but reinforce negative stereotypes.
As Morris Schumiatcher, chairman of the civil liberties section of the Canadian Bar Association has said, the presence at any trial of the general public, of which the press is a part, is intended to ensure a fair trial. Let us not forget that it is the
Criminal Code
accused who is supposed to be the prime beneficiary. It is not for the purpose of informing, entertaining or titillating the general public. I do not accept for one moment that the actions and the proceedings of the police or of law enforcement agencies and the courts cannot be fully and effectively reported or even commented upon in the media, but this should be done without the use of names or any other identifying description.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, the press uses moral arguments in its own defence. There is a notion that the adverse publicity is a deterrent to crime, although the reporting itself is random and there is no way of knowing with certainty what will be reported. There is a notion that the press is the instrument of the public's right to know, although there is hedging as to when knowledge crosses the boundary into curiosity or entertainment. There are even some who use the argument that publicity, should, in effect, be part of the penalty for crime, although it is not determined why an accused who is later acquitted should have to pay that penalty.
Then there is the justification which is offered that every newspaper tries to follow up on its court stories, and that where there is an acquittal that, too, will be published. But of course, Mr. Speaker, there is no guarantee that the follow-up will receive the same prominence as the initial story; nor is there any admission that with today's large urban centres and the proliferation of courts, remands and appeals, it is virtually impossible even for the most well-meaning editor to ensure that there will be an efficient follow-up on every story, particularly in connection with minor cases.
There is also the argument, taken up by several civil liberties groups, that failure to name an accused puts in the hands of the police the potential to arrest an individual, charge him, hold him in jail and neglect to notify anybody that an arrest has been made. To that 1 say "balderdash," because the same procedure could be used as is used today, only you could not disseminate the names and other identifying information. You would have the same police dockets and the remands would be the same-no more than eight days.
Some see a bill such as this one as an attempt to legislate secrecy in the courts. I do not buy that. That is not the reason for this bill. Others quite bluntly say that there is no place for sentiment in selecting court or crime stories for publication, that it is the media's obligation to report any story it feels will be important or interesting, or both, to the general public. It is funny how the names of Jean Marchand or Louis Robichaud were both on the front pages of Ottawa newspapers when they were facing charges for impaired driving. Yet any day you can go down to No. 1 court at 60 Waller Street, where the remanding is done, and find 30 or 40 people picked up every night and charged with impaired driving. But their names are not to be found even on page 60 of the same newspapers.
These arguments are the ones most often used in defence of the practice of naming the accused. I would like briefly to outline what the practice is in two European countries, countries which are frequently held up to us as models of social justice and progressive thinking.

May 27, 1980
Criminal Code
In The Netherlands the names of accused are not broadcast or published at any stage during criminal proceedings-arrest, during trial, even on sentencing or acquittal. This is a matter of tradition in the Dutch press. Where a trial story is used by the media, an accused is identified by initials. The Netherlands government is obliged to list the names of accused and the disposition of each and every case in an official government periodical.
In Sweden a code of conduct has been established by the code of honour of the press which is observed by all its members. The code states that the name of a person involved in judicial proceedings cannot be published or broadcast until conviction and sentencing, and only then if the sentence is one of imprisonment for two years or more.
Here in Canada we have seen action taken already in terms of press reporting of court cases. Reporting of preliminary inquiries as covered by section 467 of the Criminal Code states:
Prior to commencement of taking of evidence at a preliminary inquiry, the justice holding the inquiry shall, if application therefor is made by the accused, or where there is more than one accused, by any one of these, make an order directing that the evidence taken at the inquiry shall not be published in any newspaper before such time as
A)	the accused who made the application discharged, or
B)	if the accused who made the application is committed for trial or ordered to stand trial, the trial is ended.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, under sections 441 and 442 of the Criminal Code, justices have a limited jurisdiction to hold certain proceedings in camera and to exclude the public where a juvenile is charged, or where the judge is of the opinion that it is in the interests of public morals, the maintenance of order or the proper administration of justice to exclude the general public.
I should also point out that in September, 1978, the Canadian Bar Association passed the following resolution at its Halifax annual meeting:
Be it resolved that the Criminal Code be amended to provide that the name or identity of a person (including a corporation) charged with an offence shall not be published in a newspaper, magazine or periodical or broadcast in any manner unless
(a)	an indictment has been preferred pursuant to section 507 of the Criminal Code;
(b)	the accused has been committed to stand trial following a preliminary inquiry;
(c)	the trial has commenced;
(d)	the accused consents in writing to the name or identity being published or broadcast.
The purpose of that resolution was to protect those who are charged but who never come to trial for lack of evidence.
In 1974, the Ontario Press Council solicited views on the naming of an accused from the Elizabeth Fry Society and the John Howard Society.
Mrs. Elizabeth Haslam, the director of the Elizabeth Fry Society in Toronto, responded, and I quote:
We are interested in the debate about the publishing of a name as a protection against arbitrary arrest and court procedures. Personally I would see the fact of courts being open to the public, including the press, as being the safeguard. If an individual wished to have his or her name published in connection with the case, then this, of course, should be his or her right.
Mrs. Haslam also said that in her understanding of the problem, the consequences of naming an accused were worst in small communities, that the family of an accused does suffer unfairly from the practice and that the general public, contrary to our concept of presumed innocence, operates on the assumption of guilt once an accused's name is published. She also noted that in the case of the young, rather than having a deterrent effect, being named in the media is far more likely to create a sense of importance or celebrity.
At the same time, the Ontario executive director of the John Howard Society replied that the society is just as concerned about the nature and extent of crime in a community as it is with the judicial process. Here again, one wonders how a community can be served, given the selective nature of court reporting, with an accurate concept of crime within a community. There is perhaps far more constructive work to be done on the part of the media in terms of analytical crime reporting or judicial reporting than in the selective display of random cases.
In contrast, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has taken the view that media coverage and the naming of an accused is a safeguard against abuse and remains the essential public means of evaluating government and law enforcement agencies.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his allotted time has expired. Nevertheless, he could carry on if he has unanimous consent. Does he have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and other members of the House. I will try to wind up my remarks as quickly as possible.
As I was saying, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has taken the view that media coverage and the naming of an accused is a safeguard against abuse and remains the essential public means of evaluating government and law enforcement agencies. The view is one of "better to run the risk of having an individual's reputation injured from time to time than have the channels of mass communication cut off'.
I would like to return to the thesis of Magistrate Margaret Jones. Mrs. Jones came from a family with a journalistic background and is married to an editor. In her book "Justice and Journalism" she states:
I have ended, after several years of study, with the conclusion that the current action of the British press in reporting the proceedings of magistrate's court is socially undesirable and detracts from the administration of justice. I have found that it contributes to injustice in its arbitrary infliction of the punishment of publicity, often the cruelest and most harmful of all penalties, upon a random selection of offenders .. . whom the newspapers choose to identify.
May 27, 1980

In her analysis Mrs. Jones said that the foundation for change would be based on modifying the nature of reporting to accord with the concept that an accused is presumed innocent as well as providing for the names of the accused and court decisions to be publicly available in a government document.
She also outlined the following three steps:
(1)	In reporting summary proceedings, there should be no publication of names or identifying particulars until a criminal charge has been determined;
(2)	In the reporting of summary proceedings, there should be no publication of names or identities when a trial ends in an acquittal unless the defendant opts for the advertisement of his or her innocence;
(3)	In the reporting of summary proceedings, there should be no publication of names or identifying particulars of civil offenders whom a court has found it expedient to punish and in respect of whom it has made an order of absolute or conditional discharge or probation unless those persons opt for identification.
As I have said before, the media is an industry, and court reporting is but one of the many materials it uses. In this country it is a tradition of reporting the names of the accused. In the past we have legislated against industries where we have found their traditions to be harmful, whether through environmental regulations or child labour laws. We have legislated such practices out of existence. I think it is time that we began to look at this segment, for if there is one point of unanimous agreement among the media, it is their distaste for guidelines laid down by any press council. And it is all too apparent that the various press councils in existence are handicapped in their efforts to police their members.
In closing, I would like to leave the last words to Margaret Jones. After publishing her thesis, she was asked to speak before the British Guild of Editors. She said:
This then is the challenge for the watchdogs of justice-do not degenerate into the jackals or hyenas of justice. In your reports of judicial proceedings can you not cease to be the hounders of humanity, at least for its minor crimes, yet still continue to watch over and record the process of justice? If you could do so you would make good the proud boast of the press that, through it, justice in our courts is seen to be done. Then you might better be called not the watchdogs but the guardians of justice; for you would show yourselves to be not dogs, but men.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commence by congratulating the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) for raising this important subject not only on this occasion but in a number of other Parliaments as well. May I say at the outset, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, that we would support the reference, at the very least, of the subject matter of this bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I certainly hope hon. members opposite will agree at least to support the reference of the subject matter to that committee.
I say that we would support the subject matter being referred because, quite frankly, we have a number of concerns with regard to the bill as it is presently worded. There are some segments and areas of the bill with which we must take issue. There is certainly a fundamental safeguard which we believe should be inserted in the bill, which I will be coming to in short order.
It is clear that the matter with which we are dealing today is one of central importance to all Canadians because it essen-
Criminal Code
daily touches on two fundamental freedoms which in some senses tend to clash in this particular instance. These freedoms were both won through long and hard struggles. I refer, of course, to freedom of the press, on the one hand, and the right of the accused to a fair trial, on the other.
We have to attempt essentially to pick between these two principles and, in doing so, to come to a compromise between them, because we are really talking here about a matter of compromise. If we were to forgo the one and accept totally the other, we would be permitting, I suggest, a very serious miscarriage of justice to take place.
What the bill proposed by the hon. member attempts to do is arrive at a compromise between these two important principles. Unfortunately, I do not believe he has succeeded in doing that in the wording which is before the House at the present time. As I have said, I certainly sympathize with the objective of the bill, which is to ensure that an accused person has the right to a fair and unprejudiced trial which is decided strictly on the basis of the evidence presented before the court.
Of course, as my hon. friend has stated, the fundamental principle which must govern in criminal trials is the overriding presumption of the innocence of all accused. We have seen too many cases in which there have been reports of accused persons who have subsequently been acquitted, having had their reputations tarnished and in some cases their whole livelihoods destroyed as a result of the kind of reporting which has taken place regarding the crimes which they were alleged to have committed. I need only point to the most recent instance of this in the case of Alan Spraggett, a gentleman who was charged with very serious offences in the province of Manitoba. He lost his job, his reputation was severely tarnished, and he was subsequently acquitted by a provincial court judge. He was said to have been an honourable man, as I recall the words of Magistrate Dubienski in Manitoba.
In Canada we are fortunate to have won these fundamental principles of freedom of the press and the right to be presumed innocent to which my friend referred, in the Canadian Bill of Rights. We have to guard these principles. We have to safeguard them against both the state and the police. We have to safeguard against the effects of malicious, irresponsible or sensational reporting and comment. I appreciate that is the intent of my hon. friend's bill. Certainly I welcome his concern and share his concern for this vital right of Canadian citizens.
My hon. friend alluded to some of the conflicts within the various civil liberties groups on this question. It is not an easy question. Certainly for that reason I believe it would be inappropriate to refer the bill in its present form to committee. However, I think the fact that there is such a controversy and such a widespread interest in the subject matter of this bill warrants the referral of the subject matter to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
However, I have stated that we have some concerns. I should like to just deal briefly with those concerns. I have no intention of speaking for the full time allotted to me because I
1462

May 27, 1980
Criminal Code
hope members opposite will see fit to have this bill moved on to committee. The concerns I have with respect to the bill are fundamentally this: first, that there is no option on the part of the accused to insist in some cases on publication of the name of the accused. If this bill is aimed at protecting the rights of the accused, then surely it should be up to the accused to waive the provisions of non-publication. For example, if the accused believes that he or she is being harassed or intimidated, that certain aspects of the judicial process are unsatisfactory, and wants his or her name to be published together with the circumstances, it is my view that that should be at the option of the accused, because it is a bill which is essentially aiming at protecting the rights of the accused. If this bill came to committee I suspect my hon. friend would not be adverse to such a provision being inserted in the bill, but he will appreciate that as it stands now there is no such protection afforded to accused persons.
The concern expressed not only by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association but by others is precisely that this would tend to blanket the proceedings of the court and make the court proceedings more secretive. I would suggest that by amendment along the lines I have proposed, permitting accused persons themselves to have the final word as to whether or not there should be publicity of their trials, would adequately deal with the concerns these various civil liberties groups have expressed. I should say I have taken the opportunity to canvass a number of people who have indicated a concern with the bill in its present form. Without exception they have stated that with the amendment I am proposing the bill would be satisfactory. We certainly feel the persons who are accused of an offence must be assured the right to full public scrutiny of the process of law. They must be able to appear publicly to show that they have not been harmed, for example, while they were being held in custody. They must be able to have the evidence and the circumstances of their case heard publicly if they so desire, to ensure that the evidence and the process conform to the due process of law.
What we have to avoid at all costs is any suggestion that there will be any increase in the arbitrary powers which already exist in the prosecutional arm of the state. For example, we have seen the abuses of section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act. Certainly we on this side welcome the intention of the government to repeal that particular section of the Federal Court Act which has been abused far too frequently by previous governments and, I might add, by the present government, unfortunately by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) only two months ago.
Those are the kinds of provisions which we believe should be removed from the present statutes of the country. On the other hand, as I have said, we recognize the concern on the part of those persons who are accused of criminal offences that too often their trial is conducted in the newspaper, or on television, or over the radio, and even if they are found to have been not guilty of the offence with which they are charged, that in the mind and in the eye of the public in fact they are guilty, with all the consequences that holds in terms of their jobs, their
reputations, and the reputations of their families, friends and associates in the community. We recognize that that is a concern with which this particular bill is attempting to deal.
I will just pass over some of the comments I was planning on making with respect to the Official Secrets Act and trials that are being held in secret, because I think it is important the subject matter of this bill be referred. As I say, we are concerned about the question of the right of the accused to waive provisions of the bill. Also I would like to express at this point a concern with the wording of the bill. It would also ban the publication under all circumstances of the names, addresses or occupations of accused persons even after their trials have taken place, if they were acquitted or if they received an absolute discharge or pardon. Again I think my hon. friend would recognize some of the difficulties in these aspects of the bill. For example, in the case of pardons, they are not granted in some cases until a number of years after the accused has been convicted of an offence. According to the wording of the bill as it stands now, if the press reported the name of the accused in the interim between the time of conviction and the time of granting of pardon, they would be guilty of an offence. I am sure that is not the intent of the bill, but once again there are problems in the drafting of the bill as it now stands.
At this point I am not persuaded that it is a wise step to take to deny the press the opportunity to publish the names, occupations, and other relevant details of an accused person after the trial has taken place. I recognize that some of the unfortunate aspects of publication which are dealt with before the acquittal still arise here, but I believe at least at this point that the interests of the freedom of the press in that particular instance outweigh the other concerns that have been expressed. Following a trial, whether that trial results in an acquittal or a conviction, the press should be free to report on the outcome of the trial in its fullest detail.
Also I believe it is important that this be done and that there be an opportunity to report in the case of absolute discharges. I note there is no reference to conditional discharges here, but it is important that this be done in the case of discharges or acquittals, because frequently it is the case that trial judges, while acquitting an accused, or giving an accused an absolute or conditional discharge, will make certain comments with respect to the conduct of the accused. They will say that they are acquitting the accused but only on the narrowest of technical grounds. There may be important statements in the judgment of that particular accused which the public should know. While they may have been acquitted, in some instances the judge will state quite clearly his or her disapproval of the conduct of the particular accused. Surely it is the right of the public to be made aware of those kinds of concerns on the part of our judiciary.
I should like to conclude by saying that I would hope, because of the importance of the subject matter which is before the House today, which has been raised in a number of instances, and has been widely discussed by a variety of important institutions and organizations in our society, that
May 27, 1980

the subject matter of this bill would be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I am confident, if it is referred to that committee, that some of the problems I have raised in connection with its drafting will be cleared up, and those problems, having been cleared up, that we on this side of the House would be prepared to support the amended bill.


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) for bringing this bill forward. The matter is one which might be considered nonpartisan, an act to amend the Criminal Code reporting names of accused. At the outset I would merely suggest that there are many points of view on it and that there are many different ways of looking at it. 1 hope to bring forth some of those views this afternoon.
Also I should like to say that the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) talked about the civil liberties involved and the balancing of various freedoms. This, of course, is something that is of the utmost importance. We have to consider freedom of the press as well as the freedom to which the individual is entitled. When the hon. member talks about the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) using section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act, 1 would merely say to him that as long as the law is there it can be used, although it is my understanding that there will in fact be a change, and that particular section 41(2) will probably be repealed in the not too distant future.
With regard to the bill before us today, it seems to me at the outset it is necessary to consider the validity of the premise on which the bill is based. The explanatory note in Bill C-213 states:
The purpose of this bill is to recognize more fully the time-honoured right of an accused in Canada to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by prohibiting the media from identifying an accused unless and until he is convicted.
The validity of this premise is in doubt, for a number of reasons. First, 1 would say it assumes that trial by the media is a general occurrence. You may or may not agree with this, but I think that is a fair assumption that can be made. Second, it assumes that the present laws and processes in the criminal justice system are inadequate to prevent those rare cases of excessive or improper pre-trial publicity, which is obviously not the case. Third, it ignores the need to balance the competing social and legal interests which are involved, namely, the potential harm to the individual accused's reputation or economic interests versus society's overwhelmingly great interest in ensuring that the operation of the criminal justice system is carried out with the greatest publicity and scrutiny, with some few well recognized exceptions such as juvenile proceedings, national security, and matters of that nature.
Professor Allan Mewett lists six reasons justifying the overwhelmingly greater social and legal interests in ensuring public trial, including media publication. I will just mention them to
Criminal Code
you. They are, first, an open trial provides some safeguards against unjust or unfair proceedings against an accused; second, it militates against the use by the executive of the courts to achieve its own ends; third, it reduces the possibility of any abuse of judicial power; fourth, it maximizes the chance of equal and impartial administration of justice to all accused persons; fifth, many aspects of the enforcement of criminal law, such as general abhorrence of certain acts or general deterrence, demand that the public be informed; and, sixth, witnesses who have to give their testimony in public will be more reluctant to give false evidence for fear of exposure.
Coming back to the other details, the validity of this premise is in doubt because it gives undue weight to, or alternatively confuses the effects of publication of the identity of persons charged in relation to the consequences such persons must or are likely to suffer, although their innocence is subsequently established, because it is not possible to prevent total dissemination of the knowledge of charges and the identities of persons charged; it is not possible to prevent persons who know of the charge and identity of persons charged from drawing wrong conclusions; it is not possible to prevent some damage to the reputation or economic interests of persons who are charged with criminal offences, whether or not media publicity takes place, even if they are subsequently proven innocent; and, it ignores the educative, moral and deterrent effects of openness of the criminal justice system to the public.
It would seem that the real objective of the bill is concerned with the protection of the reputation and economic interests of a few persons who, having been charged and having received some publicity in the media, are subsequently found to be innocent or, at worst, who although convicted either receive an absolute discharge or a pardon, as the case may be. The assumption that the presumption of innocence is not being honoured sufficiently is incorrect. The presumption of innocence is too well entrenched in the Canadian criminal justice system to be assailed for the reasons stated in the explanatory note of this bill and, as will be seen later, the consequences of implementing these proposals.
What about the content and effectiveness of Bill C-213 itself? There is a blanket prohibition in the terms proposed which is not unusual in the Criminal Code or other federal statutes, such as section 142(2) of the Juvenile Delinquents Act. However, one must consider whether the interests which prevailed, in the case of the Juvenile Delinquents Act, for example, over the wider social and legal interests, should now be extended to provide no publicity in all criminal cases.
A total prohibition against media publication for all criminal offences might not be regarded as objectionable as, for example, a total prohibition excluding the public from all criminal proceedings. However, a number of factors have to be considered in the context of the effectiveness of this version of prohibition, the effect of this prohibition on the wider social and legal interests presently served by media publication, and the difficulties of application or implementation.
The true meaning of public trial is inextricably linked to full media publication of all the particulars sought to be prohibited

May 27, 1980
Criminal Code
by this very bill. This is not to say that the law does not recognize specific exemptions to the principle of publicity which are founded on specific public interest issues which are deemed of a higher order than the interest of publicity. Unfortunately, Bill C-213 creates a blanket prohibition without addressing the issues and concerns enumerated above. Such a blanket prohibition would derogate from the principle that justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done.
The total prohibition will not preclude some dissemination, because word of mouth and court room spectators will still be able to connect the accused and the charge; the facts of the charge or proceedings will continue to be the subject of publication; and the publication of the facts without particulars enabling identification may increase interest and greater speculation and rumour-mongering.
The consequences of these developments may continue to introduce a degree, albeit less than media publication, of the harms which Bill C-213 is intended to remedy, namely, protection of reputation and prevention of prejudice. In fact Bill C-213 may result in new prejudices; for example, completely innocent people may be mistakenly regarded as being involved or even as the unnamed accused as a result of speculation unchecked by fair and accurate media publication. This tendency may progress to such an extent that it brings the system of justice into disrepute.
The beneficial effects of openness, made manifest by media publication, accrue to the public, the accused and the prosecution, and would be greatly diminished by virtue of the prohibition in Bill C-213. The accused and the Crown are assisted by openness to the extent that witnesses are constrained to be more truthful, are induced to come forward, and reputations may also be vindicated. Concealing the name of a person whose innocence has been established can work to his great disadvantage as well. In this respect Bill C-213 could be regarded as inconsistent with its stated objective, namely, the furthering of the presumption of innocence.
Furthermore, Bill C-213 would preclude media disclosure of tactics which verge on harassment or vexatious proceedings such as multiple charges, multiple prosecutions, and unmeritorious appeals against acquittal.
Disclosure of misconduct by law enforcement personnel which is collateral to the commission of the offence charged could also be affected. In cases involving criminal misconduct of law enforcement personnel, and there are recent examples of that with regard to the detectives in the Lorenz case, for one, who forged affidavits, and also certain revelations by the McDonald commission, who are charged, plead guilty and obtain absolute discharges, the media would be precluded from identifying the culprits. This would have a deleterious effect on general and specific deterrence with a concomitant devastating impact on public confidence in the criminal justice system.
The difficulties of application or implementation are considerable. In the first place there is no reason why a convicted person should be protected from public view merely because he has received an absolute discharge. In addition, inequality in
the treatment of persons must necessarily arise. Consider the case of persons convicted of the same offence. Those who receive an absolute discharge get the benefit of prohibition, while persons sentenced to other nominal dispositions do not receive the same protection.
In relation to the application of the prohibition in cases where a person who is convicted receives a sentence-that is, other than an absolute discharge-publication would be permissible notwithstanding that that person consequently receives a pardon. Publication, having taken place before the pardon was granted, the intended purpose of Bill C-213 will be frustrated in at least this respect. On the other hand, why should the fact that a full pardon has been granted not be published, since publication may inure to the individual's benefit by vindicating him? Publication also ensures society's interests by guarding against unwarranted use of the power to pardon. For example, there is the newspaper coverage of a Newfoundland case and the Mississippi case where an outgoing governor sold pardons.
The prohibition, as drafted, would also extend to civil proceedings which arise out of the commission of an offence. In particular, proceedings for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, defamation, assault and battery, etc. could be affected. How would law reports, law journals, bar association publications and so forth be affected by the blanket prohibition contained in Bill C-213? Would the minutes of convocation of law societies be prohibited from naming solicitors disbarred and charged after disciplinary proceedings? All of these questions are affected by the definition of newspaper in section 261 of the Criminal Code. In view of the outcomes enumerated above, it appears that Bill C-213 is inimical to its stated objectives, that is, the enhancement of the principle "innocent until proven guilty". Further, its destructive effect extends to harm other primary values of the criminal law.
Consider the question of the administrative feasibility of the proposal contained in the bill. It is not possible to give a precise answer to this question. However, it seems reasonable to assume that it will involve increased screening by the news media, with the result that enquiries to the courts should increase. There is likely to be an additional case load in view of the nature of the activity and scope of the prohibition.
Another matter to be considered is the compatibility of the bill with existing legislation and regulations, as well as its impact on present programs and mechanisms. The right to public trial is well established historically in both the common law and legislation. The Canadian Bill of Rights, section 1(f) provides for freedom of the press in Canada. It is likely that the media will regard this as an attempt to restrict this fundamental right. In addition section 2(f) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, which gives every person charged the right to a fair and public hearing, could be construed as enabling publication of the particulars sought to be prohibited.
On the other hand, a trial in public is not the same as a trial that may be reported in the newspaper. There already exists in
May 27, 1980

the Criminal Code provisions which either restrict absolutely any publication, such as section 441, and 141(2), or provide the court with the power in appropriate cases or circumstances to limit or preclude publication of all or part of the proceedings including the identity of witnesses and accused persons. I have mentioned sections 442, 457.2, 467, and 470. These provisions are directed toward the problem of newspaper or radio coverage of certain matters. Bill C-213 will, by implication, have the effect of limiting those sections of the Criminal Code which now give the court a discretion to prohibit newspaper publication or radio broadcast in so far as the name of an accused person is concerned.
It should also be noted in this context that the International Covenant on Human Rights, to which Canada is a signatory, Article 14(i), provides that:
1) All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgment rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children.
Article 14(1), which embodies the principle that the press shall be admitted and be entitled to publish, recognizes specific exceptions to the principle of publicity which are founded on specific public interest and which are deemed to be of a higher order than the interests of publicity. Bill C-213 creates a blanket prohibition which could be regarded as restricting the application of this article. The mischief which Bill C-213 now seeks to redress is precluded by the present law of contempt of court.
Bill C-213 creates an offence of strict liability. The desirability of creating such an offence should be carefully considered in the light of the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission in their report "Our Criminal Law", which was to the contrary. Finally, in this context, it should also be noted that the Supreme Court of Canada will soon be considering an appeal involving the right of the public to all information relating to search warrants.
We must also consider the relationship that the proposal may have to any planned legislative programs of the Department of Justice. In the ongoing review of criminal law the Department of Justice has identified all aspects of the issue of pre-trial procedures, including publicity and the law of contempt of court, for review in conjunction with the Law Reform Commission as part of its criminal law reform program.
In the circumstances and for the reasons outlined, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) considers the passage of this proposed legislation inappropriate at this time.


Mr. David Smith (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to speak in the House, I would like to congratulate Madam Speaker, through you, sir, on her election
Old Age Security Act
to the chair. I have no doubt that she will have a long and distinguished tenure in that great office. I do not intend to speak about my riding, but Don Valley East is a cross-section of people from a typical suburban riding in Canada. I consider it quite an honour to be the second member to represent that riding. The first representative of that riding was in this House for a very brief period of time.
Bill C-213 is an interesting bill and one which attempts to deal with real and genuine problems. However, I think that the issue is one which certainly warrants a more thorough and comprehensive bill to anticipate ways in which some of the very many problems could arise on this issue and to deal with those problems.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the present speaker feels that this bill should be given more of an airing and a better chance, rather than talk it out in the remaining few minutes, would the hon. member move that the subject matter of the bill go to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs?


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I think that the bill has a great deal of deficiencies. What is really needed is a bill that deals with the matter in a much more comprehensive way. I do not think that it would serve much purpose to have this bill in its present form go to committee.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I said the subject matter.


David P. Smith: I understand what my friend is saying. One very fundamental principle which has been held by the courts for many years was stated in the famous case Scott v. Scott. The case was held in the House of Lords in 1913, and Lord Shaw stated:
Civil liberty in this kingdom has two direct guarantees; the open administration of justice according to known laws truly interpreted and fair constructions of evidence; and the right of Parliament, without let or interruption, to enquire into, and obtain redress of, public grievances. Of these, the first is by far the most indispensible; nor can the subjects of any state be reckoned to enjoy a real freedom, where this condition-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 54 I do now leave the chair for the House to revert to Committee of the Whole House.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-16, to amend the Old Age Security Act-Miss Begin-Mr. Ethier in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
May 27, 1980
Old Age Security Act
Denis Éthier: It being six o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The Committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Denis Éthier: At six o'clock this evening before the House rose we were in Committee of the Whole and on clause 1 of Bill C-16, with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre having the floor. Was I correct that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wanted the floor?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to take the floor for just 60 or 75 seconds to remind the minister of the three points on which I should like her to comment. The first has to do with the base for income for our pensioners, bearing in mind my suggestion that it be related to something like 125 per cent of the poverty line.
The second point I raised had to do with the spouse's allowance and the earnest hope that something better than that would be produced, particularly for women in that age bracket.
My third point was to go along with the hon. member for Victoria in expressing the hope that we can do something soon about reciprocity between this country and the United Kingdom in the matter of pensions. Perhaps the minister could answer those three points now.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for refreshing our memories after suppertime. In answer to the first question which has to do with a possible review of the base for establishing OAS rates, I would point out that in most, and 1 think all, the numerous studies on pensions recently made public in Canada in the last two or three years, which will be used at the national conference on pensions, it is never recommended to increase the OAS, except in the presentation by the Canadian Labour Congress. The emphasis is always on increasing the GIS, the supplement to those in need.
1 think it is fair to answer that at the conference in the fall the theoretical concept of an ideal OAS in Canada could be part of the discussion and would surely be touched upon by some participants, although if I answer the hon. member in the cautious way I am doing, it is to make sure we are not raising expectations right now.
I should now like to make a correction to the figure I used earlier this afternoon which was questioned by the hon. member for Victoria. When referring to the NDP election promise regarding pensions I used the figure of $2.5 billion as the annual cost of raising the basic pension by $40. That annual cost in fact applies to the proposal made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the basic OAS could be 125 per cent of the poverty line for all Canadians. That would cost $2.5 billion. I am answering that this matter will
surely be part of the discussions, but it will not be the objective of the conference. I hope I am being honest and open in that matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, before the minister leaves that first question I wonder if she would say another word. She is perfectly justified in assuming that I was asking for all pensions to be 125 per cent of the poverty line, but I said that I was speaking in the context of this legislation which carries with it the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. 1 was asking whether consideration would be given to bringing the level arrived at by adding GIS to OAS up to 125 per cent of the poverty level. I was asking whether consideration would be given to that as a basic concept.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, the estimate of $2.5 billion corresponds to an increase in both the OAS and the GIS to make sure that everybody is 25 per cent over the poverty line. Am I answering clearly?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, that would be lovely-that would suit the way I would like it, but I have been prepared to live with what we have now done. I am asking that the amount of the GIS be such as to bring those people who are on it to that level. Many people who are not on the GIS are at that level already. I am asking that those who are on a combination of OAS and GIS have 125 per cent of the poverty line. I am not particularly concerned about the figure. I am asking whether consideration is being given to that as a basic concept.
[ Translation]


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, I am going to express my views in French, perhaps for the sake of clarity.
There must be some misunderstanding about the words because I thought I had answered the question put by my colleague. If we increase the basic pension and the supplement by 125 per cent, we increase the incomes of all those who are living in poverty today. So we increase in fact only the supplement, which will cost $2.5 billion a year. Even if we talked about-

OAS-GIS-with a dash in between-does not change a thing to the OAS. The upgrading of the GIS to put everybody above the poverty line, say by 25 per cent, would cost $2.5 billion. I hope I am clear on that point. The proposed increase to the OAS for all Canadians over the age of 65 by some $40, which was the electoral promise of the NDP, would cost a little over $1.1 billion or $1.2 billion. I do not remember the exact figure. I am citing that figure because I think it is important to describe the order of magnitude.
The next question was: do we intend to do something for those people between 60 and 65 years of age who are not eligible for the so-called spouse's allowance? This means for the majority of seniors 60 to 65 who are in need because of lay-offs, loss of jobs, sickness, handicapped and so on or for
May 27, 1980

whatever reason I think the thrust of your question was what is our priority. That is very important.
As a possible first step for the future I mentioned those between the ages of 62 and 65. In our previous work in this party it became very clear that at age 62 there is a net decrease of seniors actively involved in the labour market for all of the reasons that were previously mentioned, that is, either because of bad health conditions, technological lay-offs, etc. At age 62 there is a statistical sharp decline in labour attachment. Therefore we think that whenever Canada is able to do something about this situation it could be at that age first. But the problem remains the same, that is to say, those aged 60 to 65 who are in need.
We had estimated at the rate of pensions and the supplement, because that means pension plus supplement, this monthly $35 that we will add in July will cost $890 million. I do not hide behind figures. These are the barriers we have to overcome. That is the money we have to find. I see that the Minister of Finance has left the chamber. The minister of state was here. However, we all understand. In terms of objectives, the answer is yes, we would like to do something. When, we cannot say. However, before doing that it appears to me as Minister of National Health and Welfare that there is no way Canada can move to do something for those who are not yet 65 years of age but in need of help and a pension, until those who are over 65 are all above the poverty line.
Tonight we will pass a bill which will cost either $520 million or $525 million a year. We still need $730 million just to bring all of those who are more than 65 years of age above the so-called poverty line. For me, that is our next step as soon as the economy permits it; literally as soon as possible. After all of those who are over 65 years of age are no longer below the poverty line, we will look at those who have not yet reached the age of 65. However, I do not want to raise false expectations. It seems to me that we are not in a position to do so in the present economic circumstances.
As to the third point, which concerns the reciprocal agreement between the United Kingdom and Canada, we have developed a draft agreement. New members may not be aware of that. We had a draft agreement but, to put it in blunt words, and I hope that the officials will not have a fit about this, Great Britain does not want to pay for any form of indexation of their own pensions to former U.K. citizens now resident in Canada. We think they should pay a form of indexation.
When I was a minister early in 1979, the hon. David Ennals was involved in a meeting with officials. I understand their position, that when they were in power they did not succeed any more than we did and that is why I am putting it very openly to the House of Commons. After all, we all meet the High Commissioner at times and we may bring this request to him of about 23,000 people who are affected under this draft agreement.


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak briefly on this bill and I will start by asking the minister a question. In
Old Age Security Act
doing so, I would like to salute her. I think she is sincerely doing the best she can. The $35 envisaged in this bill is the best that she thinks she can get by her colleagues. I mean that most sincerely. I do not think anyone on that side of the House would more like to help pensioners than the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I would like to put a number of premises, all of which I believe to be correct, and hope that the minister will answer my one question. I have here an article from the Ottawa Journal dated January 24, part of which reads:
But if you are female, single and elderly, life has become a cruel joke. Three out of four unattached individuals over the age of 65 living in poverty are women, a brief on retirement policies prepared by the Canadian Council of Social Development points out.
As a second premise, if I can put it that way, I would like to cite an article from The Toronto Star written by Dian Cohen, dated April 24, 1978. She says:
Irwin Gillespie, an economist professor at Carleton University in Ottawa has long been in awe of the Liberal claims for their income redistribution programs.
Further on she concludes by saying:
In fact, Gillespie concludes that budgetary policy has provided larger benefits for the highest-income families than for the poor. On average, a poor family was $2.25 better off after all the budgets were implemented during 1970-77, while an average rich family was $3,710 better off.
That is a second premise leading up to a question.
Third, I will quote an article from the Winnipeg Free Press, dated November 17, 1979, written by Fred Wood. It reads:
Forty per cent of those who are over 65 years of age depend solely on their old age security pensions and guaranteed income supplements.
Besides the fear of runaway inflation, another spectre haunts their minds. They remember the devaluation of paper money in several countries during the inflationary period following the First World War. Some once-sound nations were forced to cancel their currencies entirely and start all over again, or to trade large numbers of their monetary units for lesser numbers of units.
Fourth, I wish to quote from a brief from a volunteer organization called Canadian Pensioners Concerned, Alberta Division:
In Canada there are more than 2,000,000 men and women 65 years of age and over. Several hundred thousand more are approaching pensionable age. Early in 1975, 23 per cent of pensioners were completely dependent on old age security (OAS) pension and guaranteed income supplement (GIS).
Another 34 per cent were receiving OAS and partial GIS. So 57 per cent, more than half of all old age pensioners, are being forced to live on incomes far below the amounts that governments themselves call a minimum wage-
The 1949 dollar had shrunk to 86 cents in 1954; to 79 cents in 1959; to 72 cents in 1965, and in 1977, that 1949 dollar had shrunk to 36 cents! With these reductions in our savings and our income, our ability to buy the things we need becomes more and more limited.
I understand that if inflation in Canada continues to rise at the rate it has in the past decade, by the year 2015 one will require a minimum income of $1 million merely to exist in Canada. People have asked me, and this is not aimed so much at the minister as at her colleagues, how the government can have so many policies which foster inflation on the one hand, fostered in part by the deficit of $14 billion, and from time to time give an increase of $35 to old age pensioners which, in my part of the country, will not buy more than 35 hot dogs. How

May 27, 1980
Old Age Security Act
can they expect pensioners to get by with the same decency the rest of us expect?
I again quote from their brief:
The reasons for our senior citizens' plight should not be overlooked: two world wars, the great depression, unemployment, low wages and wage freezes, the drought, little or nothing in the way of pension plans or hospital-medical insurance plans as we know them today; no family allowances or unemployment insurance; no student loans, grants, and scholarships; no local improvement plans or opportunities for youth, etc., etc.
Now, inflation and high taxes have wiped out or drastically reduced the purchasing power of whatever savings had been accumulated.
Yet these citizens paid taxes for half a century and more, worked or fought for their country, raised and educated families, helped to build Canada into a great and rich country.
The Canadian Pensioners Concerned sent out a question naire to pensioners in Alberta. The first question was:
Do federal pensions meet basic needs?
Fifty-four per cent replied no and made comments such as:
The quarterly increases are far too small to keep up with the rising costs of rents, utilities and food. Without other income the pensions would be completely inadequate.
Question No. 2 read:
Are federal income tax exemptions and deductions for those over 65 adequate?
Approximately half said no. I should point out that this questionnaire is two and a half years old.
Fifth, I wish to quote from a document by Statistics Canada entitled "Canada's Elderly." I quote from page 16, I believe:
In 1975, the average income of families with a head 65 plus was $10,171. That is slightly less than two-thirds of the average income of all families. The average income of unattached individuals 65 and over was $4,138, while that for all unattached individuals was $6,595.
Finally, the people in the part of Edmonton I represent are overwhelmingly in favour of a proper pension system for pensioners. I spoke to approximately 700 of them. Almost without exception they said such things as "pay them a decent income", or "they built our country and deserve to live well in retirement." Virtually everyone in Edmonton-Strathcona I spoke to personally had nothing but good will toward older people. My question to the minister is:
[ Translation]
I can say it in French: after all that, after all the problems faced by people who are 65 and over, do you think what we are doing through this project is enough?


Monique Bégin: I thank the hon. member for the question.


Denis Éthier: Before recognizing the minister further, hon. members will recognize that the usual tradition is to express themselves through the Chair, if that is acceptable, rather than directly to the minister or individual members.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, I think the answer to the question finally put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is very clear and simple. He probably thinks
that by the very sarcastic tone of his speech and question that it is going to embarrass me, but it will not. The answer is no, it is not enough. We have done more and we are going to continue to do more.
Following all the quotes which the hon. member gave to the committee, quotes which in fact established the poverty which still exists among some senior citizens in Canada, I ask him where was he when his party formed the government? To my memory, only one bill was passed by the Conservative government, and correct me if I am wrong, with regard to senior citizens. That bill had to do with people continuing to receive the spouse's allowance until they reached age 65. The way the bill was proposed by the Conservative government, it would cost $6 million, je repete, six millions. Our proposal is $525 million.
Out of their big heart and out of the public purse, they were able to obtain from the hon. member for York-Peel the huge sum of $6 million. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and members of the opposition forced them to raise it to $10 million. The hon. member may have forgotten that. We on this side do not forget. We accepted it. Every extra penny for our senior citizens is one more step in the fight against poverty. However, where was the hon. member's caucus? How come he is suddenly so pure when he could not impress that on his caucus?


Monique Bégin: The hon. member can make his speeches about how good we should be. The answer is yes, there are still things to do. I am very pleased that he is a member of the committee and in the group that will fight for these people.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have the chance to say a few words on Bill C-16, to increase the guaranteed income supplement by $35 a month per household. I want to congratulate the minister on getting this bill into the House so soon since the election. Hopefully, if none of us talk too long tonight we shall see this bill pass through the committee and get on to third reading. The bill is in the best tradition of the social security programs which Liberal governments have put in place through the years, such as the family allowances legislation, the indexing of old age security pensions, rent geared to income housing, medicare, and a host of other things.
The most impressive aspect, to my mind, was that the minister wanted not only to see this bill passed but she also said she was not satisfied that we are doing enough for our seniors. I believe that is the way most of us feel. Although this increase represents some $525 million in cost to the treasury, it is probably a small enough amount when the individual senior citizen receives the increase of $35 per month per household in July.
It is characteristic of most of our senior citizens that they do not demand much; they have gone through the difficult years


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
May 27, 1980
of the depression, often having raised large families, and many of them have learned to live very frugally. But large numbers of them are hurting and to see this increase put in place would be a welcome sight.
In her final speech on second reading, the minister set out her other priorities, that is, to see implemented when the economy expands sufficiently to afford it-for example to see all levels of social security are moved up to at least the poverty line. I was glad to hear her talk about the possibility of a national convention on pensions. I think that is extremely important.
Last year when 1 was campaigning in the general election there was a strike in progress at Inco in Sudbury. Of the people who were on strike there, some of them, at least, were working at the paper mill in Espanola. I had occasion to talk to a few of them and they were saying, "Gee, we really like this town; we would like to stay on and work here permanently, but we would have a problem with our pensions which are tied to the Inco mines in Sudbury some 40 miles away, and we cannot change now". Well, it seems to me it should not be beyond the ingenuity of man or of the elected representatives in the various legislatures of Canada to make these pensions more portable so that people would not be stuck in one industry or in one spot just because they had been there for 15 years or 20 years. I would hope that in future people will not be caught with unsatisfactory pensions or pensions which place them in a difficult position.
The minister also mentioned the situation of people in the age group between 62 to 65. I am pleased, as a member on this side of the Elouse, to see that our minister is not only putting forward a very constructive program but that she is also looking to the future, and keeping in mind the progress which needs to be made. The hon. member for Victoria talked about the "auction" that takes place in elections. I should like to comment on that because it seems to me that in our political system parties sit down, as we did during that election campaign, and draft their platforms and policies. In our party we drafted a platform of proposals relating to social and economic fields, energy, and many other matters. These were placed before the people in due course. One of these proposals to which the greatest priority attached was the measure which is before the Elouse tonight to increase the guaranteed income supplement by $35 a month.


Erik Nielsen: You are holding up the bill.


Maurice Brydon Foster: We not only put that forward as a proposal but we identified the source of the necessary funds. So we were not just talking about pie in the sky. I think it is typical that two or three weeks after that proposal was announced-of course, it was worked out by our policy committee in December and it was announced some time in January-lo and behold, the New Democratic Party came along with their proposal for a $40 a month increase. That proposal was incredibly more expensive than ours because it would have applied across the board, whereas we were considering the needs of those in the lowest income brackets and looking at it in a positive way, because we
Old Age Security Act
believed we were going to form a government and were going to put forward a practical program. We needed to know that it would be possible to raise the funds to make it work.


Erik Nielsen: You are holding up the bill.


Maurice Brydon Foster: So it is significant that the hon. member for Victoria should have been talking about a bidding, or an auction proposal. Surely that is what politics is about. You put forward your proposals to the people. If they elect you, and you implement them, you are fulfilling your obligation as a party or as an elected representative. It is obvious that members opposite did not put forward the right proposals or did not offer the proper priorities to attract the support of the people.


Erik Nielsen: Again, you are holding up the bill.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I am glad to see this bill before us tonight. I am glad to see it put in place for our senior citizens in time for them to see the benefits in July. I was glad the minister ticked off the hon. member for Bow River for his comment about this bill forcing senior citizens to become divorced because the benefit was applied on a household basis.


Erik Nielsen: Why are you holding up the bill?


Maurice Brydon Foster: It seems to me that this is one of the most ridiculous suggestions I have ever heard.
There is one question I should like to put to the minister and it is this: I have received many complaints because the GIS is indexed whereas programs such as the Ontario GAINS program are not indexed. When the guaranteed income supplement is increased quarterly following the inflation rate, the extra amount does not benefit the senior citizen receiving the pension because the GAINS benefit is reduced. 1 should like to see put in place some provision whereby the indexing is passed through, or, if that is not possible, in a bill such as this I should like to see an arrangement made with the government of Ontario or any other government where that kind of practice is followed to ensure that if there is an increase of $10 or $15 in the GIS due to indexation it goes to the individual pensioner and that the provincial pension is not reduced by a similar amount. Very often those programs are not indexed on a regular basis so the pensioner ends up coming to the elected representative saying, "We got an increase from the federal government but our provincial GAINS pension was reduced by a similar amount, so we do not get any benefit." It seems to me this is a cruel, unfair and insensitive way for the provincial government to operate. If there is an increase in the rate of inflation, this benefit should be passed to the pensioner and I hope the minister will take some action to stop the present unfair arrangement by the provincial government.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, may I take my colleague's question as notice for a few minutes in order to obtain some

May 27, 1980
Old Age Security Act
details and to be in a position to give him a more accurate answer.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Chairman, I have a small series of questions I would like to put to the minister. Am I entitled to put a small series of questions-stand up and sit down-and I will be recognized?


Denis Éthier: The hon. member has 20 minutes, and he can use the 20 minutes in any way he sees fit, subject to the normal rules in the Standing Orders.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He can't dance a jig.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I am sure the minister would not want to leave the house with the wrong impression, but I think she did, perhaps inadvertently, because she was not familiar with the defeated Conservative budget or the bills introduced by the Conservatives into the House in the last Parliament. However, if we simply look at three of the measures which hon. members opposite voted against, including the energy tax credit, the tax credit for property taxes and the tax credit for mortgage deductibility, it is clear that something in the order of $145 a month was available to many senior citizens in this country, and that is considerably more than $35.
Perhaps of even more importance was the direction of that budget toward a balanced budget. I think economists will tell us clearly that that is the direction in which a government should go if it is serious in terms of its fight against inflation. A reduction of the inflation rate of something in the order of 1 per cent, 2 per cent or 3 per cent which accumulates over time, benefits senior citizens who are at the lower end of the income scale a great deal more than the bill we are considering here today, and I would like the record to show that.
1 would now like to begin my series of question to the minister. Could the minister begin by telling me what her departmental estimates are so to the number of people who will benefit from this bill in this fiscal year, and what are the costs for this fiscal year alone for this bill?


Monique Bégin: No, Mr. Chairman, I will not correct my previous remarks. I happen to believe very strongly in direct transfers of moneys to those in need in cases of higher inflation, and I happen not to believe that the tax credit for mortgage deductibility and other Conservative budget measures would have been a direct help to seniors.
We may not be talking about the same seniors. I am talking about hundreds of thousands of seniors in need who do not even have houses which belong to them in most cases.
I believe very sincerely that the clientele touched by the Conservative budget, which was defeated by a majority of the Canadian population, and those touched by a measure like this one, are totally different. That is just to clarify in what context this bill is presented.
The number of seniors who will receive this increase is 1.3 million senior citizens of Canada at a cost for this fiscal year,
which means the balance and not the full fiscal year, of $345 million.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister might resolve the disagreement between us if she were to table in the House of Commons the research reports which characterize the characteristics of the seniors we are discussing. I suspect there are many more of the senior citizens who would fall into the classification of poor who own their own homes, and perhaps the minister recognizes that. I hope she has research data of that kind and that she might see fit to table it in the House so that we might have the issue resolved.
The minister has said, in various parts of this discussion on the bill, that she would like to provide senior citizens with a great deal more money than she is able to through the provisions of this bill. I assume she is referring to the fact that on many occasions different ministers of the Crown have indicated they want to restrict the increase in spending. They have adopted a practice which we instituted in the last government of envelope spending, so there is a limit to what can be spent. If you want to spend more on the right hand side, then you have to take it away from the left hand side. If that is correct, I wonder if the minister would indicate to the House whether she has argued in cabinet and whether she is in favour of spending something between $3 billion and $4 billion on subsidizing the importation of oil rather than spending the money on the guaranteed income supplement. Perhaps the minister could tell us how much the amount would be to senior citizens if in fact the cabinet to which she belongs had not chosen to spend that amount of money subsidizing American aeroplanes, truckers who come across the border, and people of that kind.


An hon. Member:: Don't be ridiculous.


An hon. Member:: Go back to the farm.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, the bill would provide more money to help seniors in need. We are talking about 1.3 million seniors who will get that additional money. By the way, as I said earlier-the hon. member may not have heard me- this is not enough money. I hope as soon as the economy expands we can add to that to make sure that all seniors of 65 and over live above the poverty line.
The question of inflation which the hon. member attached relating to the lives of seniors is relevant. If he asks me if I have any difficulty believing in full solidarity with regard to the policies of the government, my answer is that I have no problem. I am not a split personality. I am in complete agreement with the kind of compensation payments which- whatever their cost figures; I do not have them here in detail- ensure a price which is lower than that in other countries and the same price to all Canadians. That is very obvious to me. It is a very good policy, to my way of thinking, and it benefits, among other groups in the population, seniors.
Without quite asking the question-the hon. member merely made a suggestion-he seemed to ask where the money will come from. He referred to the envelope system. The
May 27, 1980

money, as we said during the election, and as announced in this House by the Minister of Finance, is money added to the so-called social envelope. It is new money, in other words, coming from increased taxes on corporations to be announced later in the year.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if the minister might consider the following commitment. She sat on this side of the House in that last Parliament and voted against the Conservative budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: She complained about the 18 cents tax on gasoline. Does the minister realize that a three cents per gallon tax on gasoline would enable her, without borrowing more money-if the Minister of Finance was to give her that revenue-to double this allowance from $35 to $70?


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you do it?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Would the minister consider petitioning the Minister of Finance to come forward with a three cents per gallon tax on gasoline, thus enabling her to double her guaranteed income supplement? I think public policy is a matter of choice, and I am trying to clarify the minister's original statement about choice. She said that she would choose to help this group out. Would she be prepared to go to the Minister of Finance and suggest a three cents tax on gasoline to enable her to double this subsidy?


Monique Bégin: No, Mr. Chairman. I think we explained in previous exchanges of views that at the beginning of the election campaign when we finalized our social policy, the Liberal Party decided that as a party-and that became government policy since-we would finance this particular program with $525 million. This year it is less because of part of a fiscal year, and it is only $345 million, to be financed by an increase in corporate taxes. The exact form of it is to be announced by the proper authority.
The hon. member raises fundamental questions, but he keeps finishing his questions by asking me if I would agree with him. The answer is no. I am a Liberal, and he is a Tory.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the minister that as a consequence of a decade of Liberal policy, in particular the seven years preceding our formation of a government, a situation was produced which has long-term consequences for the senior citizens of this country.


Monique Bégin: Yes, they are better off.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: They face an undue burden in terms of their ability to meet increased costs through inflation. Those increased inflationary costs are a consequence, in large measure, of government overspending. The Minister of Finance smuggled a budget into this House in April. We have a situation where he asked the House to approve the borrowing
Old Age Security Act
of close to $ 11 billion to pay the interest on the public debt. Most of that debt was accumulated in the last seven years. If the minister were to have access to that $10 billion or $11 billion, does she have any idea of the difference in the standard of living that could make for senior citizens? Is the minister not willing, as a member of that government, to accept responsibility for creating the situation on which she is putting a band-aid when, in fact, major surgery is indicated?


Monique Bégin: Of course this is a very simplistic view of the economy, particularly in terms of the international situation. The hon. member does not even refer to Canada being part of a larger entity, first North American, and then of all industrialized countries. He is giving us an electoral speech. He knows full well that we did not create inflation.


Arnold John Malone: You did.


Monique Bégin: We have fought inflation for years as well as we could. To my knowledge I have never read or heard anybody in the country who now knows what is the remedy against inflation.


Arnold John Malone: It is our own energy.


Monique Bégin: I think this is very clear. After all, we have a much better record than our friends to the south. The member keeps talking about restraints, less spending, etc. Was it not Mr. Shultze who said very recently that the American government might have made a mistake and should have been expansionist? I am not here to give a course to the member as he is doing to the rest of the House.
We are talking about a bill in the field of social policy. It seems to me the objective of social policy is to ensure, first, that the general economic background is the best we can provide for everybody. This is my job as a member of the government together with other members of the government. However, it is not my direct responsibility. On the other hand, my direct responsibility is to ensure that the social policies meet the needs of Canadians in what I will call the quality of life. That means health and their financial security. It seems to me that this bill is very appropriate.
Unless my colleague opposite is more specific, I must admit that I fail to understand his line of reasoning. I can see the politics of linking poverty in Canada to inflation, but it is not a direct link. Poverty was with us in the good years. Many governments, one after the other, tried to fight poverty. We succeeded modestly. I think it is fair to say that. Progress was observed, and we can conclude that absolute poverty has decreased in Canada in the last 15 years.


Arnold John Malone: That is not true.


Monique Bégin: Of course it is true, otherwise I would not say it. Relative poverty is still the same. Relative poverty, as its name indicates, relates to the general wealth of the country. So, we still have a very serious challenge with us. The fight against poverty is valid, inflation or no inflation. We had poverty with us before inflationary times.

May 27, 1980
Old Age Security Act
If we go back to strictly discussing the indexing of pensions, I am not quite sure if quarterly indexation is the best form of indexation, but I have the figures with me which indicate that it maintained the value of the dollar for the last eight years. Those are the figures that are available to me. I just wanted to state that very clearly to the House.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Chairman, as other hon. members have done this evening and today, I should like to say a few words on this great subject of pensions. Sometimes in listening to the debates in the House I wish that our friends in the Conservative party would stop defending their last budget. I think it is past history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: I think everyone in the Conservative party agrees that in fact it was a great, honest, outspoken and forthright budget, but it did not wash. It did not wash, and that is why
we are-


An hon. Member:: That is why we are in the mess we are in today.


Mark Willson Rose: In case anyone thinks that I am being unfair to one side of the House, I should like to indicate that we have something like $1.15 billion to $1.20 billion in deferred taxation. If we are worried about from where the money is going to come for pensions, we can look at the fact that on deferred taxation we are getting about 8 per cent. If we raise that to the prime rate, probably we will have about $1 billion more for pensions. However, I do not think either my friends in the Conservative party or the Liberal party would suggest that we call that money right in or charge the up front interest rate on it because it would offend some of their friends and, my God, we cannot do that!
Pensions are really political questions rather than economic ones. How we decide to spend our money is really what we are talking about. It has to do with how we decide on our particular priorities. We think we have a reasonable pension scheme in this country. I think it is reasonable. It is not unreasonable, but any time we think we are being unduly generous, all we have to do is look at some of the western European countries and find that our people are not lavished with all kinds of extra benefits.
If we believe what the minister told us, and I see no reason why we should not, 1.3 million out of two million are getting the supplement, and that means they are broke. So, very few of them are squandering their money driving Cadillacs or doing all these things like taking trips to Hawaii. I do not think we have lavished money on pensions.
From the time pensions were introduced by my predecessor or the precursor of my party, we have heard the question asked: where is the money coming from? We heard that last year when the Conservatives responded to the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to increase the pension to $350 a month. We heard them say that they were spending $4.5 billion on pensions at that time, how could they
double that, it was impossible, it would break the country. We heard the same thing in what year; in the early twenties? You would not care to specify the year?


An hon. Member:: 1926.


Mark Willson Rose: All of us in the House are probably going to love this bill to death. I do not think anybody is against it, but 1 think all of us would like the opportunity to say a few words about it, ask questions of the minister, and probably to tilt a few of our own favourite windmills.
Pensions are of vital interest to everyone in this country beyond the age of 30. Young people like my friend, the hon. member for Crowfoot, who thinks he is going to live forever, are not much interested in pensions, as with many other young people of his ilk. He looks disgustingly healthy and probably will live forever. I think we have to be realistic about this. In spite of the fact that we seem to be spending a lot of money on pensions, according to some people, only 54 per cent of all Canadians are covered by pensions of any kind, and certainly most of those people not covered are women.
It is the women of our society who tend to outlive us by about ten years, and they are the ones who are left with inadequate subsistence in terms of rent and income for other necessities. They live in poverty for probably that most difficult and lonely period of their lives. This is the kind of thing that all of us probably just think about because we do not experience it. Sometimes people with a literary bent will write and bring home to us this kind of loneliness and scrimping on food and that sort of thing, but that really is something we look upon as literature and do not experience. I have no particular desire to experience it. We are pretty well looked after as members of the House of Commons.
We are not talking about that, we are talking about the 55 per cent of all pensioners, all those Canadians who are over 65 and are eligible for the supplement, whether they are married or unmarried. We are told this is going to cost the nation some $345 million. I do not think that is particularly massive when you consider the fact that when I first entered this chamber the total budget for all Government of Canada spending was something like $12 billion and now it is closer to $60 billion. It is really not a huge item.
I do not think people need to express overt gratitude for this increase, but I would suggest to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, like a lot of other members, that it is certainly a welcome step. We in this party welcome it and we would like to push it through.
We know the minister's problems with the President of the Treasury Board who is sitting over there in deep thought. He has his own problems with his climate of restraint, but I want the minister to use all her blandishments to convince that minister that she needs more for the good and welfare of the pensioners in this country. She should certainly encourage the minister to loosen the purse strings and change the kind of priorities we have in this country so that those people who have
May 27, 1980

provided our generation with the kinds of things we enjoy can, in their time, have an opportunity of being without fear, insecurity, poverty and the rotten, old, crummy places where they live, with crappy dinners and all that sort of thing, while the rest of us, including the minister and the President of the Treasury Board, eat in the parliamentary restaurant.
We have to take another look at our priorities, and I do not think we are being unfair in suggesting that. Something needs to be done, and there is no question about that, to bring pensioners at least up to the poverty line. If you are not below the poverty line you do not get the supplement, and if you do not get the supplement you are not even eligible for the $35, and that is pretty clear.


Monique Bégin: That's not true.


Mark Willson Rose: You have to get the supplement in order to get the $35.


Monique Bégin: About 45,000 more will get it.


Mark Willson Rose: I am pleased to hear that, but that has to do with indexing. If the minister would care to correct me I will sit down and she can get up and tell me about that. Do you want to do that?


Monique Bégin: Yes. Rapidly, Mr. Chairman, the supplement, not the indexing is involved. This increase, in other words, of $35 will permit some 45,000 pensioners who now do not qualify to start qualifying for the GIS.


Mark Willson Rose: I appreciate what the minister has to say, but I think the point has been made that there are still a million pensioners in this country who do not qualify. They are the ones who are not in a particularly affluent state either. I would encourage the minister to consider these people.
We are talking about all these things that have happened in Canada; we have medicare, redistribution of income, and all those lavish social schemes that have come about over the past 25 years. The fact is that distribution of income in terms of percentage has not changed a great deal in the last generation. The minister nods her head. The bottom 25 per cent still get less than 4 per cent of the total GNP, or total income, and the top 20 per cent still get over 40 per cent. I do not think my figures are that far off. That shows you, I think, the kind of society in which we live and the need for some kind of change or updating of our attitudes and priorities. I do not think anybody can argue against that.
The point is that whichever of the two old-line parties forms the government it still has other pressures. I am not discounting the pressures that confront the government. They are real and they are there, but the old age pensioners, the senior citizens of this society, are not organized. They do not speak with a unified voice and they do not speak with unified electoral clout, so they are ignored. Unless they begin to organize and put pressures on the politicians, they are going to be exactly where they always have been. I do not think there is any question about that.
Old Age Security Act
We are told that over the next 50 years pensions will be in for increased buffeting. Six people today working support one pensioner, and within 50 years there will be three people working to support that same pensioner. That is a very serious matter. That means we will have to make some changes in the way we fund and the way we react to the pension problem. Those operating private plans suggest we cannot afford indexing. We have something like 10 per cent inflation in this country. What is a person going to do today who is retired at 65 if inflation continues at the rate of 10 per cent? That person who retires at 65 will have a pension in ten years worth a great deal less. The dollar he gets today will be worth 32 cents. Ten years after that, if he is lucky to live to 85, or unlucky, the dollar will be worth only ten cents.
We have all those people in the trust companies with private pension plans saying we have to get rid of indexing as they cannot afford it. How on earth could anybody expect to pay in forever in expensive dollars and be paid out in cheap dollars with the suggestion that that is a fair deal? That is absolute nonsense.


An hon. Member:: He won't be on earth.


Mark Willson Rose: My hon. friend says he will not be on earth. What happens is that the dollar in 1980, if inflation continues, will in ten years be worth 32 cents, and ten years later worth a dime. What does that mean? It means no early retirement. Nobody wants to retire because they are too vulnerable. They do not know what will happen to their income so they cannot afford to retire. The carry on but, of course, they cannot collect from their pension plans. The longer they work in terms of their lifespan the fewer years they will be able to collect.
What we have in our society are the idle rich, who do not need a pension plan, and the idle poor, who retire and get a job to supplement their income. Private plans have been fighting indexing because they are set up to accept expensive dollars and pay out cheap dollars. They do not want to change that, nor do they want to change the fact that they occupy about 50 per cent of the pension business. The last figure 1 heard was that the private plans have in their treasury something like $20 billion.
There are a great number of people who would like to get their hands on that money because it is a very substantial investment. The unions are rather anxious to get at it, and companies are rather anxious to keep it. I do not think that we can afford any longer the kind of mix of private and public plans which we have had up until this time. For one thing, they do not serve the people. If it were not for the positive payout in the private plans, 1 am quite certain we would not need the kind of public assistance that we receive from the treasury.
If we had contributory, portable, across the board, decently funded plans in our society, run by the government, instead of hundreds of private plans in which the vesting remains with the firm, then we could probably afford, either through CPP or some other means, a plan that would pay out and look after

May 27, 1980
Old Age Security Act
the interests of the senior citizens about whom the minister, other members and myself are so concerned this evening. We cannot go on with the old litany of trying to bump the public pension plans up without taking a look at the private plans and the mix which we have of private and public plans to see if there is not a more rational or better organizational method by which we can proceed into the twenty-first century.
Unless we set up those plans decades in advance of when they are needed, they will simply not work. They will simply not be actuarially sound. Many private plans have vesting for the first ten years which remains with the company. I am not saying that it is true of a particular company when 1 mention that company, but I know, for example, that Safeway and Seagram have private plans. Again, 1 am not using facts in terms of relating to these particular companies, and I want to make that point clear. The fact is that vesting has remained in many private plans with the company for up to ten years. It is considered a gift.


An hon. Member:: Mention the Liberal programs.


Mark Willson Rose: I have heard of the Liberal program. I think that they had a tremendous program in medicare which was brought in in 1917. That was the same year that "I'm forever blowing bubbles" was composed. I do not think that we can wait that long, and I am trying to convince the Liberals to hurry. We would like to see a few more Liberals in a hurry around here.
In any event, vesting can no longer be thought of simply as a gift. Vesting is deferred wages which belong to the wage earner, not to the company which happens to hold the vesting interest in the plan. We must look at this sort of thing. If one looks at the Canada Pension Plan one will find that there is a limit in that plan in terms of the yearly average insurable earnings of something like $13,000. I know of certain members of Parliament who make a little more than twice that, not to mention a number of other people in society, and who pay 1.8 per cent of $13,000. Actually I am told that it is a little less than $13,000 because of some sort of formula that is applied.
But if the 1.8 per cent were applied to the full earnings, instead of a limit of $13,000 on the yearly average earnings, it would change things quite a bit. It would provide more money for CPP funding which would provide the pensioner with a portable contributory plan, a higher income, and the Canada Pension Plan would no longer be considered a supplementary plan worth approximately 25 per cent. If people do not have a contributory plan to support them when they retire, then they call upon the non-contributory, except through taxation, plans of the kind we are speaking of tonight.
What this country needs is a plan that will be portable, adequate, contributory, and available to all, including housewives, because they are among the most vulnerable. If such a plan were available we would have a vastly superior social security system and one in respect to which the present minister, or ministers of the future, would not have to come back to the House and beg the Treasury Board chairman for a bit more chicken feed to give to the pensioners.
Generally, people do not like to feel as though they are recipients of charity. We hear a great deal about welfare bums, those people who want to rip off the welfare system. We do not hear about those people who are entitled to welfare, but whose dignity does not allow them to accept it. These people carry on year after year going without, because they are too proud to accept welfare or what some people would call "pogey". This is very important to some people. I do not belittle them. We also know that they probably balance off the people who want to go on the UIC ski team up to Banff or some other resort.
What I am saying is that people want to contribute through their work. We must change the taxation system so that it does not favour the affluent, and we should be taking a look at the pension plan. The Conservatives had an excellent idea when they suggested that sometime in 1980, were they still around, they would hold a pension conference. At this conference they intended to look at the whole matter of pensions in the future, generations from now, and at the kind of plans we need.
I am quite sure that my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, would say that we have had enough talk, now we need action.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: On that note I shall close because I think that hon. members have heard enough talk from me and would like some action from the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: Of course I welcome the better organization of seniors into regroupings of all sorts. Power to seniors is something which we are increasingly witnessing every day. The second thing I would like to say, which probably will be of some surprise to the hon. member, is that the President of the Treasury Board was one of the strongest alliances which I had in cabinet discussions on this bill.


Mr. Herbert:: Mr. Chairman, 1 have a very short comment to make, and two very brief representations to put to the minister. I am happy to see this bill before the House, although I would have liked to have seen the $35 added to the basic pension rather than the supplement. This program has received very little criticism, even in Quebec, although it is of a provincial nature and under provincial jurisdiction. Federal intervention with provincial approval was intended to establish national standards and national payment levels, portability and other national goals.
Where these reasons for federal intervention no longer exist, and where the total spending and the manner of spending are entirely in the hands of the provincial governments, then the entire financing by an appropriate tax increase should be by the provincial governments. The minister now realizes that her former trust in provincial legislative bodies did not stop, for example, the Ontario government from making changes to the medicare program.

May 27, 1980

My first short representation could best be led into by quoting a couple of sentences from an article in yesterday's Ottawa Journal by Bruce Yemen. He is speaking of a couple who are receiving the guaranteed income supplement and he mentions that the GIS is paid on the basis of an income test.
Incidentally, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre talked about universality, but we should realize we can only go part way in this program toward universality as long as we retain the guaranteed income supplement.
The article mentioned that for every dollar of guaranteed income, a couple would lose 50 cents of the GIS, thus $2,500 in income would wipe out the entire $1,250 GIS. The article goes on to mention the provincially administered supplements. That was referred to by my colleague, the hon. member for Algoma, just recently. The article continues as follows:
__many elderly home owners on low incomes are reluctant to move to smaller or
rented accommodation-it doesn't make sense to turn a tax-free home into income which is either taxed or makes them ineligible for government aid.
My representation, which I have made before and which I repeat now, is that the government should think soon of changing the two for one formula to, as a start, a three for one formula, so as to encourage persons to put a little more money away for their old age and to make it less punitive for those who have relatively small incomes.
In my opinion one of the problems facing us today is the level just above the minimum-those who have saved just a little, but not very much, and have seen their earnings disappear with inflation and so on. That is my first suggestion, Mr. Chairman.
My second suggestion also refers to something mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he talked about spouse's allowance legislation. He said, "Have you got a man?" is the standard. I want to go a little deeper than that. At least there was some logic in the argument of the minister concerning the difference between a person who has always been single and a person who loses a spouse. Unfortunately, with the legislation as it exists, we still see an example where old age persons between 60 and 65 who have lost a spouse are not treated equally.
I find it personally unacceptable that three widows, for example, of exactly the same age, with exactly the same income, should be treated differently-one being eligible for spouse's allowance, and the other two not, for reasons that have nothing to do with their age or their income but which are related entirely to the age of their husband when he died, or vice versa in the case of a woman dying.
My two representations to the minister are that she consider at some future date, some changes to encourage more, those with small savings, and also that we get rid of what I consider a terrible situation where two widows can live side by side, be the same age with the same income, yet one is eligible for the spouse's allowance while the other is not.
Old Age Security Act


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to answer the member for Vaudreuil that the first suggestion he made will probably be studied not as such, because it is new to me and I am not aware of its financial implications, but in the context of ways to encourage retirement savings during the national conference on pensions. As for his second suggestion,
I think we are all aware of the problem since we identified it as the next step.


Denis Éthier: The hon. member for Vancouver East.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I will try to be as-


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, there was an exchange earlier in the day with respect to progress of this bill. I have had the benefit of reading the blues with respect to that exchange. I think it began by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council indicating that there had been some discussions and it was the intention of the House that this bill complete the committee stage tonight, and complete third reading as well, so that we can proceed with it as expeditiously as possible.
I gather there may be some confusion with the two stages tonight. The hon. member for the Yukon, who was speaking for our party, indicated our agreement to the proposal put by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council. I wonder if that could be cleared up because we are anxious to get this bill through tonight and not have it talked beyond ten o'clock. It is an important bill to senior citizens. I think that should be done and we should have that matter clarified.
There may be some explanation that the Chair could assist us on this matter. We would certainly be grateful. It may be that the parliamentary secretary or the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre could make a contribution.
As I understand the reasoning earlier in the day, it was that this bill would be completed and would not be talked out. We are anxious that this be clarified and that that be done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Chairman, the remarks of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton are quite in order. That was our agreement, although I understand from reading the blues that it is not quite as firm an order as the parties wanted it to be. 1 think there might have been some misunderstanding, perhaps by yourself, with all due respect, and I think we can agree now that we will go to third reading this evening.
With respect to talking out the bill in Committee of the Whole, as hon. members know, every hon. member has the right to speak. I would ask, however, that hon. members keep in mind the disposition of the parties to get this very important piece of legislation through. The Minister of Finance has been

May 27, 1980
Old Age Security Act
waiting patiently to introduce Bill C-30, and there are only 33 minutes left before ten o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I think it is correct to say that there was some misunderstanding but I do not propose to make anything out of that now. As hon. members know, 1 do spend most of the day in my place in this House but I did have to go out for a few minutes this afternoon and this was all done while I was out.
We can live with it, Mr. Chairman. We want to see this bill through as soon as possible. The hon. member for Vancouver East will be our last speaker in Committee of the Whole.


Denis Éthier: The Chair will take only a moment of the time of hon. members. What happened was that earlier this afternoon a suggestion was made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council that all stages of this bill be passed by ten o'clock this evening. At that time the chair, which was occupied by myself, mustered up both digits of its IQ and managed to suggest a rephrasing of what had been proposed by the hon. parliamentary secretary. I rephrased it rather badly, but it was clear at that time that the hon. member for the Yukon had accepted the proposition put forward and, as the Chair understands it now, and as seemingly has been agreed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, an order of the House has issued for the disposal of this matter by not later than ten o'clock this evening.


Walter David Baker: All stages.


Denis Éthier: All stages. I understand we will proceed with the hon. member for Vancouver East. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Denis Éthier: Agreed and so ordered.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: My colleagues have stated that we in the NDP will support Bill C-16. A $35 increase for senior citizens is an important start, but it is not enough. In particular, Bill C-16 does not cover the increasing costs of shelter, fuel, utilities, and home repairs-essential costs that I am sure you realize are escalating almost every day. Pensioners with no other income will still be far below the poverty line. We in the NDP advocated a $40 increase per month for all elderly people on basic pensions, not just those on the guaranteed income supplement. This, along with a shelter grant, could bring income of pensioners closer to the poverty line.
Ideally, of course, we should have an adequate guaranteed income, not guaranteed poverty, with cost of living increases on a regular basis. This should be available to eliminate poverty for Canadians of all ages, not only for senior citizens.
Tonight I want to focus briefly on the high cost of shelter which is a major expense for senior citizens, particularly for those who are having to rent accommodations at market prices. I hope the minister will take particular note of this and will include this in future planning if not in this bill. Shelter costs are a major concern of senior citizens, depending, of
course, on where a person lives. Almost every senior citizen, regardless of income, has a major problem with accommodation and housing costs today.
First are those persons lucky enough to have had a home during their lifetime, a home that is paid for. Second, we have many senior citizens who are also very lucky to live in senior citizens housing developments, non-profit housing, where they pay 25 per cent of their income for shelter. Then we have the hidden pensioners who have great problems. I suspect many of them are the parents of members sitting in this House tonight who live in nice middle-class apartments, have had comfortable professional backgrounds perhaps, and yet are also paying exorbitant rents probably out of very limited pensions. It is known through research that of the many people in Canada who pay 50 per cent to 60 per cent of their incomes on rent- and this is many thousands of people-most of these are senior citizens and women. And 50 per cent to 60 per cent of senior citizens pensions is certainly something which is a very drastic cost.
Finally are the group of people, many of whom I am familiar with in my own riding who live in downtown flophouses or unsafe fire trap rooming houses, or in damp, cold basements and who are living on welfare, in some cases living on less.
First of all, dealing with the home owners, we know there are many pensioners who own their own homes and who may seem to have many advantages. However, with the increasingly high cost of fuel, home repairs, taxes and utilities, this is not necessarily so. Home owners with no extra income find it difficult to meet increasing costs. Often they are overhoused with homes too large for them, as families have grown up and moved away and they have little choice to move elsewhere.
These are the people who ideally, if more RRAP funds were available, could afford perhaps to subdivide and house other people. They are also finding that their houses and the repairs that go with them are an increasing burden. Too often these seniors in their own homes are more isolated than those in housing developments, without families around and who are somewhat isolated from their neighbours. The New Democratic Party during the recent election proposed a grant for elderly home owners that would help them pay their increased taxes. It was not much. It was $120 a year, but we would urge that this is justified for many of our seniors who are trapped in the high cost of owning their own homes.


Erik Nielsen: Question.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Second, pensioners living in non-profit housing developments have many advantages: decent housing, but perhaps they are not close to amenities. Although they pay 25 per cent of their income on housing, they perhaps do not have the privacy and some of the services that they need. Unfortunately, we do not have nearly enough of such developments to meet today's demand and future needs. There are long waiting lists for housing, and our elderly population is increasing
May 27, 1980

considerably. Funds are not available for social housing which is needed. This is a very serious concern for senior citizens.


Walter David Baker: Question.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: One might think also that elderly couples living in apartments are well off, but, as I mentioned before, these people are also having difficulties.
Most urgent are the fourth group of seniors who are in a desperate situation and faced with a very high proportion of welfare costs going toward shelter with no amenities, no services and few alternatives. This is a really desperate situation. For this group in some provinces there are shelter allowances such as the SAFER program in British Columbia, but these programs are not adequate. I would ask the minister what she intends to do to cover some of these costs and alleviate some of the problems-the shelter problems in particular-for these groups of people.
When we discuss adequate pensions for elderly citizens we must recognize the desperate housing problem facing not just a few poor people but most of our elderly citizens today. Imagine paying over 60 per cent of one's pension on rent, with rents going up every day. This is why the NDP advocated a shelter grant for pensioners. This would assist persons who are the hardest hit by shelter costs. We recommend that there should be a rent subsidy that will cover up to one-third of the cost of rents where rents are over 25 per cent of the incomes of pensioners. Surely this is not very much, and surely members of this House could take this aspect a little more seriously. This would mean an extra rent subsidy of $50 per month, or $600 per year, for those not in subsidized housing. For home owners we recommended a grant toward taxes of $120 per year.
I ask the minister to comment on what plans she has, if any, to introduce shelter allowances in addition to pension increases. Will the minister also press CMHC and the Treasury Board to put more dollars into low-interest mortgages for non-profit senior citizens housing that is subsidized so people need to pay only 25 per cent of their income?
Finally, I would like to mention briefly that I know the minister has been an advocate of an adequate guaranteed income system to replace our outdated welfare system in Canada for some time. I commend her for this. In the meantime, if this bill goes through, and we hope it will, there are many unmet needs of our elderly where we must have shared federal funding. 1 would appreciate it if the minister could comment on what plans there may be for funding for programs such as transportation for seniors, which has experienced a drastic cutback in our communities, since there is very little shared funding now from the federal government; housing that is adapted to handicapped people and other services for the disabled, services such as Meals on Wheels, homemaking services, and also increased funds for opportunities for seniors to be active in their communities.
Old Age Security Act
1 think New Horizons is doing a Fine job, but there are other programs such as foster grandparents, tutors, and other selfhelp projects that need support.


Walter David Baker: Question.
[ Translation]


Monique Bégin: With all due courtesy, Mr. Chairman, I think 1 should tell my colleague from Vancouver East that I am of course aware of the problems she has mentioned. I am familiar with the promises made by the New Democratic Party during the election. This is a first step of more than half a billion dollars. We will start by implementing it in the best possible way. We will have to raise additional taxes on corporations and this is but a first step. I think the best thing to do is to thank her for her speech and to say that this is only one step toward achieving everything that has to be done. That is why we all sit here.

Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Monique Bégin: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, might I just say a brief word which I am sure all members will support. When we are dealing with pensions, some of us think of former members and former ministers who made a great contribution in this field. One of them is the Hon. Judy LaMarsh. In view of the fact that she is suffering an illness, although her spirit is strong, I think at this point we should send the greetings of this House to Judy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not put his expression in the form of a motion, but I think that given the support that was expressed throughout the House, that the feelings of the members in this House would be carried. Is that understood?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am advised by the Table officers I might then put the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
Borrowing Authority Act BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1980-81
May 27, 1980

Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-30, to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1980-81, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Walter David Baker: They are not only the big spenders, they are also the big borrowers.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will follow the advice given by members of the opposition and make my remarks very brief, not because the subject matter is not important, but because the members opposite and on this side of the House will understand very easily the purpose and significance of this bill.


Erik Nielsen: Just tell us why you want our money.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The borrowing authority bill now before the House seeks borrowing authority of $12 billion for the fiscal year 1980-81. This bill also seeks explicit authorization for the government to borrow in foreign currencies as well as in Canadian dollars.
As hon. members will recall, on April 21 last I tabled in the House of Commons a projection of the government's budgetary and non-budgetary cash requirements for fiscal year 198081.1 indicated at that time that that statement was a necessary foundation for a request which I would be making later for a borrowing authority. The requirements forecast in that projection amount to $11,730 million. This amount excludes requirements for foreign exchange transactions.
In addition to these forecast cash requirements, there is always the need for a substantial margin of borrowing authority to provide for contingencies. For example, there are major uncertainties arising from foreign exchange transactions since either a major weakening or a major strengthening of the exchange rate would have an impact upon the borrowing requirements of the government. If the Canadian dollar were to be strong, then the government would have to raise more Canadian dollars to borrow foreign exchange. On the other hand, the Canadian dollar could be or might be weak. Under those circumstances the government would then be faced with the need to borrow foreign currencies.
This margin of borrowing authority is being provided by unused borrowing authority obtained prior to November, 1979, and which is not subject to automatic cancellation at the end of the fiscal year. I believe that when the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) made a similar request last November in the House, he referred to this unused borrowing authority which had not expired and which indeed has not expired up to the present time.
This borrowing authority was obtained prior to November, 1979, and was not subject to automatic cancellation at the end of the fiscal year. This unused borrowing authority which is
available for use at any time and which has been carried forward, amounted to approximately $2.9 billion at the beginning of fiscal year 1980-81. All unused borrowing authority obtained under the Borrowing Authority Act 1979-80 was cancelled or lapsed on March 31, 1980. As I recollect, that refers to the borrowing authority which was granted by the House at the request of the former minister of finance. Consequently to date in fiscal 1980-81 new moneys raised have been charged to the $2.9 billion of unused borrowing authority obtained earlier and carried forward. However, these unused borrowing powers are rapidly being used up and the government requires new borrowing authority to enable it to continue with the 1980-81 debt program.
The borrowing authority of $12 billion now being requested, along with the remaining portion of the unused borrowing powers obtained in prior years and still available, should be sufficient to complete the borrowing program this fiscal year as well as to provide a margin for contingencies.
All outstanding and unused borrowing authority provided by this new act for fiscal 1980-81 in respect of which no action has been taken by the governor in council, pursuant to section 37 of the Financial Administration Act, will be cancelled on March 31, 1981.
Hon. members will recognize that, referring to clause (2) of the bill, we seek certain clarification with respect to borrowing in foreign currencies. Over the years the government has borrowed in many currencies including U.S. dollars, British pounds, Deutschmarks and lira, and has always honoured its debts in the currency of contract. This clause, the one to which I referred, will serve to confirm the authority of the government to borrow and repay loans in currencies other than Canadian dollars.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is a very signal occasion in the history of this session of Parliament because we have actually had the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) speak. This is his second speech. The House opened on April 14 and this is the second time the minister has spoken. The last time he spoke was on the occasion of his bootlegged mini-budget that he introduced toward the end of April.
This is a very short statement. We are expecting a bit more from the minister. We hope that when he speaks to close the debate he will actually tell us something. It is his history in this House to speak but never to say anything. Before I am through with the few remarks I am going to be making on this bill, which are always succinct and to the point, I will analyse and dissect some of the answers the minister has given to questions in this House on various serious issues of economic and financial approaches by the government.
The minister has said, and he can hardly deny it since it is in the bill, that the bill is to authorize the government to borrow some $12 billion during this financial year. It is to give the government borrowing authority for $12 billion. I recall that in the bill I brought into the House last fall on October 23, we were asking the House to authorize us to borrow $7 billion.
May 27, 1980

Some Liberal members, probably risking being kicked out of the caucus then said, "That's terrible. You have lost control." That is what they said when we brought in the bill to authorize the borrowing of $7 billion.
The hon. gentleman who is practically a deskmate of the Minister of Finance, that tattle-tale "Gray" Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), said we should only have $3.5 billion. He said we did not need $7 billion. He made a rough calculation and he came up with $3.5 billion. I am going to make a rough calculation tonight and say that $6 billion is more than enough for the hon. gentleman until he produces some facts and figures to show why he needs the $12 billion. In other words, when is he going to bring in his budget? Why is he such a reluctant virgin in a financial sense? He doesn't want to bring a budget into this House. He doesn't want to show the Canadian people and the business community what his financial plans are, what his economic policies are going to be. Why is he so reluctant to do this when he and his minions back last October and November were urging that a budget be brought in very rapidly? I will refer later to the remarks which were made by them last fall.
The minister says he has a margin. He says there was unused borrowing authority of $2.9 billion at the beginning of the 1980-81 fiscal year. That's at the beginning of that year, April 1, 1980. So the minister had unused borrowing authority of $2.9 billion at that time, he said. But he did not tell us how much of that is unused tonight. Are we not, as members of Parliament, entitled to know, when the minister comes by looking for a mere $12 billion in borrowing authority, just what is left of the $2.9 billion he had on April 1 ? Why is he so reluctant to give members of the House and the people of Canada that information? Why does he make this short little spavined excuse of a speech when he introduced this bill, neglecting even to tell us how much is left of the old $2.9 billion that he had a few short weeks ago?
This spendthrift minister, this spender-he and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) are helpless in the hands of his colleagues. But before this bill passes the House we want to know how much of the unused borrowing authority is left of the $2.9 billion the minister says he had on April 1. This is being rapidly used up, he says. You are darned right it's being rapidly used up because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is a man who says he does not worry about the deficit. So it is certainly being used up rapidly. But we would like to know how rapidly. We ask the minister to let us in on the secret. After all, he is asking for $12 billion.
In addition, the minister neglects to tell the House that he has borrowing authority for every billion dollars he repays in debt coming due. For every $100 million in Canada Savings Bonds people want to redeem, the minister has the right to borrow another $100 million. Or another billion dollars. So how much unused authority does he have in those directions- or is that included in the $2.9 billion? The minister is a silent minister. He reminds me of something people used to have in
Borrowing Authority Act
their homes at one time-the silent butler. This is the silent minister, the Sysco Kid. He is in a constant soft-shoe dance. He is a soft-shoe dancer without parallel in the world. Never have we seen such an example of soft-shoe dancing as this minister tiptoeing through the question period. And now he wants authority to borrow $12 billion to help the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. MacLaren) who has a $3.1 billion oil import compensation bill to meet-


An hon. Member:: At a minimum.


John Carnell Crosbie: -at a minimum. Or is it $4 billion, or is it $5 billion? And the House is being asked to authorize $12 billion for this profligate minister, this silent minister, this demure minister, this shy minister, this reluctant minister-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Tell us how much of that is for the oil import compensation program. Perhaps the people of Canada are interested. Perhaps they are not. I don't know. This is the minister who refuses to have the House of Commons finance committee look into the question of the interest rates. The same group of people who last fall were so anxious to examine interest rates no longer want Parliament to look into the interest rate question at all. Has the minister had a quick change in his thinking?


An hon. Member:: You just don't show up, John!


John Carnell Crosbie: I am getting ready for the business of the House here. Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard the carrion crow? We are certainly hearing a lot of crowing and cawing tonight. Just listen. The House of Commons opened on April 14, 43 days ago. This government took office on March 3, 85 days ago-it seems like 85 years-and there has not been a single initiative in the financial area or the economic area to help the people of Canada in all that time, not one, except for the bill which went through the House tonight, the one the Liberals and the NDP filibustered to stop it going through, the $35 additional assistance to old age pensioners. It was filibustered by the Liberal and NDP members.
Mr. Speaker, there have been only two issues in which this government has been interested-Quebec and patronage. This is all they have had on their minds in those 85 days. Only two issues have they faced-the Quebec separatist issue and patronage, and we don't know which comes first. Both are very much on their minds. This is a guano government which believes in fouling its own nest. That is what it is doing. I asked a question in the House yesterday. I asked how much of this money is going to be used in connection with the refusal of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to put the water transport assistance directorate down in St. John's, Newfoundland, where it was promised it would go on February 16, 1979. How much is being spent on that, and the counteraction of that move, if it is to be counteracted?
How much of the money borrowed will be spent on the Port Hope finagle, the movement of the uranium refinery from Port

May 27, 1980
Adjournment Debate
Hope to Northern Ontario? How much will be spent on stopping the move of the regional forestry office from Cornwall to Peterborough? How much is to go to Charlottetown in additional expenses caused by the interference of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) in the location of the site of the DVA building down in Charlottetown? A shameful record of patronage.
Mr. Speaker, one out of every four of the tax dollars paid by the Canadian people this year will go toward payment of interest as a result of the honourable spendthrifts opposite, with the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), the Sysco Kid, leading the ranks. How much of this borrowed money will go to the Sysco plant? When will the minister follow up on his commitment to the Sysco plant down in Cape Breton?
Our position is this: five months ago, practically six months ago, our government was defeated because of the budget which I presented to the House.


An hon. Member:: The people didn't want you any more!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Honourable howling monkeys opposite. They are either monkeys or donkeys. Even with the majority they have, they are afraid to listen in case I might induce some of them to cross the floor. Almost six months ago, hon. gentlemen opposite defeated the budget we put forward outlining our plans for dealing with the economic problems facing the country. Why are they now so reluctant, having defeated our proposals, to come forward with their own? They were so ready to defeat us on December 13 that they called members in from the hospitals with their ruptures, their hernias, and everything else. They risked the lives of those people to defeat the government. They are afraid, now, to bring in a budget of their own. When do they propose to tell the people how they intend to deal with the problems facing the economy?
What about the 6,000 miners up in Labrador city and Wabush who have just been advised they will be laid off in the month of July because of the reduction in iron ore sales to the United States, the immediate effects upon Canada of the U.S. recession? Why doesn't the minister bring in a budget telling us what he intends to do, or not do, about this recession?
May I call it ten o'clock, Monsieur Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Mr. Speaker, my question on the late show this evening has to do with two questions, really. One was posed on May 1, as reported at page 600 of Hansard, by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) to the minister responsible for fitness and amateur sport, and the other was my question on May 26 of this year as reported at page 1392 of Hansard. I believe the minister responsible for fitness and amateur sport, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan), or whatever his title is, is just not quite sure of what is going on in the lottery field. In view of the new face on federalism the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is now trying to portray to Canada, I am sure the Prime Minister would like his ministers to recognize that such jurisdictional questions as resource taxation, offshore mineral rights, federal spending power, federal trade and commerce power, communications and lotteries are as important and valid as patriation of the constitution.
How can the Prime Minister allow a minister-a former premier-to break an agreement with the provinces which was duly signed by the federal and provincial ministers, his conter-parts, and scrutinized under the guidance of the Privy Council Office and by the Department of Justice? How can he expect any provincial government to believe him in the future?


An hon. Member:: That is what you did.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The provincial governments have now accumulated $170,000 in interest, and I doubt whether the federal government will ever receive that money. I realize that the former premier does not think the amount is much. After all, his salary and perhaps a few additional trust funds make that look like peanuts.


An hon. Member:: Come on, that is not like you, Steve.


Steve Eugene Paproski: However, Your Honour, athletes, ballets, symphonies, the Stratford Theatre and small theatres can use that money, and they can use it right now. The agreement was made by the ten provinces. The cheque was paid one day ahead of time. It was due on March 31. It was accepted by the executive assistant of the Minister of Labour, sent back on April 14, and the cheque was approximately $6,150,000. The next cheque will be due on June 30. I wonder whether that will be sent back.
1 want just to bring this House up to date on the agreement because I think this minister is really not aware of what has happened. I do not like to talk about former ministers who are not in the House any more. My predecessor was a good minister; nevertheless, she did not have an agreement, and I would just like to express this to the House.
On January 14, 1980, as minister of state for fitness and amateur sport I announced that the cabinet had approved the equal splitting of lottery revenues for arts and culture and fitness and amateur sport by endorsing the terms of the recent federal-provincial agreement on the transfer of Loto Canada to the provinces.
May 27, 1980

The cabinet had agreed that the $24 million guaranteed annually from the provinces, and indexed from 1979 to the cost of living, would be shared equally, with $12 million being directed to amateur sport, fitness and physical recreation programs, and $12 million to arts and culture programs.
The $24 million annual Loto revenues would have been over and above the funds voted by Parliament, that is, incremental to the budget.
I was most pleased to provide Canadians with an example of the practical benefits which do result from a co-operative approach to federal-provincial relations. The provinces had gained new funding. The public would have seen less of its lottery dollar eaten away by duplicate advertising and administrative costs, and the federal government had a source of revenue totally secure against both inflation and government spending cuts to devote to the cultural and physical well being of our citizens.
By dedicating the funds to these two areas the federal government was demonstrating its commitment and increased support to two very important areas. During the previous four years Loto Canada had only provided an average of $2.5 million per year to fitness and amateur sport.
I would like to read the agreement. This was sent to all ministers, but perhaps the minister does not have a copy of it, so I should put it into Hansard.
My Dear Minister:
On behalf of the Government of Canada, we are pleased to confirm the agreement reached at the August 21 meeting in Ottawa, the principal terms of which are as follows:
(1)	The Government of Canada, through its agent Loto Canada Inc., will withdraw from the sale of lottery tickets, effective December 31, 1979.
(2)	The Government of Canada will cause Loto Canada Inc. to be wound up after December 31, 1979, under the Canada Business Corporations Act, as quickly as legal, financial and administrative requirements permit.
(3)	On and after January 1, 1980, the provinces will jointly remit annually to the Government of Canada the sum of $24 million payable in quarterly instalments of $6 million and adjustments, commencing April 1, 1980. The provinces shall agree-
I should like to emphasize that this was in 1979 dollars connected with the CPI. It continues:
-among themselves as to the proportion to be paid by each province.
Each quarterly instalment shall be adjusted as to reflect the effects of inflation, utilizing the consumer price index as the standard of measurement and 1979 as the base year.
This was signed by the then minister of state for fitness and amateur sport, the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski); the Hon. David MacDonald who was then secretary of state; the then minister of state for federal-provincial relations, the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis). Also it was signed by ministers for the provinces of Alberta, Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland. It was completely signed, sealed and delivered.
Adjournment Debate
It continues:
In view of the fact that this agreement is expected to result in increased earnings for provincial lotteries:
(a)	the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec will assume responsibility for any Government of Canada share (estimated to be $13.5 million) of the costs relating to the expansion, upgrading and renovation of the NHL arenas-
That is what the previous minister did for professional sports arenas. Fine, we looked after that.
It continues:
(b)	The province of Ontario agrees not to request financial assistance from the Government of Canada in respect of the Royal Ontario Museum.
We looked after that. Also Alberta looked after the Olds disaster fund for the fire in Olds.
It continues:
On or before October 1, 1979, the provinces of Ontario and Quebec will each remit the sum of-
It was close to $2.6 million.
It continues:
-owed to Loto Canada Inc. under the Loto Select memorandum-
That was another problem the minister had.
It continues:
This agreement may only be terminated with the unanimous consent of the provinces and the Government of Canada.
It was signed, sealed, and delivered. I am sorry I do not have enough time to read the entire agreement, but that will give the minister a little bit of information about what was going on. It is unfortunate the minister is not here because I am sure he could have learned something this evening.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague opposite that the minister responsible for physical fitness and amateur sport indeed will hear what he had to say in the House tonight.
I might mention that I am slightly disappointed in that the hon. member mentioned things which of course were extraneous to the matter before us. There are a few things I should like to point out.
First of all, there is some question as to the legal validity of the August, 1979, letter agreement between the provinces and the former Progressive Conservative government that led to the federal withdrawal from the lottery business. Parts of the letter agreement are vague and incomplete. It cannot be considered the necessary formal federal-provincial agreement in that an order in council concerning the matter was never even issued.
Furthermore, the decision to terminate the operations of Loto Canada was shortsighted in that it would significantly limit the federal government's ability to contribute financially toward fitness, amateur sports, arts and culture. Also, it would seriously curtail federal funding of major national events and programs in the culture and sports areas. The hon. member was so proud when he said that we were going to get $24 million a year. Let it be known that the net annual profits of Loto Canada were in the area of $76 million. This member opposite was the minister for sport at the time. He should

May 27, 1980
Adjournment Debate
know that the former Progressive Conservative government agreed to withdraw from the business in return for annual payments from the provinces of only $24 million.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Gilbert Parent: Big deal. We are so willing to give away our money at the federal level where we can carry on national programs, and all for what? Is it so that we can bow again before the provinces?
At a meeting held in Calgary last Friday the organizing committee for the 1988 Winter Olympics formally requested that the federal government re-enter the lottery business to provide a source of revenue for financial assistance. I am surprised that the hon. member would not support such a request from his own home province. I think in fairness it must be said that the hon. member, the former minister, took his responsibilities very seriously as minister for physical fitness and amateur sport. I commend him for that and I would also ask him in fairness to consider all of the aspects of this particular agreement. I know that in some ways the decision reached by him and his government was detrimental to sports here in Canada.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS-INCREASE IN INTEREST RATES OF DEPARTMENT STORES AND OIL COMPANIES-DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON CONSUMERS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, on May 22 the chartered banks announced they were reducing their prime lending rate to 13.75 per cent with accompanying drops in consumer lending rates, a trend which was welcomed by most people. The next day I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), whether the government would call in the executives of organizations such as Visa, Master Charge, the department stores and the major oil companies, Shell, Gulf and Esso, which had announced that in spite of the decrease in the interest rates they were increasing the annual interest rate they charged to their customers to 24 per cent a year. I characterized that kind of increase as a form of legalized loan sharking.
The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) replied to my question and gave assurance that the government expected that these rates would be reduced. He said:-
-the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is zealously watching over this matter, he is very much concerned about it, and he would certainly not fail to take steps to stop any possible abuse.
I asked a supplementary question in which I pointed out that spokesmen for Visa had indicated they made their decision to increase rates on the basis of a six-month period and had no intention of reducing those rates. I called on the government to take some pretty strong action. Again the Minister of State (Finance), made a very vague promise to do something which really amounted to nothing. He said:
Of course all companies, whether in the banking, petroleum or other industrial sectors, are being asked to join in the efforts of the government... to help the fight against inflation-
That does not give us much help when we are talking about a very serious matter. These are not local nickel and dime stores.
Let us look at the role these organizations play in our economy. Visa and Master Charge account for approximately $5 billion a year in merchandise and cash advances. Visa has 6.7 million card holders in Canada; Master Charge has 2.2 million credit card holders; Eaton's has 2.4 million credit card holders; Sears has two million credit card holders, and Imperial Oil has 1.5 million credit card holders. We are talking about a very substantial portion of the Canadian people.
It has been estimated that 40 per cent of Chargex customers pay their entire bill each month. That means 60 per cent do not. Those 60 per cent will be charged 24 per cent annual interest on the money which they owe Visa. Approximately 50 per cent of the customers of Master Charge pay their accounts every month. That means that 50 per cent of the 2.2 million Master Charge customers will be paying interest at the rate of 24 per cent per year.
I am not talking about small companies. I have not been able to get the financial statements of Master Charge and Visa because they are part of the bank operation and their profits are folded into the bank profits. I tried to get this information, but it is not available to Canadians because, like the statements of other Canadian businesses, it is kept secret from Canadian citizens.
However, I have had an opportunity to look at bank assets and profits. The assets of the Bank of Commerce increased in the six years beginning in 1973 from $16.1 billion to $45.9 billion in 1979. That is an increase in assets of 300 per cent over that period. If we look at the profits of other banks, we see the same picture. In 1973 the Toronto Dominion Bank had profits of $52.7 million, and by 1979 their profits had increased to $160.4 million. The Bank of Nova Scotia had profits in 1973 of $56.8 million and by 1979 they had gone up to $180.9 million. The profits of these banks in those six years increased by over 250 per cent.
The same can be said with regard to oil companies. For the first three months of 1980 as compared to the first three months of 1979 there was an increase in the profits, for example, of Shell by 93 per cent, of Imperial Oil by 70 per cent, of Texaco by 93 per cent, and of Gulf by 72 per cent. Given those figures and the tremendous profits of these companies, it can be said that they are involved in a form of legalized robbery.
I call upon the government to take action to stop this unconscionably large increase which Master Charge and Visa are proposing.


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in the last six weeks there has been a 4.5 percentage point decline in the
May 27, 1980

general level of interest rates. This is a relevant point to make with regard to credit cards because what we see now is a situation where the individual consumer has a great many options in the market place apart from credit card borrowing. Consumers can now borrow from banks, trust companies and credit unions at rates which are now declining at a very substantial rate and in a very significant way.
With regard to credit cards, I think that it behooves this House to say that no individual in this society has been forced to take out a credit card or to borrow on that credit card, and that there are alternatives to borrowing on that credit card which are now, with the declining interest rates, becoming very reasonable, as opposed to what they were a few months ago, particularly with regard to the cost of credit card borrowing.
Indeed, 24 per cent is a very high rate, and I agree with the hon. member that any individual who has the option should not borrow at that rate. And individuals do have that option. If one is granted a credit card, one typically has a good credit rating. We would encourage, if one is looking for funds, that one not borrow from the credit card companies, but rather through the form of a consumer loan which can be obtained at a much lower rate and which is available to anyone who qualifies for a credit card.
It is also interesting to note that individuals who have credit cards can buy goods and services with them and take up to 50 or 60 days after they have made the transaction to pay. If they pay during that period they incur no credit charge whatsoever. They have had, effectively, 50 to 60 days free use of money.


An hon. Member:: If they bought it in Mexico.


John Leslie Evans: As a result, there is no interest paid whatsoever. Certainly if they go beyond that period, this government wants to ensure that the consumer knows clearly what the terms and conditions of that credit card are, and what the rates of interest going to be charged by that company are. If the consumer, knowing all the facts, decides to use the credit that is available through credit cards, then in those cases he or she knows what she or he is doing and can make that decision. The fact is that if you pay for your credit card within a period of 50 or 60 days, depending upon when you purchased and when your billing date is, no interest whatsoever is incurred.
Clearly, as the hon. member has pointed out, a great many individuals-40 per cent for Chargex and 50 per cent for Master Charge-are taking advantage of the cards and are using, effectively, the banks' money for a period of 45 to 60 days, paying no interest whatsoever.
I agree that beyond that period 24 per cent is a high rate that should not be paid by consumers if they have any alternatives whatsoever. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that in the market place today there are consumer loans available from a great many institutions at much lower rates. We would encourage consumers to seek out those loans rather than using the credit card as a vehicle for financing their expenditures.
Adjournment Debate


TRANSPORT-STUDY OF &quot;AT AND EAST&quot; FREIGHT RATES
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, my reason for asking for this late night debate arises from a question I asked of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) on May 23, which will be found at page 1354 of Hansard. I asked the minister if he had any intention of referring the "At and east", or Atlantic and eastern, flour and feed subsidies to a committee or a committee of inquiry. The minister apparently was not aware of what my question meant. The point I should like to make is that it is a question that I would have asked the minister but I have been given unanimous consent when we were in Committee of the Whole and when he had his officials with him so that he would have then had the ability to answer this question.
The other reason I found it necessary to ask this question is that the minister answered the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) in Committee of the Whole when the hon. member asked if he was going to refer the statutory rate for the movement of grain in western Canada, known commonly as the Crow rate, to a committee or a commission of inquiry. The minister said yes.
Unlike some other hon. members, I am pleased to see the parliamentary secretary to the minister present tonight because he is the only person who has given me an answer when I have sought information in this House, and I compliment him for that.
The Atlantic and eastern flour subsidies were set in November, 1960. The grain was to move at November, 1960, rates, and flour was to move at September, 1966, rates. This is western grain moving from eastern ports. It could move in relation to any of the railway points along Georgian Bay, along Lake Huron, along any waterways directly or indirectly connecting with Lake Huron, not being further east than Prescott, but including Prescott; in relation to flour it was any point in Canada east of the 90th degree of west longitude.
The ports are defined as the ports of Halifax, Saint John, West Saint John, any other points on the St. Lawrence River east of Montreal, including Montreal. This is for the movement of western grain to eastern ports. This is probably as important to the people of Ontario and east as it is to the people of western Canada.
If the minister says he is going to look at and study-and I am always concerned when people "look at and study" that they do it with something in mind-they are planning to study the Crow rate and I would think that is with something in mind. If the minister is going to look at one form of subsidy, I strongly recommend that he look at the other forms of subsidy.
Along with looking at the subsidy there is a question of the legality of Ontario grain moving at subsidized rates on the "At and east". This is done by shipping Ontario grain west and then bringing it back into the system and letting it continue on east at a subsidized rate. This rate on use of Ontario grain to be shipped east on a supposed program to complement western

May 27, 1980
Adjournment Debate
grain is increasing now to a point where it is almost one fifth, or 18 per cent, which 1 think is the exact amount last year, of the total grain moved at the "At and east" freight rate that actually came from Ontario. This is fine, but if we are going to have a subsidy, we should have a subsidy that covers Ontario grain. We should have it out in the open, up front, so that we all know whose grain is moving at what subsidy.
The concern that I have is that the minister is aware of some of the problems we will have. If he is going to consider the change, as he did on the Crow rate, we would suggest that he also consider looking at, although I am not recommending change, the "At and east" freight rates. I know that I will receive an answer from the parliamentary secretary that will probably set my mind at ease.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has already described most of the information that is pertinent to the "At and east" rates.
The "At and east" rates and the subsidy mechanism are defined in section 272 of the Railway Act. The subsidy applies to grain moving for export by rail from points along Georgian Bay and other points east to Prescott, and to flour moving for export from any point in Canada east of Thunder Bay.
The federal government pays the railways a subsidy to cover the difference between the frozen rate and a compensatory rate. The so-called "At and east" grain rates were initially introduced for the export of western grain by rail in carload lots from ports located along Georgian Bay, the lower lakes
and the upper St. Lawrence to Montreal and maritime ports. Traditionally, these rates had been closely related to American rail rates for movement from Buffalo to ports on the Atlantic seaboard in order to offset the economic advantages of the U.S. route. The term "At and east" therefore initially referred to Canadian rates which would be comparable to Canadian rates on the movement at and east of Buffalo.
Since 1966, subsidies have been paid to the railways on the basis of the difference between the frozen rate level and a compensatory rate level determined periodically by the Canadian Transport Commission.
The "At and east" subsidy represents a considerable cost to the treasury. The repeal of section 272 of the Railway Act was incorporated in the anti-inflation omnibus bill but was removed because of the possible impact upon the Georgian Bay and maritime ports and elevators. The "At and east" subsidy payments in 1977 for grain and flour amounted to $27.4 million. In 1978 the subsidy on the same commodity amounted to $25.5 million. I personally respect the logic of the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) when he points out that if we are going to look at one, we should be looking at the other. But to date no decision has yet been reached either on a commission of inquiry for the Crow rate or a similar commission for the "At and east" rate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 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 10.29 p.m.

Wednesday, May 28, 1980