1969-03-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Eleventh report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in French and English-Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau).
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the International Grains Arrangement entered into force on July 1, 1968 at a time when international prices were under some pressure. It was recognized at the outset that it would take some time and a considerable measure of restraint to achieve effective operation of the price provisions of the arrangement. Progress was made in this direction, encouraged by frequent meetings both among exporters and within the International Wheat Council. Canada has consistently observed the minimum prices established for Canadian grades of wheat.
In recent weeks there has been a significant deterioration in prices for high quality wheats traded in European markets. In some instances and for certain grades and classes these prices have been substantially below established I.G.A. minimums, and a significant volume of business has been done by our competitors.
I went to Washington on March 11 and met with senior officials of the department of state and with the Secretary of Agriculture to see if a greater degree of co-operation in pricing matters could not be achieved. The results of these talks hold some promise for the future, but in the present competitive situation 29180-420
amongst exporters it is not likely that immediate restoration of price levels can be achieved. In view of this the Canadian Wheat Board has come to the conclusion that it must meet the competition in the marketplace.
A meeting of the Prices Review Committee of the International Wheat Council is taking place next week and an early meeting of exporters has been called to determine actions necessary to restore price stability in keeping with obligations assumed under the arrangement. Canada will exert every effort to improve the degree of international cooperation with respect to prices through the I.G.A. and in discussion with other exporters. It should be noted that the I.G.A. itself provides procedures for temporary adjustments of minimum prices, since relationships between type and qualities of wheat fluctuate with competitive circumstances.
International co-operation in wheat marketing remains a cardinal principle of Canadian policy and while remaining competitive every effort will be made by Canada in consultation with other exporting and with importing countries to improve and strengthen co-operation with respect to prices and the operation of the I.G.A.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: While we welcome the announcement that the Canadian Wheat Board intends to remain competitive with other world grain exporters and that efforts will be made to stabilize prices, I should like to point out that in present circumstances large amounts of Canadian wheat are being sold at prices greatly below those paid by the Wheat Board. We hope this situation will not be allowed to get worse as a result of refusal by the government to accept some reduction at certain times in international prices. This applies not only to wheat prices but also to prices of coarse grain. We have lost several sales because we allowed our competitors to undercut us in this latter market. I hope that in the future there will be some degree of elasticity in pricing so that we may sell our grain and meet the competition from other exporters in the world.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I fear that the minister's statement is the forerunner of some very

March 14, 1969
Grain Marketing
bad news for the western wheat producers. I think this is the first step toward breaking the bad news that the price of wheat is going to be reduced.
The minister quite properly points out that for certain grades and classes of wheat the prices have been substantially below the I.G.A. minimum. He says that a significant volume of business has been done by our competitors. I would have hoped that the minister would have told the house who are the competitors who are breaking the agreement into which Canada, along with other exporting nations, entered.
It is a well known fact, of course, that the United States, during an interim period between the expiry of the International Wheat Agreement and the coming into effect of the International Grains Arrangement, was selling wheat some 18 cents a bushel below the minimum, despite the fact that we had the assurance of the former minister of trade and commerce that there was a verbal agreement that all parties concerned would adhere to the minimum set out in the proposed I.G.A. agreement.
I hope the minister will take an early opportunity to give the house some further information as to whether or not these competitors of ours who have been selling below the agreed minimum are members of the I.G.A. and, if so, who they are, or whether these sales have been made by exporting countries who are not members of the I.G.A. I cannot think of any outstanding exporters who are not members of the I.G.A.; therefore, I can only conclude that the I.G.A. agreement has been violated by members who have agreed to certain minima and who are now disregarding the agreement. I think this is a very sad affair and must cause the minister, and certainly the farmers of this country, a good deal of concern.
If the situation continues, I agree that the Canadian Wheat Board has no choice but to adjust its prices to meet world competition. But this will mean disaster for the wheat producing industry of Canada. It will mean hardship for a great many farmers in western Canada. I hope that the meeting the minister has announced will be able to restore some price stability.
I am a little worried about the clause in the minister's statement which indicates that the I.G.A. has provided procedures for making temporary adjustments to minimum prices. Unfortunately, these temporary adjustments tend to become permanent. If we are to have a permanent price decline for the balance of
[Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands).!
the term of this agreement, then this will work great hardship on our wheat producers, and of course on the Canadian economy generally.
I am sure that members of the house in all parts of the chamber will wish the minister well in the meeting that is proposed. I am taking it for granted that the minister will press for an adherence to the minima provided by the I.G.A. agreement, rather than for any temporary reduction in price, if this can possibly be avoided.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I well understand the disappointment of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) with regard to the international grains market, and especially the wheat market. However, I commend him for keeping the house informed on those problems, and for the efforts which have been made in conjunction with the United States authorities with a view to finding favourable solutions.
Nevertheless, I hope that western grain producers will not be too seriously affected financially by those market difficulties. That shows that even when our production capacities are large enough to help supply food to the whole world, there are problems due to competition between men.
I hope the minister will continue his efforts with the co-operation of the Canadian Wheat Board and all those interested in the matter so that happy solutions will be found and that the western wheat producers will not be affected too severely by the consequences of this competition on the international market.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to table the French and English versions of part II of the Hawthorn report. At the same time, I am tabling the French version of part I of this report, as the English version was tabled in the house on March 10, 1967.
For the information of the house, I wish to indicate that I have ordered that copies of this report be made available to all Indian band councils, all Indian associations, to all provincial premiers as well as to the commissioners for the Territories and to members of their office or council. Of course all hon. members will get a copy today.
March 14, 1969	COMMONS



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-181, to amend the Canada Elections Act (Canadian forces voting).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to give members of Canada's armed forces a vote in federal by-elections. Military personnel declare their places of natural residence for purposes of general elections and should be permitted to vote in by-elections, when one occurs in the place they have declared as their place of natural residence. There is no provision in the Canada Elections Act giving the right of Canadian Armed Forces personnel to vote in such byelections. This is a denial of a basic right in a free society and I recommend this bill to the house to correct this situation.


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


Hon. Robert L. Sianfield (Leader of the Opposiiion):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of his announcement, which struck me as a disaster of the first magnitude for this country in that there is a deterioration in our international wheat market, will he give us further information, which I think is owing to the house and country, as to why he believes there is no hope for an early correction in the situation. I ask the minister what countries are causing the difficulty? The implication to be taken from the statement is that possibly the United States is one of those countries. As a result of visiting there, has the minister formed that opinion? May I also ask what other countries which participated in any international wheat agreement are undercutting Canada? What countries are creating the difficulty?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have reason to
DEBATES	6629
Inquiries of the Ministry believe that all countries that are exporting members of the I.G.A., and some exporters not members of the I.G.A., are somehow violating the schedule of pricing of the International Grains Arrangement at this time. The Leader of the Opposition will recognize it might not be conducive to success in the next step, that is, in trying to get support of these countries in an effort to return to normalcy, to point fingers and to be acrimonious on the subject.
I said that we are aligning ourselves to the existing situation. We have already started a strong diplomatic move. One of the purposes for my visit to Washington was to convince the U.S.A. that this is not in the interests of exporters, that it is not in the long term interests of importers, to break the international arrangement and that we should return as rapidly as possible to the pricing schedule of the I.G.A. We are already moving in that direction. I have already referred in my statement to a meeting of the price review committee and to a meeting of the exporters. This will be an opportunity to make our case as strongly as possible.
Following my meeting in Washington, I feel the situation is understood in the United States in the same way as we understand it ourselves and that they will co-operate in a return to normalcy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has indicated a meeting is arranged for next week. Nevertheless the minister feels Canada must now reduce its prices below the minimum provided in the agreement. Does he not realize that the only prospect he is holding out for the Canadian people at the moment is one of continued deterioration? Can the minister indicate to the house why he feels it is necessary for Canada to take this step now, when a meeting has been arranged for next week, and why he believes there is early prospect of success? Does the minister have no real hope that this meeting next week will result in a correction of the present situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order. I make no apology-


Mr. Speaker:: I was just going to suggest that in my view the hon. gentleman's supplementary question is perhaps argumentative. However, I realize the matter is one of importance. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply.
March 14, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: I think the leader of the New Democratic party was correct when he said, we have no other choice. Unless we are willing to lose sales, we must be competitive. This is what the Wheat Board is now doing. By doing so, we hope to bring to the attention of other exporters of the I.G.A. that we too can be competitive. We hope this will help them to realize what could happen if everybody decided to break the international agreement. It was a very difficult decision to make and I hope the Leader of the Opposition will be understanding on this subject. On balance, we felt it was the right decision to make.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Baiileford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister. In order to restore some confidence in western Canada, would the minister consider making a statement to the effect that the price for wheat on the home market will not be lowered.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking a question in which he suggests his own answer. The question, asked in those terms, is not in order.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have to preface my supplementary question. I have some knowledge of this problem because we had it when we were in office, and we spoke up to the United States and they were willing to act on a similar problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker;: Order, please. The preface having been stated perhaps the right hon. member might go to the question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to give the basis of experience and try to assist the government.


An hon. Member:: Oh.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a voice without sense, wherever it came from.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister this: In view of the fact that it is a Republican administration in the United States and that the present President was vice-president during the days of the Eisenhower administration, in which we were able to bring about agreement-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the right hon. gentleman that perhaps this is a statement which he might have made on motions; but he is not asking his question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with deference, that is one of the things one cannot do because there is only one speaker from each group when replying to statements made on motions.
I ask the minister, were any protests made to the United States regarding give-away programs or grossly reduced price programs and, if so, when was the first objection taken? Secondly, is it or is it not a fact that outside of the I.G.A. the U.S.S.R. is now dumping wheat? Is there basis for that suggestion? After all, what we want to do, if we can, is to save western Canada from what apparently is another great retreat on the part of the government.


Jean-Luc Pepin: In reply to the first question, Mr. Speaker, my understanding of diplomacy may be a bit different from the right hon. member's interpretation of that art. It is easier to speak up to the United States when you sit over there, where the hon. member now is, than when you sit here.


John George Diefenbaker: We spoke and got results.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have always thought in
diplomacy the result was the important thing, rather than the style.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Now may I answer the question, Mr. Speaker? We have spoken to the United States on this subject-


John George Diefenbaker: When?


Jean-Luc Pepin: When I went to Washington on the 11th.


John George Diefenbaker: And not before that?


Jean-Luc Pepin: And I indicated in my progress report what we are doing now. With respect to the U.S.S.R. I am also informed that they are breaking the price schedule of the I.G.A., but not being a member of the I.G.A. I presume they can do that and feel better than a member of the I.G.A. should.
This is a very interesting and deplorable situation. One starts breaking the line a bit, then another one breaks it a little bit more, and a third one breaks it still a little more in order to stay competitive with the second-
March 14, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Diefenbaker: And the Canadian farmer Mr. Woolliams: That was when they had a goes broke.	Saskatchewan election.


Jean-Luc Pepin: And this is what we are trying to avoid.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister a supplementary question in respect of his statement. In it he said that the Canadian Wheat Board must be competitive in the marketplace. Is it the intention of the Canadian Wheat Board, before this meeting next week, to reduce its prices below the minimum stipulated in the International Grains Arrangement, or are the Canadian Wheat Board and the minister merely serving notice that they will do so if some agreement is not reached at this meeting of the exporting countries?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I thought the statement was very, very clear. The Wheat Board will be competitive. So if somebody else who is in competition with us breaks the line the Wheat Board, with regrets, will have to do the same. We deplore this, but we think on balance it is the right decision to make at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind hon. members again that we are spending much time on this question. Perhaps we should not have too many supplementaries from individual members.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This matter is of vital importance to the entire Canadian economy, particularly the western economy. I wish to clear up one point. When there are competitors who apparently are breaking the International Grains Arrangement, is it the intention of the Wheat Board now to reduce prices, or is the minister merely serving a warning that we will do so if this meeting next week is not successful in getting all exporters to return to the terms of the I.G.A.?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board will break the schedule of the agreement-not the agreement itself which remains valid-if it is necessary, in order to remain competitive.


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether the government or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce would consider re-introducing floor prices for wheat, which were prevalent a few months ago.


Jean-Luc Pepin: My understanding is that there is now ia floor price for wheat, which is the initial payment being paid western farmers.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not a floor price.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister what form of protest has been made over the months by his government to the United States and, if there has been such, would he be prepared to table this in the house? Secondly, would he now re-implement the subsidy policy Bob Winters guaranteed in this House of Commons to the farmers?


Jean-Luc Pepin: At the time of the Canberra meeting of exporters we made our case, but always trying to obtain co-operation and to demonstrate that a break would not be in the best interest of exporters and of importers, in the long term. With regard to the effect of the restoration of the so-called Winters temporary arrangement, the government is as much aware of the possible consequences of present events for western producers, as are members of the opposition; but we still hope we can bring up the price and will act in due course, depending on how the situation develops.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, the minister in his statement said that the condition may be a temporary one. In order to live up to the commitments to the western farmers that the price will be maintained, and in view of the apparent competition which is depressing prices, would the government immediately consider the implementation of a two-price system in respect of grain at this time?


Jean-Luc Pepin: A debate on the two-price system would take a bit more time than we have now.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question. I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether he has made any representations to the Canadian Wheat Board relative to the complaints from western Canada that the Wheat Board is enforcing the quota system in recent weeks in a way that is mean, nasty and petty, by prosecuting for overdeliveries of 20 or 30 bushels.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The last part of the quotation is "brutish and short". The answer is that representations of this kind are brought to the attention of the Wheat Board regularly by my department. I will inquire further.

March 14. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Roland Godin (Porlneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Due
to his absence, I will direct it to the Prime Minister.
In view of the subsidies now being paid to immigrant workers in Quebec and Montreal to learn English, can French Canadian workers expect to be granted the same advantages soon?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows, or should know, that the minister concerned is not scheduled to be here today for the question period. He will be in the house next Monday.
tEnglish]



FISHERIES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Did a demonstration take place outside our consulate office in New York City yesterday as a result of the televising in that city of the film produced by the C.B.C. showing the seal hunt in the Gulf of St. Lawrence? If so, would the minister tell the house what steps he is taking to have the film withdrawn from circulation, in view of the serious damage it is doing to Canada's reputation abroad?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister might wish to consider a question if one were asked of him on Monday. The department will be answering questions on Monday.



TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
EXTENSION OF L.C.L. RATE FREEZE Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. With regard to the representations concerning transport made by the Atlantic premiers, and in particular the recommendation that the freeze be extended, may I ask the minister whether he can give an affirmative answer now that this1 freeze will be extended, and could he tell us how he plans to bring it before the house.
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be in a position to make an announcement very shortly. In the meantime I should like to seek either directly or through the house leaders the co-operation of hon. gentlemen opposite in determining the best means of dealing with this matter in an expeditious manner.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we would be glad to co-operate. Is this definite word from the minister, so that the shippers will know an extension will be brought in and that the method will be determined later?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I can assure my hon. friend that we are quite cognizant of the desirability of having continuity in these matters and not having any undue disruption. We will want to make the necessary arrangement before the freeze expires on the 23rd; but I should like to reserve the definitive statement requested by the hon. member until perhaps some time next week. In the meantime there might be a discussion with the various house leaders concerning how this might be handled.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is aware of a new inflationary trend in this country in which branches of the Royal Bank of Canada, the Imperial Bank of Commerce and the Toronto-Dominion Bank are issuing cards which enable the holder to drink on credit, without opening bank accounts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have heard that terrible things like this go on in the National Press Club.



IMMIGRATION


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I had intended addressing this question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, but since it is so important today, in view of the statement that has been made, I shall direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that United States interests control much of our industry in Canada, and since United States citizens can come into Canada with ease under our immigration laws, and since Canadians are now on a quota, would the Prime Minister on behalf of his government protest to the United States
March 14, 1S69	COMMONS
so that Canadians might have the same courtesy extended to them in the United States by those same companies.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not see why the question could not be asked of the minister on his day in the house.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The question I am putting to the Prime Minister is not in respect of the facts: We know the facts. As the head of the government would he protest to the United States authorities in this regard, as he is being asked to do by Canadians.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whii-by):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Prime Minister. First I should like to point out I was surprised that the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a question to ask he should ask it.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of Prime Minister Wilson's decision to go to Nigeria, and in view of the increasing number of bombing attacks upon civilian centres as reported in Tuesday's Toronto Telegram, would the Prime Minister now consider urging the federal government of Nigeria to accept Biafra's proposal for a cease-fire as a prelude to negotiations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, last week we asked our high commissioner in Lagos to return to Canada. He is consulting and meeting these days with officials, and with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, regarding this whole problem.


John Edward Broadbent: My question is for the Prime Minister and is supplementary to one I asked earlier. Would he or the Secretary of State for External Affairs consider reporting back to the house on Monday or Tuesday of next week on the discussions that are taking place now within the External Affairs Department on the Nigerian situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will be glad to consider it.
DEBATES	6633
Inquiries of the Ministry



POLLUTION


Mr. Keith Hymmen (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister this question. In view of the great deal of interest shown in the government reorganization bill now before the house, will he and his cabinet colleagues consider another important and perhaps overdue change by placing whatever federal constitutional responsibility there is in the field of water and air pollution under the control of one department and or one minister?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member must realize that the legislation to which he has referred is before the house at the present time. That is perhaps the time when these representations should be made.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the growing tension in eastern Europe and the possible threat to peace in that region, and having in mind particularly the military manoeuvres planned by the Soviet Union and Warsaw pact nations, has the government expressed its concern and anxiety to the Soviet Union and, if not, will it do so; and did the Prime Minister discuss this with the Soviet ambassador with whom he had an interview last week?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the matters involved in my discussion with the ambassador are privileged. Apart from indicating that the subject in general was China I prefer not to elaborate further. As to the other part of the question, I am sure the minister would be delighted to provide an answer, if the hon. member is in the house to ask the question on Monday.



WATER RESOURCES


Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Carlelon-Char-lotie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and I regret that I was unable to give him notice. Perhaps his parliamentary secretary will take note of my question since the minister is not here. Will the
March 14. 1969


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the minister is already investigating this matter and we hope soon to have a satisfactory report.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasi-ings):: Mr. Speaker, is it the intention of the Prime Minister to accept the request of the Canadian Medical Association first made on January 3 for a meeting between representatives of that body, the Prime Minister and senior members of his cabinet to discuss the question of medical insurance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the C.M.A. has already had three meetings with ministers of this government to discuss this very issue. They asked to meet me on a date during which the federal-provincial conference was held, and naturally I could not see them then. I am now considering whether I can meet them on some other occasion.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister meet with this body, which is still anxious to meet with him and senior members of his cabinet, and will he see that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is present at the time, so that he can perhaps persuade these representatives that he is not irresponsible as was quoted yesterday by-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the C.B.C. has indicated it may hire a goodly number of Office Overload personnel to perform the functions of ARTEC personnel if they withhold their services, will the Prime Minister use his office to intercede in the hiring of such strike breakers and scabs if the C.B.C. insists on using such tactics?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Leroy Skoberg: I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If I interpret
the hon. member's question correctly, he has made representations.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Rene  Malle@Champlain: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister.
Has the federal government been asked to intervene in the dispute between the management of the mining company at Matagami and its main French Canadian employees? [Later:]


Mr. Rene  Malle@Champlain: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will allow me to press the matter as I have received more than my share of silent answers since September.
Once more I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the conflict which exists at present between the mining company in Matagami and its French Canadian employees?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think this question can be accepted. The hon. member is asking the Prime Minister whether he is aware of a situation which, I think, is not his direct administrative responsibility and therefore the question is not in order.


Mr. Rene  Malle@Champlain: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member raising a point of order?


Mr. Rene  Malle@Champlain: I believe it is embodied in the principle of the Confederation, where-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member allow me to suggest that his question as put is contrary to the rules. He is simply asking whether the minister is aware of certain circumstances or facts, so that, to my mind, the question is out of order.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Healh Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister if he can advise the house as to whether he has yet been able to accede to a long standing request of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture for an opportunity for
March 14, 1969	COMMONS
that important body to meet, as has been its custom, with members of the cabinet to discuss important public issues?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know that this question is being reviewed, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he can give positive assurance that we will have government involvement in Clarke Steamship Limited continued in connection with the port of Bot-wood, Newfoundland so that the shipping service to that area will continue?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, as a result of representations by the Premier of Newfoundland this question is under review. As soon as I have some information in this respect I will be glad to give it to the house and the hon. gentleman.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Defence Production whether he also will discuss this matter with the appropriate minister, so as to have full representations, and in view of some public statements he has made?



HOCKEY-CRUSHING VICTORY BY HOUSE OF COMMONS &quot;LASALLES&quot;

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in a much lighter vein I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council to report to the house on the last Olympic success of his hockey team, and also to report on the contribution made by the Progressive Conservatives to the hockey game?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to report to the house that the House of Commons LaSalles have continued their winning streak in defeating C.K.C.H. Two goals were scored by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), one was scored by a former member for Hull, Mr. Pierre Caron, and one goal was scored by the Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien).
As chairman of the special committee selecting the three stars following these games I beg leave of the house to present to the house our first report. The first star goes
DEBATES	6635
Inquiries of the Ministry to the hon. member for Joliette, after whom the team has been renamed. The second star is awarded to the goaltender, the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy), for his distinctive service in goal in spite of the weak defence he had in front of him. The third star is awarded to the Minister of Labour, (Mr. Mackasey), who demonstrated the same gentle and bruising style along the blue line that he shows at the negotiating table. Perhaps I may be allowed to indicate that a special word should be said for the elegant bon vivant and raconteur coach, the hon. member for Cham-bly (Mr. Pilon), who gave leadership to the team.
As a final announcement, I have been negotiating with the Ontario legislature at Queen's Park, as part of a continuing program of federal-provincial relations, for a contest which will probably take place this spring, since it looks as though Maple Leaf Gardens will not be in use during the N.H.L. playoffs.


Mr. Speaker:: The three minute announcement by the minister will perhaps necessitate an overtime period after one o'clock.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether the Air Canada maintenance and overhaul base at Winnipeg has been sold and, if so, can he say whether there has been an agreement to protect the jobs of the workers, and the conditions attached to those jobs.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As of now, Mr. Speaker, no final decision has been taken. Negotiations are proceeding but there are a few matters yet to be settled. At the latest reporting, which I think was only yesterday, the matter was not yet finalized.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
the government pursuing the matter of obtaining an appropriate agreement to protect the rights of the workers?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This was one of the conditions which were set at the time the government authorized Air Canada to negotiate the sale of the base. I am sure it will be taken into account in these negotiations.
6636	COMMONS DEBATES	March 14, 1369
Inquiries of the Ministry
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT	Minister in Winnipeg a short time ago, when
hearings before public service staff he said: "Let the farmers sell their own RELATIONS BOARD	wheat".


Mr. C. Terrence Murphy (Sauli Ste. Marie):: I would like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that all of the striking postal workers have now returned to work, is it the intention of the government to proceed with the hearings before the Public Service Staff Relations Board?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: No, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that all of the postal workers have now returned to work, that the grievances are being processed before an adjudicator through the regular grievance procedure channels and, in the words of the Postmaster General, a general air of serenity prevails, the applications are being withdrawn.



WHEAT-LOSS OF CONTRACTS THROUGH PRICE WAR

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce with regard to the announcement he made earlier. Would the minister inform the house what large contracts have been lost by Canada as the result of the international wheat price war?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it has been the practice of every government not to discuss sales and prices in the House of Commons.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister inform the house as to whether or not he feels the meeting he is attending next week will do anything to restore the markets which we have lost?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking the minister to express an opinion. Therefore, the question is not in order.


Mr. Jack Mclniosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary
question is addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and is in regard to the statement he made this morning concerning the sale of wheat. I should like to ask him whether the announcement he made is an extension of the new grain policy of the government as enunciated by the Prime



FINANCE


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: have a question for the Minister of Finance which arises out of recent information and reports from United States sources. Would the minister undertake an immediate investigation and report to the house regarding financial incentives that have been given to Brin-co, in particular the question of a potential $65 million benefit to the United States government as a result of Canadian government financial incentives?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the question as notice.



YUKON QUARTZ MINING ACT


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Since the legislation has been! ready for many months now, will the minister cause the Yukon mineral act to be introduced at the earliest possible moment so members can study it?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the bill is not entirely ready yet; some basic policies still have to be determined and as soon as the cabinet has made a decision, I shall be pleased to introduce the bill in the house.


Erik Nielsen: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure the house that when that bill is introduced it will be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development for our consideration?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, at the present time I see no objection to referring the bill to the committee for study.
March 14, 1969	COMMONS



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the projected cost of medicare in Manitoba for the coming year of $55 million, or about $1,100 million if all Canadians were included, is this estimate in line with the estimates of his department?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that his question should be placed on the order paper.



AIRPORTS


Edward Richard Schreyer: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. According to the minister's news release of yesterday, the government of Canada is anxious to open bilateral negotiations with foreign countries relative to landing rights at Toronto. Is the government of Canada at the present time conducting any bilateral negotiations with respect to landing rights at the Winnipeg international airport?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is very general in nature. I suggest to the hon. member it should be placed on the order paper.



WHEAT BOARD POLICY IN MEETING COMPETITIVE PRICES

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like a clarification from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. When he speaks about meeting the price of competitors in connection with the sale of wheat, does he mean that it would be the policy of the Canadian Wheat Board to meet the prices of all competitors, or simply the prices of the competitors who are members of the International Grains Arrangement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I would think that when we meet the prices of members of the International Grains Arrangement we would at the same time meet the price of nonmembers. I really do not understand the nuance in the hon. member's question. Perhaps he could explain to me what the nuance is.
DEBATES	6637
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There is no nuance in it, Mr. Speaker. I want to know whether it is the intention of the Wheat Board to meet all competition, even the competition of countries outside the International Grains Arrangement, or whether it is the intention of the Wheat Board simply to meet all competition from countries which are members of the International Grains Arrangement.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The phrase I used was "to meet the competition wherever it comes". My understanding is that the non-members have said that they would accept lower prices if members of the I.G.A. were doing so. I do not know exactly how these things operate in the marketplace, but these countries have invoked the fact that exporting members of the I.G.A. were underselling in order to justify their own low prices. However we would have to talk about what is really important in these matters, and the hon. member and I might have a private chat on this after the question period.



WHEAT-POSSIBLE CHANGE IN U.S.S.R. CONTRACT PRICE

Stanley James Korchinski: I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether the recent price arrangements will have any effect on the price that the U.S.S.R. will have to pay for grain under its present contract with the Wheat Board?


Jean-Luc Pepin: It might.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary Soulh):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport with respect to the increases in lumber prices in the past year. Would the minister indicate whether or not the task force study conducted under this chairmanship indicated that this was primarily a regional problem, or is it a national problem?


Mr. Speaker:: The question should be placed on the order paper.



FISHERIES


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State.
March 14, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry Would he undertake an investigation by his department into how the film produced for the C.B.C. on the seal hunt in the gulf received such wide distribution in the United States and in western Europe?


Mr. Robert Stanbury (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Stale):: I will be glad to make inquiries about such a film. Of course I think hon. members always appreciate it when the C.B.C. can earn revenue by exporting films.


Thomas Miller Bell: How about the film "Mr. Pearson"?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My
question is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for St. John's East, and I direct it to the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State. Would he, when he brings this matter to the attention of the minister, discuss with him the possibility of referring the whole subject to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and the Arts so that witnesses may be called and examined?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, the departmental day in the house is Monday, and I am sure the minister or I will be here to deal with any such questions.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, but in his absence I shall put it to his Parliamentary Secretary.
In reply to a question I put on the order paper the minister replied last February 19 that an inquiry would be made regarding the closing of some Customs offices, especially the one in Meteghan River in Nova Scotia. Since many fishermen are concerned, I should like to ask the minister if he can inform us as to whether that office or others will have to be closed?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Right now, Mr. Speaker, I am replacing the Minister of National Revenue to whom I shall be glad to pass on the hon. member's representations.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Is it the intention of the government of Canada to continue to deny any increase in salary and any cost of living adjustment to air traffic controllers' assistants employed at the Winnipeg international airport?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, an anomaly arises in this connection as a result of a decision by the bureau of classifications. This is a matter of real concern to me and to the department. We are in the process of negotiating to determine some method by which a proper adjustment can be made to redress the anomaly which has been created.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: I wish to direct this question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Did the government of Saskatchewan consult the hon. gentleman before setting up its own department of Indian and Metis affairs?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there was no official communication between the government of the province of Saskatchewan and my department, but I had the opportunity, ten days ago, of discussing this project during a conversation with Premier Thatcher.



RED RIVER-MEASURES TO EXPEDITE GRAIN DELIVERY

George Robson Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact the United States weather bureau has recently predicted that the expected flood crest on the Red River in Manitoba will equal the disastrous 1950 flood level, will the minister give immediate consideration to taking emergency measures to deal with the urgent problem of grain deliveries in the area?
March 14, 1969


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly consult with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on that subject. To continue the private discussion we were having, the Leader of the Opposition and myself-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that the discussion might be continued in private.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that Bill C-178, to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act and the Public Service Superannuation Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in view of the opportunity hon. members have had to study this bill since it was given first reading a week ago, there is not a great deal which I feel I need say by way of general explanation at this time. Full opportunity will be provided for a more detailed explanation when the bill is being reviewed by the committee to which it is intended that it should be referred.
While this is a bill of 51 clauses, amending five acts, hon. members will have noted that the majority of them deal with administrative matters, the removal of anomalies or inconsistencies in the provisions of the acts, and amendments which are consequential upon other legislation which has been enacted since these statutes were last before the house. There are some changes in the benefits, coupled with provision for increases in certain contribution rates under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act. Advance notice of these increases was given three or four months ago when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) announced the latest general pay increases for the Canadian Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Statute Law Amendment Act
The contribution rates have remained fixed under these two pension plans since 1946 and 1949, respectively, despite the various benefit improvements which have been made from time to time. During the same period, the contribution rates for certain male civil servants were increased in 1954, and for all of them in 1960, when substantial improvements were made in the Public Service Superannuation Act. Since 1960, the 6 per cent contribution rate for male civil servants has been higher than that for male members of the Canadian Forces and of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, despite the fact that the latter two groups have the more expensive plan, largely because of the lower retirement age at which they can retire on an immediate full pension. Sixty is the lowest age at which a civil servant can retire on full, immediate pension for a reason other than disability.
The present contribution rates are: 6J per cent for males and 5 per cent for females under the Public Service Superannuation Act, 6 per cent for both sexes under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, and 6 per cent for males and 5 per cent for females under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act. In each case these contribution rates represent the combined total for those acts and the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan as a result of the integration of contributions brought about by the amendments co-ordinating these acts with the Canada Pension Plan in 1966.
Subsequent to those last amendments, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has tabled reports on the actuarial valuation of the superannuation accounts maintained under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act. Each of these reports showed the need for an increase in the current rate of contributions. This need arose in part from the amendments which were made in these acts in 1966, including the co-ordination of each of these acts with the Canada Pension Plan.
A combination of this reason, the improvements in benefits proposed in this bill and the lack of any justification for the use of a lower rate of contribution than that under the Public Service Superannuation Act, led the government to couple these proposed increases in the rate of contribution with the last general pay increases for both forces when they were approved. On the other hand, it is proposed to reduce the rate for female members of the Canadian Forces to the 5 per
6640	COMMONS
Statute Law Amendment Act cent payable by female contributors under the other two acts. These contribution changes would take effect on April 1 next.
As far -as benefits are concerned, the most significant changes are proposed under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act where a substantially new benefit approach is contained in the Bill before the house. Under this provision, a contributor with between 10 and 20 years of service would now have a vested right to a deferred full annuity as well as a discretionary one to an immediate partial annuity in the case of retirement to promote economy or efficiency. As the details of these changes are somewhat complicated, I would prefer to leave any explanation of them until the bill is before the committee.
Amendments are proposed in each of the three superannuation acts which would continue the payment of children's benefits until attainment of the age of 25 if the children are continuing their education on- a basis similar to that provided under the Canada Pension Plan.
There are also minor amendments in all five acts to protect the pension position of a remarried widow of a former contributor when a subsequent marriage terminates in annulment or divorce. Formerly, payment of her pension, which was suspended on remarriage in the usual way, could only be resumed on the death of her next husband.
The last amendment which I should mention this morning has to do with the management of the three superannuation accounts which will remain the responsibility of the Minister of Finance in accordance with the government organization bill.
The present accounting provisions were introduced into these statutes in June of 1965 and slightly amended the following year to reflect the recommendations contained in the report of the Glassco commission. After examining the management of these accounts, the commission reported as follows:
The amounts in these superannuation accounts are not held in cash or invested in securities. Nor should they be, considering that it is the government which is assuming the obligation to pay these pensions. The government utilizes all the moneys for general government purposes, crediting the accounts with interest quarterly for the use of the funds. Normally, the government's contributions, as set forth above, are recorded as budgetary expenditures, but certain deficits, arising out of actuarial valuations in recent years, have been recorded as a deferred charge to be applied against the budgetary revenues of future years.

DEBATES	March 14, 1969
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
The related recommendation of the commission reads as follows:
We therefore recommend that a program be authorized by statute to amortize systematically present and future valuation deficits of statutory pension plans by appropriate budgetary charges.
Parliament approved the government's proposals to adopt these recommendations in the statutory amendments of 1965 and 1966. As a result, the government is required to credit to the superannuation accounts in each fiscal year an amount equal to the deficiences which arise from pay increases authorized in that year or are reported in any actuarial valuation report which is laid before parliament in that year. These credits, which are initially made in the form of so-called deferred charges, have to be amortized by budgetary payments in five equal annual instalments commencing in the year in which the deferred charge is credited. These instalments are expected to cost the government in excess of $200 million in this fiscal year.
The government has always recognized that these deficiences, deferred charge credits and resulting budgetary amortization payments would have been substantially smaller if interest had been credited to the account at a higher rate than the 4 per cent which has been payable, at first monthly and more recently quarterly, since the oldest of these accounts came into existence in 1924. Over those years the yield on long-term government bonds has been above, below and now again above this long-term rate of 4 per cent. As answers to parliamentary questions have indicated, up until quite recently the net over-all effect would not have been greatly different had a rate which followed the longterm bond rate been used.
It is not so many years since the government was criticized for crediting interest at a rate which was far too high and thereby being too generous to its employees in comparison with others. Now, of course, the criticism is from the other direction. While it can be shown that the use of an interest rate based on that approved by parliament for the Canada Pension Plan, for example, would not have been sufficient to do away completely with the need for these special contributions, the government recognizes that the validity of the criticism of the 4 per cent rate is realistic at the present time.
The proposed amendments to the accounts sections of the three superannuation acts accordingly contemplate an increase in the
March 14, 1969	COMMONS
interest rate but provide that these higher interest credits are to be applied against the deficiency payments. This is the procedure which would be followed in the operation of a private pension fund which was required to make good deficiencies over a limited period of years under the relevant federal or provincial legislation requiring the solvency of pension funds. While this would substantially reduce, it would not eliminate the special contributions under present conditions.
Here I should point out that these special contributions by the government are in excess of the regular matching contributions for current service which the government has made under the Public Service Superannuation Act and the corresponding regular current contributions under the other two acts. These regular current contributions under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act have to be even higher than under the Public Service Superannuation Act because of the higher pension cost due to lower retirement ages under those acts. These regular contributions were 10 per cent of pay or one and two-thirds times those of the members of those forces for many years. Accordingly, hon. members will appreciate that, when faced with the need to increase these regular contributions because of benefit improvements over the years, the government felt that the increase required in the current rate of contributions should be shared by the members of those forces, as proposed earlier.
Thus an increase in the interest rate is not expected to create any surplus which would permit a reduction in current contributions or an improvement in benefits. The special contributions which otherwise would have been made will simply be reduced by the amount of the additional interest under present conditions. Nor will it produce a surplus from which an increase in pensions could be paid to those already retired. It will be contended that the government should dip into these funds, pay an increase in pensions nevertheless and leave to the future the question of repaying the new deficit that this would create. But if it did so the statute would require the government to make good this deficiency by budgetary charges, so that this provides no easy way out for the government under the present budgetary position.
Moreover, the government does not propose to abandon the statutory approach recommended by the Glassco commission and brought into force less than four years ago whereby the costs of pensions being earned
DEBATES	6641
Statute Law Amendment Act each year are disclosed to the public and met by the government on a basis which does not leave huge hidden deficits for future taxpayers to meet. The federal and provincial statutes dealing with solvency of private pension funds require certain funding procedures which the government feels it should follow as well.
This brings me to a subject which, as some hon. members have noted, is not included in this bill, namely, amendments to the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act.
Shortly after assuming office, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated in response to inquiries that he had arranged for a thorough review of the costs and benefits involved in our social security system in order to have a basis for a reappraisal of the government's policy in this area to ensure that the best use is made of social security payments of all kinds, taking into account the needs of individuals and the economic costs and consequences to the country as a whole. He went on to say that this report would take into account the question of the difficulties now being experienced by those living on pension. The specific question of increasing the pensions of retired public servants was included in this general review to which the Prime Minister referred. The report on this aspect of the review has now been received and is being studied by the government relation to all the other aspects of this broad question. I regret to say that it has not been possible for the government to reach a decision at this time which would permit the inclusion of amendments to the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act in this bill. However, I can assure hon. members that this is continuing to receive active study by the government.
I commend this bill to the house for second reading and referral to committee.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, my observations will not be long at this stage of the bill. Obviously, as the minister has said, the bill is one of some considerable complexity and lends itself to more careful and detailed study in the standing committee. I think it is fortunate for us in this house and for the country generally that over the last few years there have been a number of hon. members who, through the medium of committees and their attention to pensions issues of this kind in the public service, have developed a knowledge of the subject and its details that will be most useful when the committee deals with the bill. For that reason I for one am most anxious that
March 14, 1969

Statute Law Amendment Act the bill receive second reading as soon as possible so it can then be sent to the committee. While I think there may be one or two speakers from this party, our observations will in any event not be long and we will certainly not delay second reading of the bill.
As a preliminary observation may I say I am a little puzzled as to why this bill is being sent to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. It seems to me there are other committees more particularly suited to deal with this matter. I think the subject matter of the bill is more relevant to the consideration of other committees. In addition, the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs has a tremendous amount of work before it and it will have other responsibilities. This bill is long and complicated.
While it is true that under our present system we can exchange personnel to man committees with other people in addition to the regular members, I would have thought it much more advisable to send the bill to a different committee. I sometimes wonder what is the rationale here. What started out as a very excellent idea to break the work of the house down into committees is in fact itself breaking down, and our committee system is not working as it should. For this I must place a lot of the blame on the government.
I shall make one or two observations about the bill, mainly in the hope that the matters I bring up will be considered in the committee. The bill calls for an increase in the contributions of contributors to various pension and superannuation schemes. One thing we will be interested in knowing, and I do not think the minister covered it, is whether there are to be increases in payments from the various pension funds. These have been provided for in the past, and from all indications the funds very greatly exceed the day to day or year to year requirements.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
In speaking of the provisions with respect to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act it seems to me that here there is a breach of a very solemn undertaking. We become accustomed to breaches of undertaking by this government and to classifying them. A solemn undertaking was given by the former minister of national defence. He said that no serviceman would suffer by reason of voluntary withdrawal following unification. Yet we find that most restrictive interpretations have been imposed on voluntary withdrawals with

a view to discouraging expressions of disapproval of unification by servicemen. Certainly servicemen in many cases have been made prisoners of their pension scheme. The committee could look into this matter and no doubt evidence will be available. What has happened, it seems to me, constitutes a breach of the very solemn undertaking previously given.
I ask the government whether it will not consider R.C.M.P. pensions with respect to those members of the force who retired prior to 1958. So far as I can see the bill brings in no change in this regard. There is a tremendous disparity in present pay scales and scales of superannuation pay between officers and men who have served their full careers in the force. Their pensions are based on pay scales far removed from those applicable today. Tied to the steadily increasing inflation and the effect that has on the limited pensions which these people are receiving, this can only be regarded by hon. members with apprehension and concern.
The same thing applies to public servants who retired prior to 1958. A completely unrealistic comparison has been made, notwithstanding the repeated representations made by hon. members over the years. I pay tribute to hon. members who have done so. Some of them are still here and can speak for themselves. I would not like this occasion to pass without paying tribute to the former member for Carleton, Hon. R. A. Bell, who no longer is a member of the house. Throughout his period in the house he continued making representations with respect to this matter. Other hon. members interested in the subject are still here and I am sure that to them the provisions of the bill constitute a real measure of inequity. No doubt they will deal with that both here and in committee.
I hope the committee will look into the effect of the inauguration of immediate annuities versus deferred annuities as applied previously. This matter is referred to in clause 5 of the proposed bill. We approve the incorporation of active service into regular service in connection with these proposals. This has long been a sore point and we heartily approve of the change. We also approve of clause 35 which gives retired R.C.M.P. personnel the right to treatment allowances similar to those given to disabled veterans.
I thought of dealing with a number of other matters but will not since the bill is to be dealt with in committee. We propose to approve it now on the understanding that we
March 14, 1969	COMMONS
are not approving all aspects of the bill. We are sending it to committee and when it comes back it will be dealt with further.
I end by saying that I regret very much the remarks of the minister to the effect that although the government has possession of the report on increasing the pensions of retired public servants it has not been able to incorporate any proposals or recommendations arising out of it in this bill. The tragedy of inadequate pensions has been with some of our retired civil servants for a great number of years. No target date has been established for implementing the recommendations of the report. This session is to last only two and a half months longer after Easter and, according to the legislative diet the house leader has indicated the government wishes to process, the house will be too busy to deal with the proposals of the report. I am beginning to despair that despite all our good intentions- and we know what the road to hell is paved with-this session will end without anything having been done in this field. No particular legislative proposals will have been brought forward, and it is a matter of great regret to me and other hon. members that this is the case.
That is all I have to say. I hope the bill will pass rapidly through the present stage so that it may receive in committee the attention it deserves and come back to be considered further here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, for the most part the provisions of this bill are good and we welcome them. They will have our support. I think most hon. members who are here could guess my next sentence. The disappointing part about this bill-


Mr. Cadieux (Labelle):: Is what is not in it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: is what is not in it. You guessed it.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I quoted you before you said it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: suppose I should be consoled by the fact that the President of the Treasury Board has had this matter on his conscience.


Gerald William Baldwin: What!


Stanley Howard Knowles: He
took a moment or two to admit that there is legislation such as the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act. He admitted that the bill
DEBATES	6643
Statute Law Amendment Act amends five statutes but not that one. He also admitted that the matter of increasing the pensions of civil servants already retired is under serious, active and, I think, intensive consideration.


An hon. Member:: For how long has that been going on?


Stanley Howard Knowles: To
my knowledge it has been under consideration for over 20 years, nearly 25. I hope we can persuade the government this afternoon to make a break-through, get over the hump and deal with this matter.
Fridays have the advantage that attendance in the house is something less than 100 per cent. Proceedings quieten down and become serene. Although some of our beloved colleagues may not be here, I notice with interest the presence of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) and the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). The hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard) told me he had a luncheon engagement but would be here this afternoon. I suspect others may join us.
I think I can speak for all the Liberals I have referred to as well as for my Conservative friends interested in this matter and my colleagues to our left when I say that one thing we will not do this afternoon is fight with each other. We are here with a common purpose and interest and we want to get action on this important matter. I believe other speeches will be forthcoming and I hope the result will be a break-through statement from the President of the Treasury Board. I hope he will get to the point of telling his cabinet colleagues that the time to act on this matter is now.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am bleeding already.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
President of the Treasury Board says he is bleeding already. Well, we are making progress.
As I said, a number of provisions in the bill are good and we welcome them. Perhaps I might make it clear that I did not use those words just to say something nice. I like the provision that will make it possible for a widow of a retired civil servant who has married again and had her pension suspended to have that pension reinstated if her second husband runs out on her. As the law now stands, the pension of a widow of a retired civil servant is suspended when she marries a
March 14, 1969

Statute Law Amendment Act second time. If the husband dies she gets it back. If her second husband does not die but there is a divorce, annulment or departure on the part of the husband, she is left without any pension. It is good that we are to have something done about widows caught in that situation. There are not many like that, I believe, but it is good that we are doing something for those who are so caught.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
But what about thousands of widows who do not marry again? Widows of retired civil servants receive pensions which are only 50 per cent of what their husbands' pensions were. Widows of members of parliament get 60 per cent. This is an element of discrimination which I do not think should persist. As a matter of fact, the percentage should be even higher. Something should certainly be done for a widow in the first year after her husband's death when she is trying to maintain the kind of life which they had. At any rate, an improvement is being made and we welcome it.
I notice that the bill provides for the right of a widow on remarriage to commute any value that she is entitled to into a lump sum payment. I think that is good.
I like the provision in the bill that will extend to children of deceased civil servants a pension benefit if those children continue in school or university up to the age of 25. That also is good. This is, of course, another charge on the fund. We are told time and time again the fund cannot afford these extra charges that we propose, but the government does find a few additional charges which it can make on the fund and still carry on. I know there is a difference of degree as well as of kind, but I am looking for some kindness. The minister realizes there are some things which need to be dealt with. I think there are a lot more and I shall come to them in a few minutes.
It is also good that the bill seeks to clarify some ambiguities that existed in relating pensions under these acts to the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan. For the most part, these are technicalities that the bill clears up. There has also been a distinction made between pensions drawn under the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan on the basis of retirement and pensions on the basis of a disability. These amendments are all good and we welcome them.
The proposal to have pensions render the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act on the same basis as pensions under the Public Service Superannuation Act is a desirable step.
There is one rather major change that is being made by the bill. I have no objection to it, but I think it keeps alive the mythology about pensions that some day we shall have to explode. I refer to the playing around with the fund and the accounting methods. This is not a very professional term to describe what the minister outlined this morning, namely, that provision is being made for a possible increase in the rate of interest to be applied to these funds. The minister did not leave any chance for people to think that this money might be used to pay increased benefits. The minister said precisely that it would not be used for that purpose. He said that in making provision for a higher rate of interest the government is taking the right to cut down the amount of the special contributions that are added from tune to time to keep the fund actuarially in balance.
This is understandable, Mr. Speaker, to anyone who studies this whole subject, but I am sure the minister will not be surprised if some retired civil servants get the notion and even make the charge that the government has done this as a sort of trick, that the government is making provision for the rate of interest to be increased just to show retired civil servants that this is not a way to get increased pension benefits for them. The minister looks at me with a "you know better" expression, but he will have a hard job explaining this to many people. Many people feel that if the government would add one percentage point to the rate of interest, this would provide a sum of money out of which increased benefits could be paid.
A mythology has developed about these pension funds that is highly fictional. We seem to have developed the notion that if money is puit into a fund, somehow, with the interest that is added and so on, there will be money there to pay pensions at a later date which will not cost any one any money. People also have the notion they have a certain right to a pension that they have paid for themselves. The plain fact of the matter is that when people draw pensions they receive a portion of the goods and services being produced today. No matter how many complicated funds are developed, pensions are a pay as you go proposition. People who are retired today are not receiving money which is coming out of a fund. They are not living
March 14, 1969	COMMONS
on goods and services that have been stored. They are receiving money which represents a portion of the goods and services being produced today. In other words, people working today are providing the major part of today's pensions. What is the quid pro quo for the people who are working today? It is that life, society and the government go on and when today's workers retire, the workers of that time will contribute a portion of what they produce to provide a pension for those who are then retired. I am sure the minister agrees with this philosophical part of my remarks as to how pensions operate.
We are trying to kid the troops by having people put money into funds such as the public service superannuation fund and the old age security fund. We try to make people feel they are receiving pensions because they put the money in there, or we try to develop a scheme under which the government can say to people: You cannot get any more because there is not enough money in the fund. I am prepared to admit the logical sequence to this bit of philosophy in which I have been indulging, and it is this: If better pensions are to be paid to people on old age security, people retired from private industry or the civil service, there must be a deliberate decision by the people producing the wealth today that this is to be done.
When I ask the federal government to do something for retired civil servants I am asking for a deliberate decision by a society as affluent as ours. In our society we produce as much as we can and we are able to do this because of the people who preceded us, built up our society and are today retired. The people who are now retired do not receive a decent pension or have a decent standard of living. Retired people in their sixties or seventies should not have only enough to keep up with the cost of living but should be able to enjoy their retirement.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
Because I hold these views about pension funds, I am not as excited about the clauses in this bill that dress up the accounting procedure. I know it will be neater as an accounting proposition to make sure that the fund is actuarially sound, that there is enough there to pay the pensions that have been built up, and so on. It will be nice to be able to say in accounting terms that we are not having to make as heavy charges against current revenues as we would if we were not paying this higher rate of interest, but it all adds up
DEBATES	6645
Statute Law Amendment Act really to just a fine piece of bookkeeping that is far removed from the reality of the situation.
The reality of the situation is that there are retired people today who worked hard to build the country to what it is, whether they were in private industry or in government service. We are now thinking of those who were in government service, who worked hard to build the public service to what it is, to provide the support for the kind of things we try to do in government. Today they are retired and I am sure all those hon. members whose names I have mentioned, in fact all of us in this house, agree that these people ought to have a decent break in terms of pensions today that are not just tied to a fund, not just related to what they were earning 10, 20 or 30 years ago, but are related to what society is able to produce today.
I said initially that I thought there were a number of things in this bill that were good, and I have tried to back up that statement by pointing out those things that I do welcome wholeheartedly. I have spent a moment or two on the question of revamping the fund, not that I think there is anything wrong with it in accounting or bookkeeping terms but rather because I think it is misleading. It keeps alive the mythology that somehow or other these pensions are paid out of the fund.
I remember that some years ago-I think it was 1950-we were discussing in the old age security committee various ways of getting rid of the means test and improving old age pensions. At that time we had an interesting member from Saskatchewan by the name of Ferrie. He was a Liberal. He has passed on and so perhaps I can quote him. We were talking about ways and means of paying a good-sized old age security pension, which in those days meant $40 a month. Dr. George Davidson was the Deputy Minister of Welfare and was the chief witness before our committee. At one point when we got to a question period Mr. Ferrie had a bright idea. He asked, "Could we, by following the funding principle, get to the point where we have put enough money in and do not have to pay any more money in because the interest on the fund will pay the pensions for everyone?" Hon. members know Dr. Davidson. He answered in a very nice, academic way. I mention this incident because it is an illustration of the extreme notions that some people have about pension funds. Pensions are not paid out of anything that is stored up; they are paid out of current production.
March 14, 1969

Statute Law Amendment Act
The present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), when he was minister of finance, at one point when we were discussing funds said he agreed with me that we should get on to a pay as you go basis. This is, in fact, what we do. We talk about the public service superannuation fund. Fund? Is that money somewhere? Is it in the Bank of Montreal, in the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, with some trust company, in the Bank of Canada, or anywhere else? No. That fund simply represents figures on the books of the government of Canada. Theoretically the money is there in the consolidated revenue fund, but it is there only in figures on the books.
When the 5 per cent or 64 per cent is deducted from a civil servant's pay, does that mean that so many dollars are actually kept back from his or her pay and put into a fund somewhere? No. It simply means that he gets 934 Per cent of his pay and she gets 95 per cent of her pay and the rest is added to the books in so many figures. I do not quarrel with this procedure but I spell it out to make the point that pensions are a pay as you go proposition and that they represent deliberate choice, and I dare to believe that the other hon. members I have mentioned who will be taking part in this debate agree with me. We are not trying to inveigle the government to do something that is tricky, to play around with the fund. We are straightforwardly and honestly saying that in a society as affluent as ours is in 1969 we have a moral obligation to these people, who helped bring our society to where it is, to give them pension benefits that will enable them to live decent and dignified lives at the present time.
May I now make a point which I have tried to make a good many times, that in this, campaign we are fighting a battle for everyone. Sometimes people will say, and in fact I have received letters asking, "What is all this concern about retired civil servants? What about the rest of the Canadian people?" I point out that we are fighting a battle for everyone. We are trying to get a principle established, to get it started. Perhaps I should not say that because others have done it. There are a number of governments that have brought in pension increase provisions, and there are a number of pension plans in private industry where, usually because of negotiations, there are escalator clauses for the pensions to go up. The auto workers have accomplished a number of these agreements. There is at least

one life insurance company which has a pension plan for its employees that includes an escalator clauses. So it is not a brand new idea. But it is still in its infancy and it is terribly important that we get it started.
Let me talk about this thing in terms of three groups of people. I think we are concerned first of all and rightly so, and in human terms it is important that this is so, for the people who are now retired and who are having a tough time getting by. This applies certainly to those many people who are on lower pension benefits. The figures are on Hansard. I ask for them every year. I have asked for them so often now that I suppose a computer just turns them out, and if the computer is set up to turn them out next year I will ask the same questions again next year.
We are concerned about them, but it is becoming increasingly true that people in the middle and even in the upper brackets, up to the assistant deputy minister and deputy minister levels, who thought when they went out on pensions that the picture was not bad, are also affected. In the meantime, not only have living costs gone up but living standards have changed, and people who had certain professional connections and lived in a certain social milieu find it is not for them any more because the value of their pensions has decreased and they cannot live on their fixed incomes and keep up with the rising standards of living. What is wrong with the desire to do that? We do not expect workers to go 20 years without any increase in wages or salaries. Yet we say to retired civil servants who went out 20 years ago that, but for the small adjustment that some of them got in 1958, this is it; it is a contractual relationship and you are bound by it for life.
In my plea to the minister I am almost prepared to say that we cannot charge the government with breaking any contract so far as the pensions of its retired -civil servants are concerned. Yes, the legalities have been maintained. But the government has broken faith. To me there is a difference and the latter is more important than the former. I think we have broken faith in that we have let these people who have retired get into a position where they have to try to get by on inadequate pensions.
I said I wanted to talk about this thing in terms of three groups of people. I am concerned first of all, anid I think hon. members generally will join with me in this, about those who are now retired and, by the gods of war, Mr. Speaker, we should not let this
March 14, 1969	COMMONS
session go by without taking action for these people. We failed them in 1967 when a unanimous committee report was brought in by the hon. member for Ottawa East who was chairman of the special joint committee on pensions. In 1968 the story was the same. Now we are in 1969.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
On January 8, 1969, the President of the Treasury Board met with the executive body of the Federal Superannuates National Association on this matter. He assured them there would be a study and he hoped there would be a report in three or four weeks, but two or three months have gone by since then and nothing has come of it. We should not let this question go by without dealing with the case of these people. I am making a plea not only for those who are now retired but also for those who are working in the public service today. These people may be able to compute what their pensions will be on the basis of 70 per cent of their best six years if they have the prospect of obtaining 35 years' service, and it will sound' not bad. The day will come when these people will retire and at the point of retirement things may be all right for them. These people may retire at age 60 after 20 or 25 years' service. Because of longevity and other things they may live until age 85 or 90, but so far as the present arrangements are concerned there will be no increase in their pensions. I contend that we must build into the Public Service Superannuation Act and other pension plans a provision for automatic escalation.
I have pleaded and pleaded that we understand this problem. I did not get it into the head of the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lang) the other night that we are not concerned only about escalation to meet the rising cost of living but also rising standards. I have a resolution on the order paper which is an attempt to cope with this matter. It provides that public service pensions should be recalculated every year so as to keep them in line with increases in wages and salaries and that, in fact, there should be a relationship between a retired civil servant's pension and the salary attached to the job he had at the time of retirement. This is difficult, new and revolutionary, but unless we do this kind of thing our whole pension program can fall apart and be meaningless, and people will have to fall back on welfare payments of one kind or another.
DEBATES	6647
Statute Law Amendment Act
I have been talking about retired civil servants. I am now talking about those who are working and for whom I think there should be the protection of an escalation clause in the various acts. I am also concerned, however, about the broad sector of the Canadian people. One of the reasons I want the government to act is that I believe it is the government's job to give the lead. We must do the same thing in respect of the old age security pension; we must have an escalation clause tied in with salaries and wages. It is necessary that we give the lead to companies like Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Pacific Railway and other private companies in this country. As the minister knows, because I called it to his attention the other day, many people and bodies now realize that pensions must be on this kind of a basis. Publications like the Financial Post are concerned about this matter. It devoted a whole issue to the problem of keeping pensions in line not just with rising living costs but also with rising living standards.
Those of us who are taking part in this debate today are in effect pleading the case not just of those who are retired civil servants, not just those who are working in the public service and should have something better to look forward to when they retire, but the case of all the retired people of Canada and particularly the case of those who will become retired people. We all get there unless death intervenes. I make the point as strongly as I can that I believe the most important aspect of our pension problem is that we must bring this kind of escalation provision into effect. I appreciate the attention the President of the Treasury Board and his colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) are paying to my remarks. I think they agree with me. In fact I am sure they agree with me. I believe that even the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), hardhearted though he may be, agrees with me.
The problem is to get started. I am aware that private industry does not want to have to do this. I realize that private industry will be scandalized if the government makes a move like this. Its leaders will say that the government is putting them on the spot. But it is the government's job to give leadership in this field, and I urge as strongly as I can that this be done.
I recall my starting time and I believe I could take five minutes after the luncheon adjournment, but I think I can conclude my remarks now and give the next speaker an
March 14. 1969

Statute Law Amendment Act opportunity to get ready to begin at two o'clock. I should like, however, to take a moment or two to make a few comments which might seem a bit more critical than those I have made up to this point. I have been both pleading and philosophical and have caused the minister's heart to bleed. But I must also say to the government that really the government's record in this matter is disgraceful. All these years-and I have been at it myself for 20 or 25 years-we have been told, as the minister said this morning, that the matter is under active consideration. These pens oners and their widows are dying off at the rate of 150 to 200 a month. I do not know how many have died hearing the last words of the government that an increase in their pensions is under active consideration. This is not good enough.
The whole matter came to a bit of a pitch back in 1966 and 1967 when we pleaded that it be referred to a special joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate which met at that time under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Ottawa East. There is no doubt in my mind that when the government agreed to have the matter go before the committee it was with the understanding that if the committee came back with a recommendation there would be act on on it. We came back with a recommendation. The present Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith), who was house leader at that time, was most helpful on May 18, 1967, and arranged that we have a meeting of the committee that morning so that we could get our report in before prorogation and before the committee would die so that this matter could be dealt with. The report was brought in. I put most of it on the record in speech I made on November 18, 1968, and it is also contained in Votes and Proceedings for May 8, 1967.
Every member of that committee, especially the hon. member for Ottawa East, was of the belief that the step the government had taken carried with it the implication that action would be taken on the report. I am sure the hon. member for Ottawa East would confirm that. I am sure of it myself. In May and June, 1967, I think we were almost there. The then prime minster, Mr. Pearson, assured me several times, as did the present Minister of Finance, that it would be done before the end of June that year, 1967.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if I might have permission to continue I can finish in two minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it
agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At
that point action was just about achieved, and then somehow the government backed away. I do not know who was responsible. We had to go out of here on July 7, 1967, without it being acted on. We were told then that it would be done in the fall. It was not done then, it was not done in 1968, and here we are in 1969 and it is not being done now. I am sure the present minister is ashamed of this record.
I say, for heaven's sake let us have action on this matter at this session. I am sure my friend the hon. member for Windsor West, my friend the hon. member for Ottawa East, my friend the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, my friend the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, my friend the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle), my friend the hon. member for Halifax, my friend the hon. member for Peace River, my friend the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster, and my own colleagues are behind this, as well as my friends from Brandon-Souris, South Western Nova and Pembina. Every member present seems to be on my side. Who isn't?


An hon. Member:: Only the minister.


Mr. Clermont:: Gatineau.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There you are, Mr. Speaker; there is not a member in this house who does not agree with the plea I have made this morning I hope the minister will act on it this session without fail.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair to resume at two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with what I regard as an important proposal in this bill. I do not intend to comment on it in detail. It proposes improvements in various aspects of the superannuation schemes affecting public servants, members of the armed forces and
March 14, 1969

members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Were I to speak on it in detail at this time I could add nothing really to the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who I am glad to note feels as I do, that this bill represents a significant improvement in all these pension and superannuation plans.
At the risk of perhaps putting myself out of order I should like to comment on the same matter of policy which has been dealt with by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I have in mind the fact that this bill makes no reference to the adjustment of existing pensions of superannuated civil servants and members of the armed forces. I cannot conceal my extreme disappointment that this is the case because this matter is one of long standing. For all practical purposes the starting point in our consideration of this matter should be the recommendations of the special joint committee of the Senate and the House which reported in May of 1967. The text of that committee's report is available to all hon. members and has been referred to in earlier debates in this session by myself and by other hon. members, so I do not think it is necessary to repeat any part of that report in detail or to read it in its verbatim form.
o (2:10 p.m.)
The problem that faces retired civil servants can be summed up best in two ways, I think. First of all, there is the basic problem of equity. People who worked a long time for the government of Canada and did so in the belief that upon their retirement they would be able to maintain a certain standard of life have been disappointed. The reasons for this disappointment include many factors, the chief of which is inflation. T'he value of the pensions which they thought they would be paid upon their retirement has progressively declined because of the devaluation of our currency by persistent and continuing inflation. I am not an economic expert but it seems to me that we must live with the prospect that there will not be a stabilization of the currency and that there will continue to be some degree of inflation in the future. So the first consideration with regard to the position of pensioners is for pensioners in general and the concern which we in parliament should have as the former employers of retired civil servants to ensure that they are fairly treated. Our concern should apply not only during their active years of service but in their years of retirement.
Statute Law Amendment Act
There is a second and, to my mind, even more important consideration which should govern the thinking of hon. members on this subject. There are a number of cases of real hardship among superannuated civil servants. I suppose it is impossible for any government or any parliament to so order its affairs that hardship will not exist in some cases. But we must look at broad categories and at the substantial numbers of people who now suffer hardship. I am sure that all hon. members know very well that in recent years there has been a substantial escalation in the salaries paid to civil servants. Hon. members will also know that pensions are computed on the basis of the salaries which civil servants earned at the time of their retirement. People who may have retired 15 or 20 years ago find that their pensions, which were scaled to the then existing salaries, are very much lower than the pensions of those holding comparable positions in the government who are retiring today. It is in this group that we find the greatest degree of hardship. Many of those people are quite elderly and are forced to subsist on what by any standards must be considered to be a disappointing, and, unhappily in some instances, an abysmally low pension.
Perhaps I have some advantage in speaking in this debate because I am a new member of a new parliament and a supporter of a new government. I do not believe that it is any part of my responsibility to defend actions which may have taken place in the past in parliament. Therefore I propose to make some comments about things which have happened in the past.
It seems to me quite clear that at present we are in a situation which has been brought about by the extravagance of governmental programs, both provincial and federal, and these programs are not only the results of the decisions of whatever governments may have been in power when they were instituted but the results of collective representations and expressions of views of politicians and members of this house in every party. I say quite categorically that everybody bears a major share of responsibility for the problems which are not the problems of the government alone but are in fact the problems of the people of Canada. It is my opinion that at every stage in this parliament we are faced with situations where hard choices have to be made. This is because we have gone almost beyond the outer limits of expenditure in relation to our revenues. Because of the collective result of these decisions of the past,
March 14, 1969

Statute Law Amendment Act this government and this parliament have very little margin in which to manoeuvre and in which to deal with problems such as that ol the retired civil servants.
To me the most heartening part of the address of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) was his statement that the government was now considering this important matter in relation to all the other commitments which the government and this parliament have made to various classes of people in our society, be they old age pensioners or a recipient of any kind of pension, welfare payment and the like. One of the things which attracted me to the support of this government is my belief that it is capable of undertaking the necessary review of the commitments which this parliament and successive governments have made, and as a result of that review establishing policies and priorities for further expenditure which will have some relevance to the future and which will, I hope, contribute materially to the assistance of people who are in the position of retired civil servants.
It is also obvious to all hon. members, and I need hardly mention it, that a statement that this matter is receiving careful consideration is not really of any immediate assistance to the persons now receiving pensions and to people who are now enduring the hardships that I have described. Many of them at their age unhappily have not much longer to live. Apart from that, the people who are struggling and who may be ill find no solace in the suggestion that at some future date relief may be brought to them. Tremendous urgency attaches to the review which must precede the development of policy on this matter.
a (2:20 p.m.)
Notwithstanding all the claims which are made upon the public treasury, and many of them have great merit, special priority and significance should be attached to the position of the retired civil servants. This is because they have been our employees. Whatever may have been the position in the past I believe we in this country have arrived at the view that the obligation of employers to their employees does not cease completely when they retire. There are examples of large firms in industry which recognize a continuing obligation to increase periodically superannuation payments made to their former employees. This principle was recognized in the statute of 1959 and it was firmly endorsed by the

report of the joint parliamentary committee in 1967. To my mind it is now beyond the realm of doubt and of dispute that an obligation of a special kind rests upon the government of Canada as a former employer of these superannuated pensioners to undertake periodic upward adjustment of their pensions in order to provide them with a decent and comfortable standard of life in their retirement.
There are many other things which might be said on this subject. The President of the Treasury Board re-emphasized that there is no magic way in which pensions paid to retired public servants can be increased without a charge on the treasury and ultimately on the taxpayers of Canada. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in the course of his interesting analysis of the way in which pensions are really paid-I am not saying whether I completely agree with his analysis-made it abundantly clear that ultimately the charge for the payment of pensions falls upon the producing elements of the nation. In the case of pensions paid to retired public servants, for example, this means that unhappily it falls upon the taxpayers. I think it is well for this point to be emphasized because we all live in a situation in which it is generally assumed that taxation has approached something like its ultimate limit, and we must recognize that when we say pensions of retired civil servants should be increased we are not only talking about payment of pensions but we are also talking about the imposition of taxes.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has indicated quite properly the great issues of policy which must be decided when this question of the pensions of retired civil servants is considered. He made it abundantly clear that this matter could not be considered in isolation. One group which he noted in this connection were those in receipt of old age pensions. This indicates to hon. members the magnitude of the collective decision which the government and this parliament utlimate-ly may have to make in relation to any scheme or schemes for the upward adjustment of pensions and payments of this type,
I recognize fully the difficulty encountered by the government in reaching a decision on this very important matter. I applaud my hon. friends on the treasury benches for approaching it in a sensible, constructive and comprehensive way. Frankly, I do not think we could support an ad hoc approach to these and similar problems. Having said all this, I
March 14. 1969

urge the government to accelerate the study which is now in progress and -to take into special consideration the position of its former employees, particularly those whom I regard as suffering a degree of hardship which is not consistent with our view of the way in which people in this society should live.


Mr. Mongrain:: Would my hon. friend be in favour of some kind of escalator clause in pension legislation so -that pensions would automatically follow the cost of living?


Duncan Gordon Blair: There is such a provision in the present old age scheme, Mr. Speaker. I am not an expert in this field, but I think such a provision might be the ultimate solution to the difficulty in which superannuated employees of the government of Canada find themselves.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a supplementary question? Does he not think it might be better still to have an escalator clause relating pensions to the rising wages and salaries of our people?
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Mr.   J.-T. Richard@Ottawa East: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I am very disappointed to have to speak at this stage on a bill of the type before us. I would have hoped the government might give us a better opportunity to discuss the question of the pensions of superannuated civil servants. I am -sure we are almost out of order in talking about it now, though no one would dare say so because I believe the majority of hon. members are of one mind as to the treatment which should be accorded to retired public servants.
I must say I have encountered a further disappointment inasmuch as though I have been here for about 24 years and though -this subject has come up almost every year since 1947, I always seem to begin my speeches on this subject by saying, "I have listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre." I made my position clear in 1947 and in 1948 I said roughly the same thing. As reported at page 1397 of Hansard for that year I said:
I should not like to let this occasion pass without some reference to superannuated civil servants. No doubt hon. members will recall that last year I was one of those who urged the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to make some provision for a cost of living bonus or an increase for superannuated civil servants. I have heard of late 29180-421
Statute Law Amendment Act
that this matter is not at present receiving favourable consideration. However, X do not think the arguments advanced against giving this increase are valid because, as I see it, the government is putting itself in the position of a private concern.
I had already stated at that time that the government should be the best kind of employer, that it should follow the example set by private business. But it seems that we are going backwards in this new, just society. In 1949 I was still at it. I was still following the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. As reported at page 2283 of Hansard for that session I said:
I have had so many representations in the past four years that I believe sincerely that something must be done. Consideration must be given to working out some supplement for at least some of the superannuated civil servants. The government must be a model employer-
That is where the expression arose.
-and I do not think we can base any argument on the fact that industry or the life insurance companies do not do it the way we wish this to be done. I am glad the Minister of Finance is willing to reconsider the matter-
The government has been considering the matter ever since. In 1953 I was still at it. As reported at page 3731 of Hansard I said:
I do not wish to go into greater detail but I would like to repeat what I have said through the years, although I do not know that I will be successful, that a number of superannuated civil servants should have been considered for increases in their pensions. Their pensions are very low and they were unfortunate in being retired at an early date and before the recent increases in salaries. I have said before that other countries such as England and the United States have seen fit to give a cost of living bonus to some of their superannuated civil servants in cases where the pensions were too low.
Again, in 1956, as reported at page 5585 of Hansard, I said:
I should like to say a few words on the Public Service Superannuation Act. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we in Canada have the most loyal and efficient public servants of any country in this world. We have been blessed by the fact that throughout the years, whatever government has been in power, we have had a wonderful staff of civil servants throughout the country. That places us in the position of having to deal with them fairly, eauitably and most generously. I have always said that in any country the best employer should be the government-
Some of our ministers are getting a great deal of benefit from the civil service, just as a previous minister of national defence received a great deal of benefit from having such an excellent civil servant to advise him as the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury).
March 14, 1969

Statute Law Amendment Act


Mr. Aiken:: But he has not retired.


Mr. Richard:: Then in 1957 it was the same thing again. As reported at page 1859 of Hansard I said:
As I have said before, the civil service of Canada is the best in the world, and because our civil servants are the best they are entitled to the best treatment. I have also said before, and I am not afraid to repeat it, that the government should be the best employer. Although the superannuation act is very good and has been amended often to make it better still, I do not agree that we should base payments of pensions to civil servants entirely upon the contract.
I made another speech in 1958 to the same effect. Then something new happened. Three years ago the old civil service act, what is today the Public Service Superannuation Act, was revised, and toward the end of our work there was a great deal of pressure brought to bear upon the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and myself. Eventually I was asked whether I would stay on as chairman to deal with the superannuated civil servants.
Hon. members can observe my seat in this chamber and see that, I am a sort of lone wolf here. I have some opinions and some judgments and I am not a swinger-in the proper sense, not in the younger sense, of the term. I say what I think and I always think about the same thing. I agreed to become chairman of that committee on one condition, that we would come to a decision which would be seriously acted upon. And I meant seriously; otherwise I would not have been chairman and nobody could have made me chairman had I not wanted to be.
On May 8, 1967, that very excellent committee brought in a report to which reference was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Blair). We had the support of the hon. member for Hull, who had always been very active in the same way as the former hon. member for Ottawa West who is now a minister and has his hands a little more tied than before. Nevertheless, the group of members who formed that committee represented some of the best minds in this house. I was proud of the membership of the committee. It was not at all partisan. As a matter of fact, all of the bills submitted to the committee were amended from top to bottom to suit not one party but the civil service and government relationships therewith generally.
We did not come to the decision that was presented to the house on May 8, 1967, haphazardly. It had involved a great deal of study, it was unanimous, and we thought we

had great support from the government. The proposition we made was not an expensive one. I believed at that time that the immediate purpose was to look after retired public servants who were in the low paid categories or who had retired some time before 1963 or 1964.
Although our proposal included the escalation of the pensions of all civil servants from time to time, had a start been made then to escalate the pensions of retired civil servants in the low paid categories or the pensions of those who had retired, say, before 1963, I understand that the total cost in any one year would have been less than $10 million. That figure is not mine, though my mathematics are sometimes much better than those of Treasury Board, whose figure it is. Certainly the cost was nothing like $50 million, and I defy anybody to tell me that it would have cost $50 million to do the job the committee had in mind at that time. The committee realized that it could not do everything immediately but it did want to look after those in receipt of small pensions for a long time as well as those who had retired before 1963.
The number of pensioners who are affected diminishes from year to year. I do not know whether the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has given the figures, but the number declines every year. The cost also declines from year to year so far as those who retired on low pensions or earlier than 1963 are concerned.
So, Mr. Speaker, once again I hate to have to repeat the words I uttered the year before last. At that time I said I was absolutely convinced that the government was more or less of the same opinion as the committee. However, it appears that somewhere there are powerful interests that can disrupt the work of a committee that was honestly put to work. I sincerely hope that the present minister will be of the same mind as a former head of the Treasury Board and that he will find sufficient moneys to give immediate relief to at least that group of retired public servants I have referred to, with, I hope, the promise that he will find a way to escalate all pensions in the near future.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
We must show good will. It is not enough for a few members of the house to take the brunt of this responsibility. We are beginning to look a little false. People do not appreciate that we are sincere, that we have done our best and that we can do little until the government realizes that the $10 million or $15
March 14, 1969

million it would spend in this field would bring our people greater benefits than a similar amount spent on hydrofoils or other experiments conducted by the Department of National Defence.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, hon. members may wonder why I am speaking on pensions in as much as I am a long way from being pensioned off.


An hon. Member:: You might get there.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Yes, I may get there. Since I do not wish to repeat what other hon. members have said on the subject I shall limit my remarks to about five minutes.
Bill C-178 certainly has some good points. It revises many sections of the acts and, in the case of the Public Service Superannuation Act, provides a better deal for the children of retired civil servants attending school or university. It also gives a better deal to widows of retired civil servants. Many other clauses of the bill are extremely worth while.
I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Before lunch I told him I agreed with him. I agree with the remarks he made about the superannuation fund. I understand that civil servants contribute to their pensions and that the government borrows all the money they put into the fund and spends it, with no intention of reimbursing the fund. The government borrows this money from this supposed fund at an interest rate of 4 per cent, I believe. All other interest rates have gone up in the past few years; in this parliament we have seen many instances of interest rates going up. However, the rate at which the government borrows from this supposed fund still remains at 4 per cent. I also understand that the interest on the money the government has borrowed from this supposed fund to which civil servants contribute is double the cost of paying pensions.
I repeat that our civil servants are contributing to the fund and the government is borrowing all the money and spending it, with no intention of reimbursing the fund. I know that a number of hon. members have alluded to this fact and I do not wish to be repetitious, but I wish to say that I do not think the government is being fair. It is not fair for the government to take this money out of the fund and not give civil servants their share of it. I am not in favour of subsidies but I am in favour of having the government contribute its share to this fund, just as
29180-421J
Statute Law Amendment Act
any ordinary business would. It should operate the fund as any ordinary business operates a fund contributed to by its employees.
Before concluding may I quote one paragraph of a letter I received from a constituent of mine:
Ever since this government came into office in 1963 they have refused to listen to all arguments to have civil servants' pensions raised to meet the present day cost of living. The public service pension fund, with the civil servants' contributions with interest along with the government's worthless bookkeeping entries or I.O.U.'s, amounts to some 31 billion dollars. Half that amount belongs to the civil servants and retired civil servants of Canada. The civil servants' contributions have paid all pensions. The government has never paid a dime into the pension fund.
In conclusion, I hope that when the bill is reported back from the committee it will incorporate some of the recommendations which have been made.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words, so I ask my hon. friend, the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) to be patient. I shall take a few minutes only to talk about the pension of public servants.
I am in favour of an increase in the pension of those who have worked in the public service of Canada for many years. I share the opinion of those who spoke before me on that subject. Being from the Hull region, we know there are thousands of retired civil servants. The matter has been under consideration in committees for years. A number of hon. members have made representations and the Public Service Alliance of Canada has made claims.
A few years ago, the right hon. Mr. Pearson even informed the vice-president of the Retired Civil Servants Association that some action would be taken in the near future, but nothing has been done yet. In my opinion, these loyal civil servants have served the government and the people of Canada for many years and they certainly deserve to have their pensions increased. Over the past ten years or so, the cost of living has increased by 44 per cent and nothing has been done to increase pensions for these faithful employees.
I would think that these people were not perhaps in a position to serve their country as members of the armed forces during the last war. However, Mr. Speaker, as soldiers were needed on the battlefields, there had to be some people to assist the soldiers on the home front so that victory might be won as soon as
6654	COMMONS DEBATES	March 14, 1969
Statute Law Amendment Act
possible and this is what they did. Like the war veterans, they deserve a pension that will permit them to have a standard of living like all other Canadians, in 1969.
These retired civil servants are no doubt entitled to the gratitude of the country for their services. I will always insist that if we must fight for the rights of these pensioners, we will do so because they have been, so to say, the backbone of the country during the last war, serving their country at home while our soldiers were fighting for Canada. I repeat that I will never insist too strongly on this point. I do feel they are entitled to this consideration for the remainder of their life.
I think that it is the responsibility of this house to endorse this policy, to bring the government to an understanding of this problem and to get it to take the necessary measures for an adjustment of the only income received by those retired civil servants for whom I have a great deal of admiration and sympathy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr, J.-A. Mongrain (Trois-Rivieres):: Mr. Speaker, I should like-
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member must be at his seat before he can put his question.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Would my friend, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) permit a question?


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Certainly.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I will ask him, in a slightly different form, the question I put earlier to the hon. member who spoke before me. In view of the fact that we are now talking about adjustment and readjustment, and that, due to cyclical changes in international financial affairs, the same problem occurs every four years, would the hon. member for Hull not be favourable also to the incorporation in the pension act, of a provision which would grant automatically either an increase or a decrease in pensions, geared to the rise or fall of the cost of living for future decades so as to avoid a similar discussion every five years?


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres and in reply I will tell him that I would be favourable to any

provision which would promote an increase in pensions for retired civil servants.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: I listened with a good deal of interest, Mr. Speaker, to the speech of the minister when he introduced this bill. It represents a measure of updating pension legislation, in some cases increasing benefits and in other cases making economic changes which are long overdue. As has been observed by other hon. members, there is little in the bill to which we can take exception. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said that what was not in the bill gave us more concern than what was in it.
The	last	paragraph of	the	minister'sremarks was a disappointment to me and other hon. members from the national capital region in particular and from other parts of Canada because the government was not able to see its way clear to adjust the pensions of those	who	have retired.	The	minister's
remarks with regard to the interest rate paid on pension funds were particularly illuminating and I listened with interest to what he said in this regard.
One	hon.	member used	the	expression"mythology	of pensions".	Certainly with
regard to the funding provisions and the adjusting of interest rates there is a great deal of confusion. I know there is no confusion in the minds of the minister, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the other hon. members who have spoken, but many remarks made in this house have led to confusion and a great deal of misunderstanding in other quarters.
The fundamental difference between a publicly operated pension plan and a privately operated pension plan is something academics can discuss at great length. A privately operated plan must be actuarially sound. The Department of Insurance and other supervisory authorities insist on full funding provisions, for which several reasons are given. The same requirements are not always necessary when dealing with public funds because the investment of the sums accumulated involves other questions of public policy. This was discovered during the debate on the Canada Pension Plan.
I do not agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he dealt at some length with the question of funding. In effect he said that funding does not matter, the fund does not matter, and all this business about interest rates does not
March 14, 1969

matter. It is true that the adjustment of interest rates to current levels will not produce half of the annual payments of a deficiency nature for arrears of contribution, deferred amortization charges and other items quoted each year in this house. As the minister pointed out, $200 million has been appropriated this year to make up these deficiencies. In my opinion the adjustment of interest rates should have been done some time ago. We have entered into an age of higher interest rates which will continue for at least a generation. This has been forecast by the Economic Council of Canada and there is every reason to believe this forecast. The 4 per cent interest rate level is now seriously out of line. It is the intention of the government to reduce the deficiency payment.
The case of those arguing for an increase in pensions is not aided one bit by talking about the pension fund. No one can look at the income and outgo of a pension fund and talk about whether it is solvent and meeting all actuarial criteria without having an analysis of the fund. That is where actuaries enter into the picture.
I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) for whom I have a high regard. He hoped the committee would study the question of contributions to the fund exceeding the annual outgo. With the greatest of respect to the hon. member, I hope the committee does not waste time doing this. It would be a complete waste of time for the committee to argue with actuaries who have a great deal of technical expertise. The actuaries certainly have the last word over laymen on these matters.
I agree with hon. members on both sides of the house that the case for an adjustment of pensions is basically moral. It is a question of adjusting the standards of living for those who have been affected by inflation over which they have no control. It is a difficult question of public policy, but I believe something will be done about it by the government.
I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the misinterpretation of information in this debate. I know hon. members have a clear understanding of what they are saying and I give full marks to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, although he spent more time than I would have on that aspect of his presentation. People listening to this debate, pensioners writing in and those making statements on behalf of the pensioners have given a bad name to a good cause. I have received a substantial number of letters sug-
Statute Law Amendment Act
gesting that I ask the Auditor General to look at the theft that has gone on in the superannuation account. There is no theft, Mr. Speaker. There is no stealing, there is nothing irregular. No contractual obligations have been broken. The law has not been broken in any technical way whatsoever. The excessive preoccupation with the fund has led to the type of arguments' which have given a bad name to those arguing on behalf of pensioners. Every time they talk about the fund they act as though they are actuaries, but they are not. They make statements about the fund which are not true. When they make statements in this way, the proper authorities of government treat them with the seriousness they deserve, even though the cause is a good one.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
The case for an adjustment of pensions is a moral one. It is not a narrow, legal case. It is not a case which can be argued on the basis of a lack of performance, a breach of performance or something of that nature. It is not a case of money that has been stolen, of money that has been misappropriated, of money that has been misapplied. But I receive no end of letters from people in receipt of pensions who have been listening to all this argument about public pension funds and who have come to the conclusion that there is some gross irregularity involved. As a result, they say things that do not help their own cause.
Recently I received a copy of a letter from a man, resident in Florida, that he sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and which was grossly insulting to the Prime Minister. The letter contained statements based on his interpretation of what had been done to the fund, and which were a total misconception of what was happening. This kind of argument, this kind of preoccupation with funding, serves no particular purpose.
I hope that at the earliest possible date the government will give consideration to the unanimous recommendations of the committee. I hope it will be able to give consideration to these recommendations at a time when there is a balanced budget, when the kind of fiscal policy which I know the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is doing his courageous best to establish will have contributed to some degree to the fiscal stability of the country, and stopped inflation.
It is essential that inflation be stopped. If we do not stop inflation, we cannot win by accelerating pensions all down the line. We must bring a halt to inflation through respon-
March 14, 1969

Statute Law Amendment Act
sible fiscal policy. Then, we must take some measures to help restore the standard of living and the equity of those who, through no fault of their own, have placed their savings program in the form of pensions and retirement benefits which have been grossly eroded by inflation.
I repeat that the case is a moral case, but it is no less strong for being moral. Those who speak on behalf of the superannuates in my opinion would be well advised to place their emphasis on the moral side rather than try to set themselves up as actuaries, which they are not.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Would my hon. friend
accept a question from me?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Delighted.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I apologize if it has already been asked and I missed the answer. In general terms, how much would it cost the government to bring these superannuates up to date?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, the immediate adjustment which I personally had hoped the government would make, and which I hope it will make at the earliest possible date, would be of the order of $10 million to $15 million annually. That is just the start. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) properly said, it is not just this group that is involved. There are others also. But if you start from here, then the bill is going to go higher. The absolute minimum immediate adjustment, to be consistent with the principles of the committee which reported some years ago, in my opinion would be of that order of magnitude.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Speaker, I think almost enough has been said on this subject by a lot of people who !know an awful lot more about it than I do. Although I was not able to listen to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), I gather that no one is out of tune with the intent to do well by our old people.
I could not agree more with anybody than I do with the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) when he said that this was a moral question. This is not a life insurance pension plan type of thing, which is just as well because I would understand it even less if that were the case. However, to me it is a very simple proposition.
No country is an island to itself at any particular moment in history. We come from somewhere, we are going somewhere. In

Canada we have just finished 100 years of work of which I think we can be proud. These people we are talking about have been little people, big people, medium sized people who in a way have handed this country on to us. While we were growing up, while we were learning a few things and getting our minds straight, they were carrying the torch. They have now handed that torch on to us honourably, and by and large it is a pretty good torch. I do not think it is the intention of anyone deliberately to harm these people, but whether that is the intention or not the result is the same.
I find it disgraceful when I go around my constituency and meet an honest, older man, who spent his whole life in the R.C.M.P. Probably because the police force did not encourage marriage, he did not marry until he was relatively old. Now, with all the pensions that he gets he has the munificent sum of $257 a month to provide for his wife and 12 year old child. It is hard for him to sell his 12 year old son on the honesty and integrity of a policeman's job when he sees the way he has been treated by the state at the end of the road. As another example, I mention a man who worked for the Department of Agriculture for years, and who received the munificent retirement pension of $124 a month. Now, he is old enough to get an old age pension in addition to that.
If we are honest with each other and with ourselves, I do not think we can do anything but say that this1 is a disgraceful situation. We have a very high standard of living. We have a fine country. We have been handed the opportunity to make it even finer. If we have $10 million, $15 million or $20 million we can clean up this situation. There must be ways to find $10 million or $15 million to do that. Surely, that amount of money is being spent on less important undertakings.
There is a question of priority and morality involved. Most people admire the retired civil servants, the retired policemen and the retired armed forces people who have handed on the torch of public service to this generation. We should change our order of priorities so that we can look after these people, so that we can enter our second century with a clearer conscience than we have now. I would ask the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) to think long and hard on ways and means of changing priorities so that these people can get a better shake.
Motion agreed to and bill referred to the Standing Committee of Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
March 14, 1969



PATENT ACT-TRADE MARKS ACT EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO GRANT LICENCES-REPORT STAGE

[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of Bill No. C-102, to amend the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drugs Act (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Stanley Howard Knowles: rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, because I sense there is a tendency to wait for the minister. We would like to have him here, but of course this is the report stage and we have got along without ministers before.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is like the corpse at the funeral.


Stanley Howard Knowles: suggest we might proceed with whatever amendment the sponsor of which is present.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is he busy in his office working for the people of Canada?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order which was so eloquently dealt with by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), may I say that in the name of the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) we have five amendments. Because of certain problems some members are unable to be here. We understood that the government members would probably filibuster the last bill for some time. However, we are prepared to go ahead with the last two amendments which appear in the name of the hon. member for Perth. There is the amendment to clause 5 of the bill and the amendment of clause 6.
If there are no other hon. members here who are prepared to deal with the amendments which are indicated in the appendix to Routine Proceedings and Orders oj the Day for today's date, we are prepared to proceed with those two amendments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I believe, and I think my belief is confirmed by what has been done in respect of the order paper, that the general practice is to take amendments in the order of sequence of the clauses. However, in view of the absence of the sponsors of certain amendments, both in the Progressive Conservative party and my own party, I wonder whether

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act there might be unanimous consent to adopting the suggestion made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), namely, that we proceed with the amendment to clause 5 which is on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Perth.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: I would suggest that this is a bad practice, principally because we would be dealing first with amendments to a later stage of the bill. To ignore at this stage earlier amendments which may have a consequential effect on the bill would raise difficulties. I believe this is being taken into consideration by hon. members. Therefore, if it is the disposition of the house to proceed in this manner, and if there is unanimous consent, I am prepared to do so with that observation about the practice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Without establishing a precedent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Then, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. member for Perth I am prepared to move the first amendment in the name of the hon. member for Perth. If Your Honour would be good enough to turn to page iii of the appendix there is an amendment to clause 5 which commences with the words, "and any such regulations may provide that any drug...".


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is
the second last one, the penultimate one.


Gerald William Baldwin: That Bill C-102, An Act to amend the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drugs Act, be amended by adding in Clause 5 after the word "drugs", on line 44 on page 8 the following:
"and any such regulations may provide that any drug not manufactured in Canada shall not be imported, distributed or sold until the Minister of National Health and Welfare has first certified the safety and quality of the said drug."
He said:	Mr. Speaker, this particular
motion would have the effect of amending clause 5 of the bill. As a matter of fact, it might save the time of the house if it were possible for the minister to accept the amendment. While he is considering that, I shall proceed. If at any time he should like to interrupt me to say he is prepared to accept the amendment, I shall be glad to sit down.
During the course of the proceedings held several years ago before a committee of this house known as the Harley committee, a very extensive examination was held into the
6658	COMMONS DEBATES	March 14. 1969
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act whole question of drug prices and the related question of the safety of drugs. I recall this because some six or seven years ago I served on a similar committee immediately following what has been known throughout the world as the series of thalidomide tragedies. At that time, the members of the committee were quite concerned about the effect this particular situation might have on the manufacture and sale of drugs. Therefore certain proposals were considered during the hearings of that committee. Subsequently, the government changed. Then Dr. Harley, at that time a member of this house, quite successfully and with a great deal of diligence acted as chairman of a committee which made a further examination.
Members from all sides of the house agreed with most of the recommendations made by the committee. Included in those recommendations were a number which dealt with the question of drug safety. In other words, the members of the committee said, yes, price is of the essence and the necessity that the price of drugs be reduced to a scale which is acceptable in this country is a tremendously important question. I think, so far as our party is concerned, the members who represented this party on the committee took that position but tied to it this question of safety. I do not think there is any doubt about that. I have mentioned only the thalidomide situation but there were others which indicated that we must not evade our responsibility here by taking the politically palatable course of saying that prices only would be considered and nothing else; that is, say that we do not consider the question of drug safety to be part of our responsibility here. This amendment was brought forward for that reason.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I say through you, Mr. Speaker, to every member of this house that an examination of this amendment would indicate that it would not impose any onerous burden upon the government. Clause 5, as it now stands, states that section 24 of the Food and Drugs Act is amended by adding thereto, immediately after subsection (1) thereof, the following subsection. I will not read it but it does give the governor in council the right to make regulations governing, regulating or prohibiting the importation into Canada of any drug or class of drugs manufactured outside Canada, or the distribution or sale in Canada, or the offering, exposing or having in possession for sale in Canada, of any drug or class of drugs manufactured outside Canada.

We in this party have consistently, during the course of this session, been very reluctant to entrust to this government the regulatory powers it has sought so often; that is, the power to pass orders in council, regulations and decrees. We think it is very dangerous to invest in this government or in any government, so many powers it can exercise without seeking the approval of the House of Commons.
If ever there were a case where this right could be granted to a limited extent, this is the case. All we are doing by this amendment is authorizing the governor in council, by the terms of the motion in the name of the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith), to make a specific regulation. We do not make it mandatory because we realize there must be a discretion left with the government and the minister. The amendment suggests that any such regulations may provide that any drug not manufactured in Canada shall not be imported, distributed or sold until the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) has first certified the safety and quality of the said drug.
If the government is going to take upon itself the powers given it under this proposed measure, which we hope will lead to cheaper drug prices although we have some doubt about that, then certainly there is no reason why it should not make the essential investigations through its officers which would permit the minister to make such a certification. This is not an extremely complex matter. The department has the officials, and I assume it will have the opportunity, to make investigations outside the country. Therefore, I suggest we give the government the power to authorize the Minister of National Health and Welfare to certify the safety and quality of drugs. If the government wants to accept one responsibility it cannot shirk another. We, therefore, commend the passage of this particular motion.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in the debate on the proposed amendment since it deals with the safety and quality of imported drugs.
In my opinion, this amendment could prove useless since the government has already provided for the compulsory inspection, by officials from the Food and Drug Directorate, of the basic ingredients that enter into the composition of some drugs.
March 14. 1969

One could go on for a long time about the safety and the quality of drugs. The matter has been raised by all those who have spoken against Bill C-102 for many years.
I think we should know that the government, through the Food and Drug Directorate, will surely not allow the importation into Canada of products that are detrimental to health.
I know for a fact that this bill has been studied many times and we know how many recommendations have been made in the last 10 years. But I have never seen as many amendments brought to a bill as in respect of Bill C-102. When it was introduced, a few days ago, there were only five amendments. ,It seems that the further we get, the more amendments there are. This matter was the subject of three studies over the last decade and the motion was always kept pending. I am even wondering whether the hidden powers of pharmaceutical trusts, owing to lobbying, are not themselves responsible for those numerous amendments which after all are only a scheme to prevent rapid adoption of bill C-102.
When we think that pharmaceutical companies which have been lobbying for the last ten years, have treated just about everybody to meals in restaurants, that they have even sent interns on golf tours in Miami, that they make profits up to 50 per cent, that 50 per cent of their expenses are devoted to promotion and that they tell us that they spend $12 million on research, when they actually are only spending $3 million-


Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a point of order. I am delighted to hear the hon. member make these excursions into fantasy, but I think he might be directed by Your Honour that under the rules which have been laid down, when motions of this kind are placed before the house all speeches should be strictly relevant.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must say that my thought processes were working along the same lines as those of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I would request the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) to deal more directly with the matter before the house.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Then, Mr. Speaker, I shall continue my remarks on the safety and the quality of drugs.

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
I think that the companies that actually import drugs are responsible ones, because almost all imported products, whether they are the finished products or the ingredients that enter into the manufacturing of these drugs, have been inspected on the spot, and if not, they have been inspected in Europe or somewhere else, even in Montreal, at the unloading wharf.
Now it is obvious that all products cannot be inspected upon their entry into Canada. However, I know that the Food and Drug Directorate has an excellent team that sees to it that safety and quality standards for drugs are adhered to. This is so true that I am always happy to recall a statement by Professor Blanc, a great Geneva pharmacologist, to the effect that Canada's Food and Drugs Directorate is the best body of its kind in the world because it devotes particular attention to ensuring the safety and quality of drugs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: I would like it to be very clear that the quality and safety of drugs will always be maintained, and I think useless to insert such an amendment in the bill, since it contains provisions to that effect already.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: I notice that the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) also attempted to get the floor. I appreciate speaking ahead of him because then if there are answers to my questions he may be able to provide them.
Like the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), all of us are concerned about the safety and quality of drugs that are made available in this country, but I wonder if the addition of the words in the proposed amendment is necessary. Indeed, the question I would like to put to the next speaker who supports the amendment is precisely this: Why do these words need to be added? There are already provisions in the Food and Drugs Act regarding the safety and quality of drugs generally, and I may add that the amendment to section 24 of the act which is being brought into effect by clause 5 of Bill C-102 uses the very same words. The new clause will make it appropriate for the Governor in Council to pass regulations regarding the importation
6660	COMMONS DEBATES	March 14, 1969
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act into Canada of any class of drags. The following are the governing words:
-as the Governor in Council deems necessary for the protection of the public in relation to the safety and quality of any such drug or class of drugs.
Surely, the provision which is already there is adequate. I come back to my question: Why add the words of the proposed amendment that is before us which will say:
-and any such regulations may provide that any drug not manufactured in Canada shall not be imported, distributed or sold until the Minister of National Health and Welfare has first certified the safety and quality of the said drug.
It seems to me that if that is a desirable practice it could be done under the regulations that are provided in the new clause 1(a). Therefore, I say, why add these words?
However, I question the amendment not just because it strikes me as being redundant but also because it seems to me that we might establish two practices so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned. We might say that with respect to drugs manufactured outside Canada there must be a certain kind of certificate that is not required for drugs manufactured in Canada. But are we not running the risk of getting different treatment so far as the safety and quality of drugs manufactured here or elsewhere is concerned? Questions about such matters as this one bother me. As I said, it seems to me to be not just a case of redundancy but a case of something that provides special loopholes for drugs manufactured in Canada that do not exist with regard to drugs manufactured outside Canada. In other words, if the sponsors of this amendment cannot show both its real necessity and also that it will not create a potential difficulty, I believe it would be better to leave clause 5 of Bill C-102 as it is.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to express the policy of the Ralliement Creditiste on the amendment introduced by the Progressive Conservative party. I agree, to some extent, with the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and I think that if this amendment were adopted there would then be a double inspection, one of which would take place when the drugs enter Canada.
As the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) was saying a while ago, the experts responsible for the inspection of drugs entering the 
country are highly qualified. They are as qualified, I would say, as the departmental inspectors. On the other hand, I notice that this group of inspectors is responsible to the department and I am wondering why the Progressive Conservatives are proposing this amendment which is merely a repetition of the terms of the present legislation.
If the present legislation provides for an order to the Customs agents to inspect all drags and pharmaceutical products entering Canada, I cannot understand the purpose of this amendment, unless its sponsor can provide us with more details on it.
I remember that, a few weeks ago and for another reason, the minister was blamed for accepting full responsibility. This took place during consideration of the bill on the use of pesticides or on the establishment of the interest rates. In fact, the minister was accused of trying to take over the government's authority and to take decisions by himself. We are now apparently delegating to this group more authority than is provided for in the law and I do not believe all hon. members are aware of that.
We ourselves suggested that full powers should not be not given to the minister, but that they should be well defined in the law and that the people who will be responsible should be clearly determined by the law, which, I believe, will not be agreeable at all to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), for he also has his responsibilities.
So that the department will not be overburdened, certain issues should be settled by task forces and, things being as they are, we really cannot support this amendment.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks to make, and then I will answer the questions raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier).


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
provided you with a speech.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Discussions on this bill have ranged far and wide in the house, in the industry, as well as among the general members of the public for a considerable period of time. The general feeling is that while the bill is well intentioned and well spelled out as to what it proposes to do, it will not be effective, at least for more than a
March 14, 1969

short period of time, in reducing the prices of drugs to the public.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will allow me to interrupt him to remind him that we are now on the report stage and there should be no general discussion of the bill. Eventually, there will be a third reading stage during which general considerations regarding the bill might be expressed. I suggest to the hon. member that the only subject under discussion at the present time is the amendment moved by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith).


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did not intend to make general remarks. I was attempting to show the background reason for moving this amendment. The fact is that the price reduction may or may not be an effective part of the bill, but we wanted to be absolutely sure that regardless of the other effects the bill may have the quality of drugs which may come into Canada under this bill will not be reduced and that the health of Canadians will not be endangered.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
At the outset the members of our party, particularly the medical men who have taken part in the committee work, have been most concerned about the possibility of substandard drugs finding easier access to Canada than in the past. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked two questions. The first was why this amendment should be necessary at all, since the government can, under this legislation, pass regulations to cover the situation we are intending to include. The answer is that the inclusion of the amendment we have proposed would place an onus upon the government, and serve as an indication of parliament's intention, to make certain that no drug was imported and sold until its quality had been certified.
It may be that if the bill were examined more places could be found in which this provision might be inserted. But we say this effort should not be necessary. If it is the intention of parliament to make sure that the safety and quality of drugs is certified by the minister, then it should be stated directly in the legislation. It is for this reason I contend the amendment we propose ought to be included.
The second point raised by the hon. member was that drugs manufactured outside Canada and drugs manufactured inside Canada might be treated in two different ways.
29180-422J
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act Obviously, this is the case. The manufacture of drugs within this country comes within the legislative competence and control of the parliament of Canada and the process is open to immediate inspection by officials of the food and drug directorate. They have the power to inspect and examine not only the drugs themselves in the laboratories, but the conditions under which they are manufactured. Our officials can examine the ingredients which go into these drugs, the conditions under which they are manufactured and put together, and other factors which influence the production of the drug in its final stage. This is important because it has been admitted many times that the Food and Drug Directorate is unable to cope with the task of inspecting all these drugs. In fact, it has been said the directorate can only conduct spot checks, and that in many cases they are unable to certify quality control.
This has been one of the problems in connection with importing large quantities of drugs. On the other hand, the directorate does have the ability to go to a place of manufacture and inspect not just the end product but the actual facilities used to produce that product. Great concern has been expressed as to the quality of drugs manufactured outside Canada. There have been stories, many of them exaggerated, naturally, of poor quality drugs, drugs of inconsistent quality and drugs manufactured under unsuitable conditions, becoming available to the Canadian market as soon as this bill is passed. The food and drug directorate is not able to inspect the conditions under which they were produced. It can only inspect the end product, and then in a limited way by means of spot checks. For these reasons, there is a good deal of difference between drugs manufactured inside Canada and drugs manufactured outside the country and the only way of ensuring we are protected is, surely, to authorize and provide for the specially careful treatment of drugs manufactured outside Canada.
This subject is of special concern to me, personally. A few months ago I suffered an illness and was placed on a delicate drug in connection with which quality control must be absolute. I know, as a result of my illness, that there is a difference in the quality as between drugs manufactured by one company and another. It is extremely important that there be consistency in the manufacture of many of these drugs so that when a certain
6662	COMMONS
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act amount is prescribed the patient may be absolutely sure of receiving it regardless of the manufacturer of the drug concerned. Thus, I have no hesitation in seconding this amendment and no apology to make for doing so. I am aware there is a general theory that one should not deal with one class of persons in a way which discriminates against another in the same field. But here is a situation in which we must do so if the genuine concern of many Canadians and of many members of this house, namely, that there should be rigid quality control over drugs brought into this country, over whose manufacture we have no power of supervision, is to be met.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I share the concern of spokesmen for the Official Opposition in approaching this question of drug safety. However, this subject was carefully and thoroughly considered during the hearings of the Committee on Health and Welfare in connection with the bill before us.
I may say at the outset that my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), and I have been careful to separate our different functions and responsibilities under this legislation. Primary authority over the Food and Drug Directorate rests with my colleague, not with myself.
The evidence given before the committee, particularly by Dr. Chapman of the Food and Drug Directorate, showed, I believe, that the directorate does have the authority it requires to deal adequately with the question of the safety of imported drugs. I have in mind clause five which was put into the bill to deal specifically with the question of drug safety by amending the Food and Drugs Act and giving the Food and Drug Directorate the authority to pass regulations dealing with the importation into Canada of any drug or class of drugs manufactured outside Canada. I believe the evidence given before the committee shows the amendment before us to be unnecessary inasmuch as provision for protection has already been made in the bill.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Other hon. members have pointed out that this amendment also involves another concept, one that I do not think the government or the house should undertake lightly. At the present time responsibility for the safety of drugs rests primarily with the manufacturers of drugs. Through the Food and Drug Directorate, regulations are made pursuant to the Food and Drugs Act, and regulations can be

DEBATES	March 14, 1969
passed pursuant to clause 5. Through its directorate, the government carries out inspections of domestic or imported drugs as the directorate deems necessary in order to ensure that the regulations are complied with.
I think the primary responsibility for the safety of drugs must remain with the manufacturer. To change that onus would, I think, be a very serious step. Therefore, for those two reasons I think the amendment should be opposed.
I might refer also to the evidence given before the health and welfare committee, and I do so in order to state my disagreement with some of the comments of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken). Evidence was given concerning the increase in the budget of the Food and Drug Directorate, the number of staff positions authorized by Treasury Board for the directorate for their operations in Ottawa and, as their intention is, for service in the United States and Europe.
I disagree with the hon. member that under the act we should look only, as he described it, at the end product. That is not the case, and it is not the intention of the Food and Drug Directorate so to do. The directorate will be able to inspect foreign facilities and the source of manufacturing of imported drugs. If a foreign manufacturer does not cooperate with our inspectors and allow them to inspect the facilities, we will simply not allow importation of that manufacturer's drugs- unless, of course, we are satisfied that the production facilities and techniques are safe.
Therefore, I think that under clause 5 as now worded we have complete authority to deal with importations. We are increasing the staff of the directorate to handle the increased imports. Thirdly, I think that to accept the amendment would create a quite undesirable situation vis-a-vis the manufacturers, who no longer would be primarily responsible for the safety of their products.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Would the minister permit a question?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Certainly.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Can the minister assure the house, in view of what he has just said, that when the bill is passed the government will be able to make regulations, and intend so to do, that are just as effective as would have been the case had the amendment been passed? In other words, the acceptance of this amendment would not in any way strengthen the hand of the government in this particular
March 14, 1969	COMMONS
matter. If the minister can assure us of that, I think we will be very happy.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I do not know I can quite give the hon. member that assurance. As I understand the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith), the Minister of National Health and Welfare must first certify the safety and quality of the drug. That is not in accordance with the procedures of the Food and Drug Directorate. They have very carefully drawn regulations regarding inspection, examination and safety standards which manufacturers must meet, whether they be domestic manufacturers or foreign manufacturers who are exporting drugs to this country. There is no requirement under the existing regulations to first certify the drugs.
The evidence of Dr. Chapman before the health and welfare committee is that this would be a very bad practice, not a practice that has been followed. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, it would result in our having a huge bureaucracy looking at every sample that came along before issuing a certificate.
As I say, the Food and Drug Directorate has its own regulations and carries out periodic inspections to ensure that the regulations are being met. They do not require that before any drugs can be sold the Food and Drug Directorate must issue a certificate. Certain regulations as to safety have to be met. But we do not have a system, and do not intend to have a system, as I understand the evidence given on behalf of the Food and Drug Directorate, of pre-certification of every drug.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Speaker, might I just ask the minister a question. Is any protection given to Canadian industry in the matter of patents and unfair competition? What I am getting at is this. Not only industry but the whole country has a vested interest in university graduates in this country, those young people who want to earn a living by developing new drugs. I call to mind such people as Dr. Banting, who discovered insulin, and Dr. Best. Is any protection given to such people as Dr. Banting or Dr. Best, or their heirs, in regard to unfair competition from the oral insulins that have been developed by other countries?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Was the hon. member rising for the purpose of asking a question?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I realize it was an involved question but I wanted to make
DEBATES	6663
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act sure the minister understood the purport of the question. Is any protection given our vested interest in research, including the large sums of money spent on research into drugs by Canadian industry?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, having regard to Your Honour's previous remarks about sticking to the particular amendment on the report stage, I do not think this is a proper question on clause 5 of the bill, though I am not trying to evade it. There are amendments to the first clause, and I think it is a proper question at that stage when we turn our attention to patents.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The suggestion made by the minister is, I think, in order. I might tell the hon. member that the question was involved, as he himself agreed, and it is difficult for the Chair to determine to which clause it specifically referred. Can the Chair assume that discussion on the amendment before the house has now concluded?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the intention of the house to postpone the taking of a division on this particular amendment?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I think we could call the yeas and nays at this time but proceed no further. This does not seem the time to cast pearls of legislative wisdom to the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that we shall call the yeas and nays?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the said amendment will please say, yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say, nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Gerald William Baldwin: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Monteith) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: It being four o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideratidn of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, public bills, notices of motions.
Private Bills



PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
March 14, 1969

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. LeBlanc (Rimouski) that Bill S-12, respecting The Bonaventure and Gaspe Telephone Company Limited, be read the second time and referred to the standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was last before the house some weeks ago I was speaking and had mot exhausted all the time allotted to me. This afternoon we are discussing Bill S-12, respecting Bonaventure and Gaspe Telephone Company, Limited. Quite a number of hon. members have spoken on the various aspects of the bill. As hon. members know, an attempt is being made under private bills similar to this one to transfer part of our Canadian economy to foreign ownership. Because of the considerable time interval between the various appearances of a bill in its various stages before the house, hon. members lose the thread of debate and may forget points which have been raised with respect to a bill. May I again briefly acquaint hon. members with the over-all picture, as it relates to this particular company. The explanatory note to the bill says that the purpose of it is to resolve doubts as to whether the company may dispose of its undertaking to a company incorporated under or subject to the laws of any province of Canada. But in this explanation too little information is given, not only to hon. members of the house but to Canadian people generally. Also, our citizens know too little generally about what happens in this house with respect to private bills such as this. I shall therefore, speak briefly on the background of this bill.
Oddly, any Canadian looking at the title of the bill would imagine that there we have a small Canadian telephone company. He would not delve too deeply into the widespread ramifications of foreign ownership which flow from the bill. Examining the matter further, we find that the bill deals with a company totally owned by Anglo-Canadian Telephone Company, which in turn is owned by the General Telephone Company. That makes the company in question here a subsidiary of one of the largest telephone companies in the world. In fact, the ultimate parent is one of
IMr. Speaker.]
the largest corporations in the world, with telephone communications systems in Australia, the West Indies, across the United States and, no doubt, in other countries. It is interesting to note that the Anglo-Canadian Company is the counterpart of a number of subsidiary companies under the control of General Telephone and Electronics Corporation. Hon. members will find that to be so if they consult Moody's Public Utility Manual. The latter company really is a holding company with subsidiaries in many countries.
Hon. members should know a little more of the background of this bill if they are to discuss it adequately. In July, 1966, General Telephone purchased Anglo-Canadian Telephone Company and made it a wholly owned subsidiary. They also acquired the controlling interest in Quebec Telephone Company which, at the end of 1967, had about 119,000 telephone subscribers. We find that in 1967 General Telephone, together with a wholly owned subsidiary, Anglo-Canadian Telephone Company, owned over 50 per cent of the British Columbia Telephone Company. It also owned, just over 53 per cent of the Quebec Telephone Company. In 1967, there were 835,000 telephone subscribers in British Columbia.
These facts indicate how the tentacles of the ultimate parent corporation have reached into every section of this nation. What disturbs me most is that in this bill we are dealing with a public utility controlled by someone who does not live in our country. Where do we stop in giving away the ownership of our assets to foreigners?
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I believe that many utilities, such as the telephone service, ought rightfully to be monopolies. It will be extremely costly for the community to have rival telephone companies operating in the same territory. Since by its vary nature a telephone operation lends itself to monopoly control, such, operation ought to be controlled by the people it serves, who in this case happen to be the people of Canada. Any government, individual or party fostering, advocating and assisting in removing from our national control such public utilities is, to be perfectly frank, doing a great disservice to our nation. It is therefore amazing to see members of the government party in this house sponsoring bills of this type. If it is government policy for them to do so, let that government policy be announced. Let government supporters go to
March 14, 1969

the Canadian people at election time and say, "Here, we will sell you out, lock, stock and barrel." I am disappointed to see through the medium of private bills similar to this one that come before this house little chunks of Canada's economy going on the auction block week after week. I sometimes wonder what private members the government benches think of this. They should be able to see what is happening and take a stand in their ridings, party and caucus. There should be a clearcut program and policy on liquidation, 'as in this particular instance, of public utilities in this country. I have raised this point before and will continue to raise it. There have been warnings galore. I do not know how many hon. members have read and studied in detail the report of the task force on the structure of Canadian industry. This report is entitled "Foreign Ownership and the Structure of Canadian Industry". The short title is, The Watkins Report.
This report sets out in detail what is happening to Canada and Canadian industry. This report, ocmmissioned by this government to give direction to it warns that the control of our Canadian economy is going by the board. At the start of the first session of the news parliament in 1968 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated there would be a new deal for Canadians. What has happened? Private member after private member on the government side introduced private bills which placed another chunk of Canada's economy on the auction block. People from one end of the country to another should know what individual members are trying to do to Canada's economy. Once they get away from their constituencies, they do not report to their constituents what they are trying to do. That is why we are raising this issue, Mr. Speaker, and will continue to raise it.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That Bill S-12 be not now read a second time, but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.


Mr. Rene Malte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, if as was shown by the previous speaker, there is great doubt as to the legality of this bill, giving it the six months' hoist might not be a bad thing. The Bonaventure and Gaspe Telephone Compnay Limited cannot be in such a hurry to sell that it cannot wait another six months.
Private Bills
As far as private bills related to companies are concerned, one cannot always depend more than necessary upon the decisions of the Canadian Transport Commission, which in the last analysis must approve or disapprove of the sale of a company, as the case here. It follows from that that we already have proofs that monopolies were created to the knowledge of the commission.
I will give you an example, in the information and telecommunication field, of a company such as the Power Corporation, that has succeeded more or less in exercising an information monopoly through several newspapers in the province of Quebec as well as quite a number of radio and television stations. Such monopolies may present a real danger to democracy, which proves that one is never too cautious in that field.
The fact remains however that this bill seems to protect freedom well enough. One may be inclined to say at first blush that the company has indeed the right to do what it wants. But when one knows the extraordinary power of trusts, of certain financial sharks, one is forced to act as a watch-dog and to sound the alarm. That is the reason why I support the motion to defer consideration of this bill for six months from today.


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I want to give my impressions and comment on some of the remarks made on the motion that has just been presented.
Unless I am mistaken, a while ago the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Hardin) insisted on the fact that the owners of the company concerned in this bill are foreigners. If such is the case, I cannot but share his opinion, in theory as well as in practice.
I also heard our hon. friend, the member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) point out the harmful effects of some monopolies and trusts; if such is the case, he is right.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to put forward a few details which I hope will help to refute the assertion that foreigners control the Quebec Telephone Company. First of all, according to my information which I believe is as credible as that of my hon. friends of the opposition, all the shares of the Bonaventure and Gaspe Telephone Company Limited are owned by the Quebec Telephone Company, with the exception of those which are known as directors' qualifying shares, and three or four others which are owned by an American estate. Furthermore, Quebec Telephone is the

March 14. 1969
Private Bills
sole creditor and it alone finances the development oi the Bonaventure and Gaspe Telephone Company because the financial situation of the latter is such that it is unable to obtain funds on the money market at a reasonable rate.
The Quebec Telephone Company, if my information is correct, has over 3,000 shareholders of whom a large number are Canadian citizens. However, I have been advised that the Sogibry, a Canadian company, had sold 51 per cent of its shares to the Anglo-Canadian Telephone Company, which has held a Quebec charter since about 1934, which also owns 51 per cent of the shares of the British Columbia Telephone Company, that holds a federal charter.
Someone said that steps were to be taken to grant a Canadian charter to the American company, the General Telephone Company, which, in my opinion, is impossible.
There is one other point I should like to make, though I do not want to unduly extend the debate. Out of the 600 telecommunications companies in Canada, only three hold a federal charter: The Bell Telephone Company, The British Columbia Telephone Company, and the small company the present bill is dealing with, the Bonaventure and Gaspe Telephone Company Limited.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
All three companies, moreover, are registered with the Canadian Stock Exchange in Montreal and Toronto. My hon. friends of the opposition have the right to go and buy the securities of these private companies and to have a share in their profits.
I just ask them to give us a chance of having this bill considered in committee. I am very much concerned by the fact that the Canadian citizens-most of whom, because of their daily activities, are not quite aware of what is going on in parliament-realize that we have been going on for months, nay, for years, repeating the same things on the same subject.
We will all be charged-not only the government members, but also the opposition members-with inefficiency and with misusing our parliamentary institutions.
It would be so easy-and so sensible-to have this bill deferred to the committee. If, later on, we felt we should oppose the bill, we would have plenty of opportunities to vote for or against it. We could at least do ourselves the justice of having acted as sensible

people, giving the matter thorough consideration. And why?
Because-and this seems to be a platitude that we must often repeat in the house-the witnesses, the people concerned, the official representatives of these companies will have answered our questions.
Before I conclude my remarks, I would like to recall that a few years ago, the newspapers reported that the Sogibry Company was selling its stock to an American company. That was not the case since a great amount of the stock is still in the hands of Canadian citizens.
We know that the area serviced by this company is regarded, rightly or wrongly, as an underdeveloped area. It was chosen as a pilot area. And our citizens, rightly or wrongly, often feel neglected by the big cities like Montreal, which are located far from the Gaspe area and forget about its people. That could well be one of the reasons for their living in poverty.
We know that there is in Quebec a small group of young and not so young people that are called separatists. We find them mainly in the big cities that I have just named, and my compatriots of the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe areas keep on saying that we are neglected and that these separatists also forget about us. But, when it is a question of hurting us in one way or another, then they do not forget us.
I remember that one day, a few separatists from Montreal insisted very strongly in the newspapers and through other means to prevent this transaction which all the people of our area wanted. Why? Precisely because it meant progress for the people of our area. And we know what discussions had been going on at that time. It was a question of the sale of Quebec Telephone to another Canadian company of which we are proud. Besides, our citizens feared that the administration of this company would be transferred somewhere else, which was possible. Indeed, the Quebec Telephone has several hundreds of employees who contribute to the economic development of our area. The transaction was done and the personnel remained with us. Moreover, this enabled two very important factories to get established in one of the areas that were designated by the government.
If this bill were passed, this small company which serves a small population and has at
March 14, 1969

the most 13,000 subscribers would save $100,000 a year. Furthermore, if my computation is correct, the government of Canada could recover in taxes about $52,000 a year. By leaving things as they are now the federal government loses $1,000 a week.
Earlier, I was referring to separatism. I ask some hon. members whose views I respect not to play the game of those separatists who tried to hurt our people, and to call the representatives of the company so as to make sure that this transaction will help the small people of Gaspe, especially the citizens of the Bonaventure and Gaspe ridings.
It is fine to state great principles and I am for that but before doing so, I think that it would be a good idea to consider their effects.
Mr. Speaker, before closing I ask my friends to behave in such a way as to give the Canadian people the impression that we are taking our job seriously and that our discussions are not just some sort of entertainment. At this stage I would ask the hon. members of the opposition to co-operate so this bill be referred to a committee, then if our friends who are objecting to it have serious reasons to do so-they will have an opportunity to make their point. When they object that these companies' interests are held by foreigners and that we might be building a great monopoly-as was mentionned by the hon. member for Champlain-I could reply that if the bill is referred to the committee, they will have every opportunity to get information.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of the Gaspe area I ask our friends who object to this bill to enable us to meet the representatives of the company so that we can look into this matter in great detail. Then, come what may, everyone will be free to vote according to his own views.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, before the member takes his seat, perhaps I might ask him a question. I was very interested in his presentation, particularly in the light of the fact that he represents the area in question. I have no disagreement with his contention that the Gaspe has been neglected. But is he not aware that with the passage of this bill this company, in effect, would pass from the control of the federal government and the Department of Transport which now sets the rates. The rate structure would then be left
Private Bills
free to be established by Quebec Telephone rather than by the federal Department of Transport. This, obviously, would have some effect on the telephone service in his area.


Louis Guy LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I will first answer my hon. friend's question in a general way. The first object of the present bill is to *authorize a sale. In the second place, it is intended precisely to improve services in accordance with technological changes and developments in the field of communications.
At the present time, this small company which exists in name only cannot improve its own situation, develop normally.
With regard to rates, I must honestly admit that I would not be in a position to give an exact answer. I think those who will appear before the committee will be in a position to answer those questions more accurately than I could do so myself.
As I said, one of the objectives of the present bill is to improve services.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I was extremely interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. LeBlanc). Naturally, I am very interested in his side of this particular question. Since he is the member from this area, he has a particular interest in this company. I would not quarrel with that at all. I know that if this were a small telephone company in my riding I would be vitally interested in it and would be working very hard to see that service in that particular area was improved.


An hon. Member:: We would not be against it.


Mark Willson Rose: Certainly, I would not assume that if I were for something in my riding the members of the government would be against me because I believe some members, at least those from New Brunswick, are very generous and would not necessarily be against something because I happen to be for it. I apologize to the hon. member for Rimouski because I am unable to reply to his representations in his own language. I feel that is my fault and I apologize for it.
The hon. member discussed the ownership of this particular company. When I first spoke on this bill on December 3, I too, since I was a rather new member, was perhaps a bit naive

March 14. 1969
Private Bills
about this situation. I did not see the connection between this little company in Gaspe and various other companies not only in this country but also in the United States. The Financial Post recently conducted a survey and issued a report. I should like to read from the speech of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) of December 3, as recorded at page 3444 of Hansard. I shall read part of this into the record because I believe it is important:
The report tells us that a subsidiary of Quebec Telephone Is the Bonaventure and Gaspe Telephone Company, which is wholly owned and serves the south shore of the Gaspe Peninsula, Quebec. So this is the first link in the chain of ownership. We then set about further investigation and found that Quebec Telephone is itself a subsidiary of the Anglo-Canadian Telephone Company whose head office is situated at 715 Victoria Square, Montreal. This is a holding company whose subsidiaries own telephone systems in British Columbia, Quebec and the Dominican Republic, and supervise publication of telephone directories and installation of services for telephone companies in Canada. The company is itself a subsidiary of General Telephone and Electronics Corporation which acquired all of its class A shares in 1965 through an exchange offer of two and a half General Telephone shares for each class A share of Anglo-Canadian.
Then, this report lists the various directors and ultimately we have a mixture of Canadian and United States directors. The ownership eventually falls into the hands of United States interests. This is something about which members of our party have continuously been concerned. I know members on the Other side of the house are becoming very dreary of our particular stand on this matter. We believe, however, that it is important to bring to public attention a situation which we in this party-I know this view is shared by a great number of Canadians-feel is constantly eroding Canadian ownership in vital utilities and financial institutions, and causing it to fall into foreign hands. I think this is something about which we must be very careful.
I, too, like the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), am very concerned when this sort of thing happens under the guise of something else. We do not believe it really is to the credit of any government member to assist in this particular development. Only the other night Mr. Watkins, the author of the famous Watkins report which has to do with the structure and ownership of Canadian business, said in Toronto that it is almost too late to recoup a major portion of Canadian industry, natural resources and financial institutions which is in foreign hands. This almost makes this parliament irrelevant. We know the government has accepted the Watkins report. So

far I have seen no move on the part of the government to implement any of its recommendations. This is a very important report because it not only implies a loss of our economic sovereignty but ultimately the loss of our political sovereignty. Many Canadians are concerned because decisions that relate to this country are being made by people outside our borders. This should not be the case so long as we have a country that maintains its sovereignty and a particular identity.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Let us think of the amount of money we devote each year to the various schemes and functions of the communications media, the C.B.C. and other operations in order to preserve our Canadian identity. This is the taxpayers' money that is being spent to preserve the Canadian identity on the one hand, yet on the other hand we give away control of our economy. If we continue to do this, we are going to lose this race.
Perhaps this loss of Canadian sovereignty is not so important. It seems to me if we are going to maintain a viable and clearly independent Canada a greater number of people must concern themselves with this situation. The people in this federal house are the ones who should be most interested in this. The members of this party will not be party to any such move. We will fight any move coming before the house during the private members hour or at 'any other time which assists, aids or abets this kind of thing.
Yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) got very upset. He delivered a highly emotional testimonial. He made a very good speech and I compliment him upon it. I think he showered more heat than light on the subject. Nevertheless, I compliment him for his oratorical ability. In any event, we are going to fight these moves and no one will dissuade us.
Let me also say to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra that we are not the only people who use a great deal of time which might be considered unnecessary by hon. members in some quarters of the house in talking out the private members hour. I can think of many good bills, private and public, that have been presented to the house. I think I have agreement in this respect from all sides of the house. When this occurs the members on the government side talk-out these bills. I think members on this side of the house are equally guilty in this regard. I have expressed my opinion on more than one
March 14, 1969

occasion about the futility of the private members hour.
We must be very concerned about problems in respect of big corporations or multi-national corporations. It is not necessarily so that what is good for General Motors is good for the country. I do not believe that. Virtually every country in the western world has taken steps which have advanced their economic sovereignty. If we are going to maintain any economic independence, we have to do something.
We have been amassing luxuries. This is the result of our being tied to continentalism. The matter does not stop there. The Gaspe company is not just a little company. It has links with a United States corporation. The British Columbia Telephone Company in my province is in exactly the same position. The existence of these multi-national corporations is a relatively new phenomenon which is not limited to Canada or the United States. Certainly, the concept of multi-national corporations is in existence in Europe, Asia and South America, although it is relatively new. We do not really know how to deal with these problems. Very few people have faced up to this issue or studied the effects of it. They have very little to recommend as to how to deal with it.
Certainly, a multi-national corporation has no political or ideological roots. You cannot say, on the one hand, that these corporations are the result of free enterprise when you realize that on the other hand they are much more powerful than governments. It seems to me also that we need business, investment and the kind of thing which will create jobs. If we are sincere in terms of maintaining our sovereignty and political freedom we had better be very careful about what is happening. I, personally, am sorry to see a member of the government supporting a bill such as this. Perhaps the kind of nationalism I am talking about is an outdated concept.
When I went to high school 20 or 30 years ago I was told that nationalism was responsible for all kinds of things; wars, economic disaster, political and social breakdown, and that perhaps the boundary lines separating nations should disappear. As yet we do not have any adequate substitute for nationalism, but whether we like it or not we should be looking for new political structures and administrative units. Perhaps the kind of thing that is happening now represents a step in the right direction, whether we like it or not.
Private Bills
In spite of the fact that all my high school teachers told me that nationalism was outdated, I am prepared to suggest that if they thought about it now they would come to the conclusion they were wrong. The ideology of this particular century, certainly from the 1950's, the 1960's and since World War II, has been nationalism. We see this happening in Africa and in Asia. These are small administrative units and small political units. The tragedy which is taking place in Nigeria is an example of this. We have even seen nationalism coming about in Britain in the concept of one rule for Scotland. We can see the spectre of separatism in Quebec. I would be very sorry if this type of thing occurred. I hope that when someone from French Canada comes out to British Columbia he will look around and say: This is my country. When I go across the river northward into Quebec, that is what I want to be able to say. If separatism reaches the stage where people are forced into any other position I will be very sorry.
We have not found solutions to problems of this kind. Many suggestions have been made on a national basis. The hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. LeBlanc) made the statement that separatism in relation to the kind of thing that the people in his riding were concerned about can be considered vis-a-vis the problems in Montreal. I am sure the people who are most critical would not feel very comfortable if they realized the true nature of the comparison between this little telephone company in Gaspe and perhaps the General Telephone and Telecommunications Company of the United States.
The diversified multi-national corporation concept is a situation we must deal with realistically. I do not think we are unique or the only country facing this kind of new technique. We had a private members hour yesterday and we heard testimony and evidence to suggest that our financial institutions were being increasingly dominated by foreign interests. This has caused particular difficulty for Canadians. We are experiencing a time of inflation, and we do not control our own financial institutions. How can we really be responsible for priorities, and how can we create those things we need in this country?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
These institutions lend money to governments. The government of Canada must go to them for the funds which it needs. These companies invest in things that bring the

March 14. 1969
Private Bills
highest return, so currently they are certainly not investing in municipal bonds which might assist in capital works. We all know that the bond market is in a bad state. These companies are not interested in it. We do not control them, so there is no money for bonds and consequently there is no money for capital works. There is also no money for housing because these companies invest only in mutual stocks and shares from which they can get a large return.
I think we should look into that problem very thoroughly because we will have to come up with legislation to overcome it. Encouragement to institutions such as mortgage loan companies by the Minister of Transport is not going to be enough. We will have to say to them: "So much of your money must go into mortgage money for homes".
Such multinational corporations as the Gaspe Company and General Telephone and Telecommunications are only two of many, but there will be fewer and fewer of them if they grow larger and larger. One of the men who has given a great deal of attention to this problem is the noted economist, John K. Galbraith. He discussed the problems of our future as they relate to bigness in his book called "The New Industrial State". In it, he outlined various features of our society which I will run through rapidly. An increasing amount of time is necessary for new products to be put on the market. There is a diminution of a micro-fraction of the tasks to be performed. Great increases of capital are necessary for anything to be produced, and once the plans are laid there is an inflexibility so far as change is concerned. We cannot make changes rapidly enough. Specialized manpower is needed, and so is a huge bureaucratic organization to put any new product on the market. A great deal of planning and arranging is needed, as well as market stimulation brought about by advertising. The stimulation of want is not what we need any more. We are told what we want through advertising.
We have been very successful in our kind of society, probably more successful than any other previous age or civilization but, as Galbraith states, what counts is not the quantity of goods but the quality of our life. We are constantly faced with the growing alienation of the young-we see this in universities, but not only there. We see this in the dropouts of our society, the hippies, the yippies and the lippies. They are alienated because they do
[Mr. Rose.l
not really have any part in this system which is above and beyond them.
I think it is the responsibility of members of parliament to bring this problem to the attention of everyone, but especially to those people who feel that nobody really cares. Parliament has become irrelevant to a great many people, as I found during the last electoral campaign when people said they were not going to vote. When I asked them why, they answered: "What difference does it make?"
The problem of these large industrial multinational corporations is receiving a great deal of attention. Today I received in the mail a notice from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. The members of my party will pardon me if I read from this document. In it they are announcing their 73rd annual meeting in Puerto Rico on March 14. I certainly hope that the wives of the members attending this business meeting will have the privilege of subtracting their expenses from their income tax. The topic of the meeting is "Productivity Trends and the Multinational Corporation". So other people are becoming concerned, especially the business world, and find it important to study this particular problem. I think we also should be concerned about this problem, especially as it relates to our country, our sovereignty, our political freedom and our identity.
I would like to conclude by saying that our telephone system in Canada has a virtual monopoly in our communications system and it is largely dominated by interests residing outside our national borders. In spite of this we spend millions of dollars every year on the C.B.C. We do all kinds of things to increase our Canadian identity, but we are content to give into hands other than our own this vital link in our communications network. I think this process must be stopped. We must take a determined stand to ensure that it does not happen. Let us consider what is happening with our radio stations. I have here a bulletin from the Broadcasting League which names some 21 stations owned by one man. If I had time I would name them all, but I will spare hon. members this. Our concern about this problem is important because of the opportunity which the communications media have for making propaganda and swaying public opinion to buy and sell certain things. We cannot adopt a laissez-faire attitude with regard to this.
March 14, 1969
I have tried to outline broadly some of the concerns shared by me, by my party, and also, I hope, by members on the other side of the house, about the trend that is taking place in the business world of our country with regard to the ownership of our country. I may not say it as emotionally as have some people, but that does not mean that I am any the less concerned. I certainly think that a committee should study this bill, but-
Private Bills The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard): Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members business has now expired. It being five o'clock this house stands adjourned until Monday, St. Patrick's Day, at 2 p.m. We wish our Irish friends a happy and pleasant week end.


[Stage Direction]
At five o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]


Monday, March 17, 1969


[Stage Direction]
Eleventh report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in French and English-Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau).
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]