1970-03-20

MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I be permitted to refer at this time to the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates which appears in yesterday's Votes and Proceedings and is reported at page 615. The Chair has looked at this report, and I have to inform the House that I have serious misgivings as to its procedural implications. It has procedural implications not only because it appears to go beyond the terms of the royal recommendation but also because it might complicate things next week in view of the timetable for supply proceedings.
I would think that the House Leaders may want to consult in this regard. I will be in touch with them so that some decision may be reached on whether there may be some way by which this report can be considered by the House or amended, according to the wish of hon. members.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I comment very briefly. I had this thought in mind, and I realize that when we get into supplementary estimates items of this kind can create many problems. I am not going to go into detail now, but I do feel that discussion might be resumed later. On behalf of our party I believe I can indicate that, if the government is willing to make certain approaches with regard to waivers of some of the Standing Orders, then in effect any defect may be cured. However, I think the matter should be discussed on the floor of the House, and so there will be no repetition I shall defer my remarks till either later today or Monday.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth and fifth reports of Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence-Mr. Wahn.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2, of Standing Order 41 I wish to lay upon the table a copy, in each official language, of a public announcement which I will be making immediately to the effect that it is the government's intention to appoint as the first director of Information Canada, effective April 1 next, Mr. Jean-Douis Gagnon, distinguished Canadian journalist.



SUPREME COURT OF CANADA


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in announcing on behalf of the Prime Minister, who is absent in Winnipeg, the appointment of the Honourable Gerald Fauteux, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, to be Chief Justice of Canada, succeeding the Right Honourable John Robert Cartwright who will cease to hold office on the occasion of his seventy-fifth birthday, Monday, March 23.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
Hon. members will understand that it is only a long and respected tradition that restrains me from speaking as I would wish in this place in high praise of the retiring Chief Justice. Until such time as Chief Justice Cartwright completes his active duty on the bench, I feel it is perhaps inappropriate for me to make the kind of comment I would wish to make on the outstanding contribution he has made to his court and to Canada during his tenure as Chief Justice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: I may say, however, Mr. Speaker, that at this very hour during Chief Justice Cartwright's final appearance on the bench as the Chief Justice of Canada my colleague the Minister of Justice is leading the ceremonies of tribute before the Supreme Court in acknowledgement of his services to the people of Canada.
I am glad to say that the new Chief Justice has already enjoyed a long and honourable judicial career, having been first appointed as

March 20, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry a Puisne Judge of the Superior Court for the district of Montreal on April 1, 1947. He was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada on December 22, 1949. We wish him well in the high office which he now assumes.
On behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Justice, I also wish to announce the appointment of the Honourable Bora Laskin, now a judge of the Court of Appeal of Ontario, to be a Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, filling the vacancy created by the retirement of Chief Justice Cartwright from that court.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motions:
March 18, 1970-The President of the Privy Council: That the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications be empowered, during its consideration of the subject-matter of ground transportation at airports, to adjourn from place to place within Canada.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 2 of Standing Order 21 this Government Notice of Motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders at the next sitting of the House.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Postmaster General and the Prime Minister I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Is it a fact that the government has directed that the Ottawa mail box of Colin Brown, a London insurance agent who has attacked the federal white paper on proposed taxation, shall be closed in so far as the coupons are concerned to which the minister has taken such strong objection? Is he aware of the fact that if the letters or coupons are directed to members they are delivered but unless they are they are returned to the senders when there are no names?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, all I know about it is what I read in an Ottawa paper yesterday. To my knowledge members of the government as such have nothing to do with this. I will check with the Postmaster General but certainly I have no knowledge beyond what I read in the paper yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure, then, that the minister would agree that if this is being done it would be a shocking mistake and a denial of the rights-


An hon. Member:: If!


John George Diefenbaker: -of every individual in Canada and would indicate a power-hungry government.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources concerning the statement by Mr. Steve Roman, president of Denison Mines, that he intends to sell his shares in spite of the statement which the minister made last evening. Has the minister any comment to make by which he can assure the people of Canada that the government intends to carry out the obligation, which the minister undertook last night, to see that any uranium operation does not have a greater foreign ownership than 33 per cent? What steps does the minister intend to take to make sure that any transfer of shares does not violate the proposal which the minister placed before the House last night?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr Speaker, as the hon. member knows from the statement, the methods whereby the enforcement of the government's decision will be achieved are to be the subject matter of regulations which will be disclosed as soon as we have fully found the methods, made up our minds in this regard and also have discussed the matter with the securities exchanges and so on. There is no question but that the intent of the government in this regard can and will be carried out, and any potential purchaser who does not qualify as a Canadian in accordance with the definition I gave last night would purchase entirely at his own risk.
March 20, 1970


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister spoke of regulations. May I ask him whether he intends to introduce specific legislation to implement the policy outlined last night or whether there is some other act under which regulations will be made, and, if so, what that act will be?


John James Greene: Well, the statement reads as follows:
The preparation of detailed regulations reflecting these criteria, in the course of which there will be consultation with interested parties, will go forward with all possible speed, and we shall make the results known as soon as possible.
We have not yet determined whether it should be done entirely under the authority of the Atomic Energy Control Act, under which we have very broad powers, or whether some new or special legislation or regulations will be required. As soon as a decision is made it will be announced in the proper manner.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether any thought was given by the government to the possibility of Eldorado, the government Crown corporation, acquiring the shares of Denison Mines?


John James Greene: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is a possibility which may be worthy of consideration but to date there is no such thought in mind in respect of this announcement. If such action were to be taken it has not been decided upon at this time.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister state very briefly why the figure of 33 per cent was chosen as the limit? Is this a purely arbitrary figure pulled out of a hat or is there some particular reason for the 33 per cent figure?


John James Greene: I do not think there is
any particular magic or wisdom from the mountain involved in the 33 per cent figure, but in respect of other institutions such as banks and finance companies I believe the figure is 25 per cent and it was determined that in a higher risk type of investment such as mining it might be advantageous to the country to have a greater incentive for foreign investment than in respect of financial institutions and thence the figure is higher than 25 per cent. The 33 per cent figure was deemed to be an applicable one.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the minister be prepared to agree that for all practical purposes corporations frequently are effectively controlled with less than 33 per cent of the shares?


John James Greene: That is possible, but with the rules as they are we think it highly improbable that any foreign investor, who would then be at the mercy of a Canadian takeover, as 67 per per cent of the shares are held by Canadians, would be likely to embark upon a financial adventure which might prove so risky. So we feel in this case that the 33 per cent will adequately ensure Canadian control.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that the chairman of Denison has just completed a press conference in Toronto in which he stated that because of the government's policy it would probably be necessary to close the mine for three or four years affecting 1,000 jobs, and because of the importance of keeping Canada's largest uranium mine open is the government actively pursuing a policy of trying to help Denison find a Canadian buyer for the shares of the chairman of Denison?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the president of Denison is perfectly free to hold such press conferences as he sees fit. With respect to the employment of the men and the continuity of operations, certainly under existing programs, or other programs if they are required, we will consider such an eventuality if and when it occurs.
With respect to helping him to find a buyer, now that the rules are made and investors know exactly who may or may not qualify, I think that the question of a buyer or of a sale should probably be left to the entrepreneurs, to the private sector, where it properly belongs.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Algoma.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Then I take it that it would be government policy-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized for the moment the hon. member for Algoma.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: I should like to ask the minister whether he will ensure that the interests of the workers will be considered in any agreements or any arrangements which are made with Denison Mines?
5272	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


John James Greene: We do not contemplate any arrangements with Denison Mines at present, but certainly in any governmental action the well-being, employment and concern of the workers will have the highest priority.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: I should like to ask the minister whether he intends to apply the same regulations to the other energy industries like coal and oil?


John James Greene: There is no decision in that regard at present. I think the Prime Minister has made it manifest that the government is working very actively on an over-all policy decision in regard to foreign ownership of industrial and resource assets in Canada. When that decision is made and the announcement forthcoming, this question will be specifically answered.


George Harris Hees: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I take it from the minister's answer to my last question that if Denison is closed down by the decision of the chairman, it would be quite all right with the government, and that the extra 1,000 people laid off will simply add to the government's policy of increasing unemployment at this time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerald William Baldwin: This is the war on inflation!


Maurice Brydon Foster: I would like to ask the minister, in view of Mr. Roman's statement this morning that there is a lack of funds, whether the minister would consider extending the stockpiling program, of which Denison has made the most use, beyond the date of June 30?


John James Greene: In the event of a close-down, or possible close-down, we would have to meet that eventuality if it arose and consider the various alternatives that might be available to the government. But that bridge has not been crossed yet.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the uncertainty caused by the white paper and the announcement with regard to Denison Mines, I should like to ask the minister whether he will assure the country now that these regulations or special legislation which he has mentioned today will not apply to the petroleum industry of western Canada which at present has to suffer under the quotas imposed by the United States, a subject matter which the minister recently discussed in the House?

DEBATES	March 20, 1970


John James Greene: I am not able to give the assurance that the hon. member requests in that, as I have stated, the Prime Minister has announced the fact that the government is reviewing the entire question of foreign ownership. I am quite certain that when the decision is made it will be announced as promptly as possible in order that the industry and entrepreneurs and investors may know the government's policy in this regard.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister be prepared to make a definite statement prior to the Easter vacation in view of the effect that this is having on business generally as well as on the stock market in Canada?


John James Greene: I am in no position to make such an announcement, as I have stated, and I believe that the stock market, while it has its ups and downs, has not been deleteriously affected by the government's policy in this respect.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the right hon. member for Prince Albert seeking the floor for a supplementary question?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It has to do with the province of Saskatchewan where tremendous developments in uranium production are expected. An American corporation has spent a great deal of money in Saskatchewan in the Woolaston Lake area and there is a distinct possibility of tremendous developments there. Since some $70 million in expenditures will, it is hoped, be made, will the decision that has been made in connection with Denison Mines apply to this company which has spent a couple of years in serious development and is now about to be in a position to launch one of the greatest mining developments in our province, where such development is necessary because potash and wheat are virtually unsaleable? Will the minister give reconsideration to those industries that have spent their money under the law as it was and never expected the changes to be made that have been made?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the situation that the right hon. gentleman has drawn to the attention of the House is one that the government had in mind when we declared in the statement:
A further point concerns foreign enterprises now engaged in uranium exploration which have not yet established the presence of commercially pro-
March 20, 1970

ductive uranium deposits. Such enterprises will be given a certain period of time within which to establish the commercially productive capacity of their properties in order to qualify for the exemption from the ceilings which will be available to present foreign owners of existing mines-
That was the exact situation we had in mind in that exemption.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister for that, and I then ask him what period of time will be given? What is the anticipated time? I am sure that uncertainty is not desirable on the part of the government in this regard. How many months or how many years?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, there is no specific time decided upon, in order to give the Atomic Energy Control Board some flexibility in this regard. This is one of the areas of regulation to which I referred earlier and the regulations will be made in the near future, but certainly the Atomic Energy Control Board which will administer these regulations generally, according to our present thinking, will be happy to discuss the situation with any particular developer to assure that there will be no prejudice to such developer by reason of any retroactive effect of these rules.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that we should go on to another subject, but if the House will agree the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Waterloo and the hon. member for Algoma for a supplementary question, and then go on to the next questioner.


Max Saltsman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the cryptic nature of the minister's statement last night and the importance of that statement, will the minister seek time today to explain the government's reasons for bringing these regulations inito force?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I think that both the Prime Minister and other government spokesmen in this area have made manifest the reasons for the fact that a decision had to be made very quickly on this matter. A sale was pending of Canada's greatest uranium resource containing something like 50 per cent of proven reserves. That is the reason we had to act very quickly in the Canadian interest, and I think that is quite well known to the Canadian public.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is: in view of the statement this
Inquiries of the Ministry morning by Mr. Roman that he is going ahead with his sale to American interests, does the minister expect to introduce emergency legislation on this matter? As the second part of my question, can the minister assure the industry that the Canadian stockpile will not be put on the general market until some time later, perhaps after 1975 when the general market has improved?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the sale of the stockpile, there is no government decision as to when to sell, but certainly the experience to date has been that we do not interfere unfairly with the market by dumping the stockpile at a time when this would hurt the natural market. With regard to what we would do in the eventuality of a sale which contradicts the decision of the government, then of course we will take any action that is necessary to assure that these rules are carried out.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Henry Lafulippe (Complon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In view of the fact that we received every day calls for help from officials of the textile industry, several of the plants being about to close down, would the minister tell the House what action is contemplated to assist them?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I am exerting an allout effort, Mr. Speaker, to develop a textile policy, and I am to start this afternoon on a series of meetings with those concerned.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. I sought some information on this subject yesterday without success when he was not in the House so I would like to obtain the information today. In light of the most recent unemployment figures and in view of the fact that the minister has already recognized that his consumer credit proposals

March 20, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry will further slow down the economy and therefore create further unemployment, does the minister still intend to go ahead with his proposals to control consumer credit?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I indicated our intentions in my budget speech.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Did the minister have an estimate made of the probable increase in unemployment that would result from these consumer credit regulations? Was such an estimate made and, if so, what was the estimate?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we had estimates of the over-all probable levels of unemployment which are forecast. The consumer credit controls, as I indicated, would not affect, we estimate, more than one per cent of credit sales and to that extent would not have, in our opinion, a serious effect on the unemployment situation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the minister not agree, when unemployment has reached the figures it has now, that any further increase is serious? Is the minister telling the House that he has not really had an estimate made as to the effects on unemployment of this proposal or, if he has had such an estimate made, that he is not prepared to give it to the House? Is this what he is saying?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that I do not think the consumer credit item per se will have a serious effect on unemployment.



POLLUTION


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. He is not on the roster to be present today and is not here, but neither is the acting minister nor the second acting minister so perhaps I had better direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister and he can distribute it where appropriate. What contingency plans have been made by the government to deal with any discharge of oil by the Manhattan during her second voyage through the Canadian Arctic?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They sent the Prime Minister up there.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has made many statements in the House on this subject and the related aspects of the trip. It is my understanding that he had advised the House he would have further information on the precise question asked by the hon. member.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I naturally cannot get into a controversy with the Acting Prime Minister at this time, but I asked the question in the first place because the Minister of Transport has given information on other matters but not on that point. However, I would like to put a supplementary, if I may. If for any reason Canadian icebreakers do not accompany the Manhattan, will the government permit the tanker to proceed through the Canadian Arctic with the assistance of the United States icebreakers?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to have an answer to the question brought forward.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the statement made by the Prime Minister in a radio interview this morning that he was not aware of the extent of Canadian Arctic waters, would the Acting Prime Minister call this to his attention and say that the House is very anxious to know what the Canadian government claims as being Canadian Arctic waters?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon
member for Surrey.



FINANCE


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I want to ask the Minister of Finance. A few weeks ago in answer to a question the minister indicated he was giving consideration to the many requests of consumer groups and from the industry for the removal of the 12 per cent federal sales tax on margarine. Has a decision been made on that point and, if not, when can it be expected?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, at the time of the budget a decision was made to make no tax changes.
March 20, 1970



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Considering the uncertain postal situation in Montreal-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You finally got the message.
Another hon. Member: When did you find out about it?


William Warren Allmand: -would the department
consider an alternative method of distributing old age security cheques at the end of the month in order to guarantee that these are received by pensioners on the proper date? I ask this question today because there are only ten days left until the end of the month and we will be in recess when that date comes.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member that I will be glad to bring this suggestion to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.



MONTREAL,-DELIVERY OF ALLOWANCE CHEQUES

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Being very concerned about people who are expecting welfare cheques at month's end, I should like to ask the minister whether he has thought of asking the 24 members from the Island of Montreal to pass these cheques from door to door during the Easter recess?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamenfary Secretary io Minister of Transport):: It has already been done. You are too late.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the distinguished Acting Prime Minister coninquiries of the Ministry cerning the very serious dispute in the city just mentioned by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace regarding the right of job security for the workers of Lapalme and the very important matter of the commissioner's inquiry. Can the Acting Prime Minister advise if the Postmaster General was declaring government policy when at the Empire Club last night he is reported as saying that until "the transfer of acquired rights of workers was authorized by legislation such rights could not be transferred?"


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the benefit of seeing the report of the speech, but I will draw the hon. member's question to the attention of the Prime Minister on Monday.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the distinguished Acting Prime Minister is whether the Postmaster General would be better advised not to comment on the situation when Mr. Carl Goldenberg is trying his best to deal with it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to look into that suggestion.



FINANCE


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is either for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or the Minister of National Revenue, whichever gentleman would like to respond. In view of the recent decision by the Tariff Board that ventilating equipment used underground does not qualify for exemption from federal sales tax, and in view of the fact that such equipment is used underground, in coal mines, to eliminate the danger of methane gas explosions, thus preventing accidents and loss of life, would the minister consider having this decision by the Tariff Board reviewed? Mr. Speaker, I refer here to the recent decision regarding operations in British Columbia.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have made note of the suggestion.


Robert Muir: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if he would be kind enough

March 20, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry to report back to the house, and in this instance would he not think that the Tariff Board in this case is really splitting hairs?



FISHERIES


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Foresty, Mr. Speaker, arising out of the fact that the Canada water bill is now before a Standing Committee of the House for intensive consideration. Can the minister indicate when he will be bringing in suggested amendments to the Fisheries Act in order that we may have an opportunity, at least at the first reading stage, to assess to what extent his proposals will plug the loophole in his colleague's bill?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendment to the Fisheries Act has been cleared by the government and the bill will be introduced perhaps after the Easter recess. I can assure the hon. member that the Fisheries Act amendments and the Canada Water Act are on all fours.



MINAS BASIN-FINANCING OF TIDAL POWER PROJECT BY BANK OF CANADA

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
In view of the fact that financiers have refused to carry out the project of operating a tidal power plant in the Bay of Fundy, does the minister intend to seek other means of financing the project and particularly using the funds of the Bank of Canada to accomplish what is physically possible?


Mr. Speaker:: I feel that the hon. member's interesting suggestion could be placed on the order paper.



TAXATION


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. As the minister said in a television interview on the CBC news on

Wednesday night that there are a number of things in the white paper on tax reform that he does not like, would he take the first opportunity on motions to enumerate what those things are and what he specifically intends to do about them?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I personally do not like to have to pay more taxes but am willing to pay them in order to help take some other people off the tax rolls.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Now that the Postmaster General has revealed himself as being a co-author of the white paper, does that minister's recent absence from the House stem from the fact that the Minister of Finance has asked him to undertake some revising?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker, not really.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of a sort that has been asked before. Is the minister now prepared to state what the changes are so that members of the public who are preparing briefs and the two committees making studies will know what they are supposed to be studying? Let us have a statement.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the two committees know what they are studying. They are studying the white paper, and it is up to them to make recommendations.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do not ask this to be argumentative; the committees know what they are studying. Will the minister heed the suggestion that it would be better and have more merit if the committees were to study what the minister intends to implement and not withdraw?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think so. These committees are studying proposals.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: An exercise in futility.


Edgar John Benson: I will not dictate to the committee as to what it should do, and I do not think my hon. friend should suggest that.


John George Diefenbaker: But the minister makes the ultimate decision.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: My
question is supplementary to one directed by
March 20. 1970

the hon. member for Calgary North to the Minister of Finance. Since the minister has clearly indicated that he does not intend to dictate to either of the two committees studying the tax proposals, may I ask whether the hon. gentleman has suggested a date by which the committees should complete their studies in order that the subject matter could then come back to the House and the legislation proceed, bearing in mind the target date of January 1, 1971, which the minister has announced.


Edgar John Benson: I have not, Mr. Speaker.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Then we and the chairmen of the respective committees may understand that the period during which these important proposals can be studied is not limited by the suggestion of the minister that the legislation should proceed by January 1, 1971, but that the date will depend on when the two committees report on the proposals before them?


Edgar John Benson: I indicated earlier what our target date would be for implementing tax reform proposals. The committees know that date. But I am not in a position to dictate to committees-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That's right. Better leave it at that. You are not in a position.


Edgar John Benson: At least I have a position for a while.


George Harris Hees: There is still the next election.



STATEMENT BY U.S. OFFICIAL ON SECURITY OF SUPPLY IN WESTERN CANADA

['Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to be able to reply to the statement on motions of that great athletic supporter, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro). It is ironic, I think, that this government\'s much-touted and long-awaited sports policy for Canadians was tabled exactly on the day we learned of the collapse of Canada\'s amateur hockey team, the Nats. The Nats were shafted because the team had no place to play once the International Ice Hockey Federation ruled out the use of nine professionals on the Canadian team.\nSo in one sport at least the control of the commercial interests is now locked up. The\nDEBATES\t5321\nTabling of Sports Document minister\'s proposals cover a 50-page document chock-full of high-sounding phrases and good intentions. I was particularly interested in words like "participation", "involvement" and "status" which abound throughout. Sociological jargon such as "other directed" and "non goal oriented" appears there too, but I take it that "non goal oriented" is a phrase not specifically meant to apply to the Toronto Maple Leafs, although judging by their recent performance it fits. In any event, I hope that the minister, by dropping names of profound social thinkers like David Reisman and Paul Goodman, is not attempting to intimidate those of us who are not as well educated.\nThe report calls for such things as equal opportunity to play, the fun aspect of sports and industrial recreation, with which few could quarrel. It criticizes our North American work ethic as it has extended itself into sports, and at least in the lengthy preamble of the sports policy, enjoyment is stressed and competition played down. We in this party support the point of view that for too long the sole justification for mass sports activity on the part of Canadian children was to provide a screening device by which the athletic elite-the pros and the champs-could be identified and hothoused. "To win at all costs" is a phrase exchanged for the theme of "play and play the game", and rightly so. We feel that by broadening the base of sports activity, a higher pinnacle of international competition could be rationally achieved.\nThat Canada has a sorry record in both sports participation at home and international competition abroad is self-evident. For far too long, since 1961, the National Advisory Council on Fitness and Amateur Sport has professed to encourage mass participation but approves grants much more liberally for large national and international sports meets. Authorized spending by this body of $1 million rising to $5 million has never been closely approached, and it will be seen that what was spent went largely to the elite and not the masses. This emphasis may well continue, for after you wade through all the verbiage of the minister\'s report it will be found such proposals as Ottawa office space for government bodies, travel expenses for executives and paid executive directorships for priority sports may continue to encourage a sports bureaucracy with little to support it.\nWhile agreeing that financing is far from the whole story behind our low-grade sports performance, there is no doubt there has been in sports, as in other economic areas, a star-\n5322\tCOMMONS\nTabling of Sports Document vation of public goods in favour of private ones. Those sports which are not marketable have a much more difficult time attracting private financing than do the others. Business in our affluent society only encourages mass participation in sports by those who are financially capable of consuming, such as skiing and golf.\nThe proposition of charitable tax exemptions to patrons of sports, such as outlined in the report, it seems to me may increase the amount of money available for such sports, but what I would be particularly interested to know is which sports will be selected and who will really control the priorities as to which sports are to be so favoured. Obviously, the man who pays the piper. This system may well perpetuate the ugly ramifications that the earlier part of the report pretends to abhor.\nThere is a certain fuzzy vagueness about this interim white paper on sports. What we and the public would like to know is whether this paper is really window-dressing or whether the government really means it this time. We know, for instance, that while the minister possessed the authority to do it, to date he has done absolutely nothing to democratize the major Canadian professional sports of football and hockey. How have players in these sports been helped by the minister, who professes such noble intentions, to have more say about their contracts and game rules? However, whenever there is an important sports announcement to be made,\nDEBATES\tMarch 20. 1970\nwe can expect for certain to see our ministei bathed in the full light of television publicity\nAfter we have cleaned all the dust away, how precisely are the lower and middle-income groups going to achieve greater participation? Where do you put facilities in the dense urban parts of our cities without slum clearance destroying housing? Where are the proposals to grant funds directly to the communities that need it for non-competitive, recreational facilities?\nI should like to say, in conclusion, that the paper ends with a long-term challenge for Canadians. The question is: How long, oh Lord, how long? All grandstanding aside, it should be the right of every Canadian, handicapped or not, to participate in a sport of his own choosing at his own level.']
Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It arises out of a statement of Mr. Philip H. Trezise, United States Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, relating to the recent imposition of import quotas with respect to Canadian oil. Does the Canadian government share the view that one of the substantive reasons for such action is a lack of security of oil supplies in western Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the question is not phrased properly. Perhaps the hon. member might like to reword it. He is inviting the minister to express an academic opinion. Perhaps the question might be reworded.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, does the
Canadian government feel that there is a shortage of emergency supplies of oil in western Canada?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board is the custodian of the public interest in that regard, and if at any time if feels or believes on the basis of the scientific information available that there is such a shortage of supply it can, of course, cut off exports and divert the available supply and pipeline capacity to Canadian needs.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs of the United States correct in stating that the United States government anticipated Canadian government action vis-a-vis this situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked in not in order.



Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the minister yet been apprised of the contents of the report of the Special Committee of the Senate on Science Policy, which is purported to bear directly on the operations of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and which may further affect the uranium industry?


John James Greene: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not been apprised of the report. I have seen press statements from time to time, but that is all, with regard to the work of that august body.


FISHERIES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. What is the extent of the damage caused to the great seal herds off the east coast as a consequence of the oil pollution in Chedabucto Bay, Nova Scotia? The second part of my question relates

March 20, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry to the same subject. To what extent has this pollution damaged the general fishing resources of the Atlantic coast?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe any damage has been done to the herds by the oil spill from the Arrow but some damage has already been reported by our people in respect of other elements of the fishery, more particularly in Nova Scotia.


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister received representations, on behalf of the captains and crew members of two sealing ships, to advance the date of the seal hunt on the front to enable them to avail themselves of the herds of seals in which they now find themselves?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge. I have received a representation from an hon. member opposite who is now home in Newfoundland, and the answer to his request to advance the date was a flat no.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House the extent of the damage caused to the fishery off the coast of Nova Scotia and who will be liable for the losses of the fishermen?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Fisheries and Forestry has officers in the area endeavouring to determine the extent of the damage. We shall be costing this and presenting the bill in the right place. We will be backing the fishermen, in other words, in their claims.


Walter C. Carter: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister not undertake to make a flying visit to the ice fields and talk to the sealers and get first-hand information on the effect these crazy, stupid regulations are having on the seal fishery?


NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. J. Edward Broadbenl (Oshawa-Whii-by):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Given the crucial importance of the resource industry to Canada's future as a viable, economically independent nation, will the minister assure the House that in considering the problem of foreign ownership the government will give very serious consideration to utilizing the concept of public ownership in this area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member is making a general recommendation and submission to the government which he must assume will be taken into account.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all respect, I was not making a representation but asking the minister if the government has given consideration to utilizing the concept of public ownership in the field of resources?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interpret the hon. member's question as a representation.


FINANCE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance which I believe to be very important. Now that United States authorities have indicated they are clearly moving in the direction of adopting policies to lower interest rates, is it the intention of the government of Canada to adopt any such policies that will lower interest rates in Canada?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, statements on monetary policy are ordinarily made by the Governor of the Bank of Canada.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am perfectly well aware that such statements on monetary policy are usually made through the Governor of the Bank of Canada but I am asking the minister whether he, as Minister of Finance, intends to adopt in Canada, presumably in association with the Bank of Canada, any policy comparable to that recently announced in the United States?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend will have to be specific as to the United States policies he is talking about. Although the Minister of Finance has power to direct the Governor of the Bank of Canada with respect to monetary policy, the government has not done so. We have never found it necessary to do this because we have agreed with his policy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I to assume then, that the Minister of Finance is quite happy to see the present high interest rates continue in Canada?

March 20, 1970


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker, I am very unhappy.


APPLICATION TO FLOOD PART OF SKAGIT VALLEY
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has he or has his office received any application from the government of British Columbia to this date to flood 6,000 acres of the Skagit Valley in southern British Columbia?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the status of this matter that has been drawn to my attention. Whether there is a specific request from that government to this effect I am not quite certain and therefore I will take the hon. member's question as notice.


Mark Willson Rose: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which the minister could take as notice as well. Can he assure the House that if this matter comes before this department a great deal of study will be given to all possible implications of this project and that the government's approval for the project will not be automatic?


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Oza  Telraull@Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of National Defence.
Is he aware of the fact that the Val-d'Or military base is supposed soon to receive from 100 to 125 trailers to be used as living quarters by families of armed forces members?


Mr. Speaker:: The question might be considered at the time of adjournment or the hon. member may prefer to put it on the order paper.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Will the
Inquiries of the Ministry unemployed auto workers in the Oshawa area be given a further hearing with respect to TAB benefits by the board which makes decisions regarding eligibility under this program?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but only if new facts can be brought out.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Rocky Mountain):: have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In his absence I will direct it in a gentler form to his Parliamentary Secretary. In light of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision announced just a few minutes before the question period began, upholding the validity of the perpetual leases in the national parks of Canada, can the holders of those leases now be given an assurance that the department will recognize them, and, further, that leaseholders who gave up valid perpetual leases under duress and compulsion from the department will have their leases reinstated and, further, that the Crown will reimburse the people of Waterton Lake, Banff and Jasper for the extremely heavy expense to which they were unnecessarily put?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: As the hon. member has mentioned, the decision of the Supreme Court was released less than an hour ago. I am sure the minister would like to read the reasons for judgment and consider them, and that in due course he will deal with the questions raised by my hon. friend.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the Parliamentary Secretary, after he has read the decision, be prepared to withdraw the bill setting up a Crown corporation and doing what the Supreme Court of Canada says this government and the department cannot do?


Russell Clayton Honey: As I have indicated to the hon. member for Rocky Mountain, the minister will read the reasons for judgment and consider them. If I may express an opinion, I think there is no relationship between the decision of the Supreme Court and the legislation now before the House.

March 20, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear! FINANCE


TARIFF TREATMENT ACCORDED TO MICHELIN RUBBER COMPANY-SIMILAR CONCESSIONS TO CANADIAN TIRE COMPANIES
Max Saltsman: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. It concerns the government's policy of allowing the Michelin Tire Company of France to put duty-free Michelin tires on the Canadian market, and the serious effect this will have on the sale of tires made in Canada. I wish to ask the minister whether concessions similar to those offered to Michelin in connection with locating in the Maritimes were also offered to existing Canadian tire companies? If so, what was the response of those companies? If such concessions were not offered, why were they not offered?


Jean-Luc Pepin: We study each of these cases on its own merits. This is what was done in the Michelin case. I think the decision was a good one.


Max Saltsman: Regardless of the merits of the decision affecting Michelin, would the minister consider calling together representatives of the industry to see whether some policy could be worked out in this situation, bearing in mind the serious difficulties which are now facing tire manufacturers?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will do that, Mr. Speaker. I think there is a question of specialization involved here. I understand that the type of tire provided by Michelin is not produced by others in Canada.


INDUSTRY
Robert Jardine McCleave: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, of which, oddly enough, he has given me notice. Is there any news concerning E.M.I. Cossor to report this morning?


Jean-Luc Pepin: With respect to E.M.I., the company which was in trouble, I am

pleased to announce that with the good cooperation of the various federal departments, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in particular, and my own, and with the collaboration of a provincial entity namely General Estates, the company is now being reinstituted, reorganized under different ownership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce before he goes out to look after another industry which is closing down. Can he tell us when the report on shipbuilding is likely to be ready, bearing in mind the distressed state of that industry, particularly in Saint John?


Jean-Luc Pepin: It was to have reached me by March 31 but Commodore Robertson has asked for an extension of one month. I have agreed to this, and I hope to be in a position to report by May.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question period expired some moments ago but perhaps the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby might be allowed to ask a question in view of the difficulty he encountered with one previously.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Thank you for your consideration, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce arising from his answer to the hon. member for Ontario in which he indicated that workers might reapply for TAB benefits after their original applications had been turned down, if new facts were brought forward. Can the minister tell us why this procedure was not made available in two recent cases to workers in Oshawa?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Because the new facts were not considered to be new by the Board, Mr. Speaker.
March 20, 1970	COMMONS
[DOT] (12 noon)


GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-194, to provide supplementary retirement benefits for certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to amend certain Acts which provide for the payment of those pensions, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee of Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Macdonald:: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions in connection with the motions which a number of hon. members have set down, and since I have to attend a meeting in Ottawa this afternoon which would make it difficult for me to be present when motion No. 10 is put to the House, I wonder whether the House would agree to putting it first in order that I might be present.


Mr. Speaker:: Before that is done, the hon. member might give the Chair an opportunity to explain the result of a consideration which has been given to the marshalling and disposal of these report stage motions which now have to be considered.
Hon. members will notice there are 16 notices of motions proposing to amend Bill C-194. For the purpose of consideration of the proposed motions, it is suggested that when motion numbered 1 is proposed by the Chair, debate be permitted on motions numbered 1 to 8 inclusive. When that debate is concluded, a division on motion numbered 1 will be deferred.
Motions numbered 2 to 8 inclusive will then be put separately from the Chair, without debate or amendment. For the purpose of voting thereon, the said motions will be grouped and set down for a single division thereon. That division also will be deferred.
When motion numbered 9 is proposed, it is suggested that debate also be permitted at that stage in relation to the proposed motion numbered 10. When that debate is concluded, it is suggested that the recorded division on motion numbered 9, if requested, be deferred.
DEBATES	5281
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970
At this stage, motion number 10 will be put from the Chair, but without debate or amendment. The question thereon will be forthwith deferred.
When motion numbered 11 has been proposed by the Chair, it is suggested that consideration of motions numbered 12 to 16 also be permitted at that stage. When that debate is concluded, motions numbered 12 to 16 inclusive would then be put separately from the Chair without debate. All of the said motions will then be grouped and disposed of in one recorded division. In all, there might be five recorded divisions as follows: (a) on motion No. 1; (b) another on motions Nos. 2 to 8 inclusive; (c) one on motion No. 9; (d) one on motion No. 10; and (e) a further division on motions Nos. 11 to 16 inclusive.
As hon. members will judge, it was a little difficult to try to organize the consideration of these several motions. I hope that these suggestions will be acceptable to hon. members, but all of what I have said will be subject to the suggestion just made by the hon. President of the Privy Council, the Government House Leader, that he might be allowed to make a statement on his amendment at the start of the debate.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I find your proposal eminently fair and satisfactory, and I am sure it will commend itself to the House as being logical. I should like to make a suggestion with respect to the request that has been made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). I am prepared to agree that he be accommodated so that he can present the amendment in his name this morning, but there are two considerations that 1 think we have to look at. First of all, we do not want to add to the number of debates; I take it from Your Honour's suggestion that there will be three debates. Also, it would be impossible, as I see it, to take a vote on motion No. 10 until a decision has been made on motion No. 9.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest, if the President of the Privy Council is agreeable and Your Honour regards it as fair, that the President of the Privy Council be permitted now to move his motion No. 10 and to make his remarks thereon, but that other remarks be deferred until we have the combined debate on motions 9 and 10 with, of course, the vote being deferred until later. In other words, I suggest we give precedence to the President of the Privy Council to make his
5282	COMMONS
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 statement on motion No. 10, and that we then go back and take the order Your Honour has suggested from the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: If it is agreeable to the House, it will be understood that we will first put the motion standing in the name of the President of the Privy Council and allow him to make his statement, following which we will return to motion No. 1 standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That Bill C-194, an act to provide supplementary retirement benefits for certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to amend certain acts that provide for the payment of those pensions, be amended by striking out lines 32 and 33 on page 17 and substituting the following:
"Widow is dead, eight-tenths of the basic allowance." and by striking out line 10 on page 18 and, substituting the following:
"in approximately equal instalments commencing immediately after the death of the member or former member, and in the case of an allowance payable to the widow shall continue during her natural life but shall cease on her remarriage."
He said: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I express my appreciation to the House for its courtesy in permitting me to take precedence to present these two amendments. Both amendments arose out of the committee discussion on the bill and from questioning that took place at the time.
As the House will notice, there are two amendments: the first to extend the benefits that would be payable to the orphaned children of a deceased Member of Parliament; the second deals with the situation of the widow of a deceased Member of Parliament who subsequently remarries. I think the first will probably be found to be generally acceptable; the second, I agree, perhaps may be the subject of debate.
The bill, as originally presented to the House, by clause 21 sought to amend section 23 of the Members of Parliament Retirement Allowances Act. At page 17, that clause provided that in the event of the children of a deceased Member of Parliament being orphaned-that is to say, in the event that the other spouse either predeceased the Member of Parliament or surviving him died after she and the children had commenced to draw benefits-then the children of a deceased Member of Parliament would be entitled to share in the surviving allowance to the extent of two-tenths each, up to a maximum of six-tenths.

DEBATES	March 20, 1970
The change proposed retains the two-tenths formula per child, but raises the maximum to eight-tenths-that is to say, 80 per cent of the deceased member's pension rather than 60 per cent. This change results from discussion in the committee which indicated that the lower 60 per cent level was not one that was observed in other government of Canada pensions, for example the Public Service Superannuation Act where the maximum was set at 80 per cent. That is the first of the changes. Because it would involve a further demand on the consolidated revenue fund, a recommendation was sought from His Excellency, and hon. members will note that, pursuant to Standing Order 75 (6), the recommendation is printed immediately after motion No. 10.
The second amendment resulted really from a drafting oversight. The previous Members of Parliament Retirement Allowances Act section contained the provision that when a widow or, in a conceivable case, the widower of a deceased member who became entitled to a surviving benefit remarried, then the benefit would cease to be payable. As I say, there was a drafting oversight in the bill and this restriction was not included as far as Members of Parliament were concerned, though it was included with regard to senators. My information is that most other government of Canada pension plans-for example, the Public Service Superannuation Act-contain this stipulation.
It may well be argued that there should not be this restriction on a surviving spouse who is drawing a benefit and remarries. Some legitimate arguments, I think, can be made in this regard. However, it seems to me that they should apply across the general field of government of Canada pension plans, and therefore the government feels that for the time being the structure should be kept consistent. This is without prejudice, of course, to subsequent discussion regarding whether or not this provision should be changed.
It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I put forward on behalf of the government the two amendments which I would commend for the consideration of the House.


Mr. McBride:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman permit a question before he resumes his seat?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes.


Murray Arndell McBride: In view of the fact that when we discussed this bill in committee it was generally assumed that the pension would accrue to the widower of a female Member of
March 20, 1970	COMMONS
Parliament who was deceased, and of course to the widow as stated in the second part of motion No. 10 that is before us in the name of the President of the Privy Council, would the President of the Privy Council comment on whether or not the reference to the widow only would be taken to include a widower if a widower were to remarry, and that the same benefit would ensue?
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I believe I am right in saying to the hon. member that the point is hypothetical. I cannot put my finger on the appropriate section, but my understanding of the provisions of the statute is that for the purposes of the act the definition of a widow is deemed to include also a widower.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say that we in this party appreciate the action the government is taking to change the maximum rate that an orphan can receive from 60 per cent in the case of three or more children to 80 per cent in the case of four or more orphaned children.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As agreed, the procedure will now be to put the first motion in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That Bill C-194, to provide supplementary retirement benefits for certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to amend certain Acts that provide for the payment of those pensions, be amended by deleting therefrom Clause 13 of the said Bill.


Murray Arndell McBride: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Will we be permitted to speak further about the general implications arising from amendment No. 10 or is the matter closed now?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: My understanding is that when we get to motions Nos. 9 and 10 the debate will be resumed on motion No. 10.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware there are 15 amendments on today's notice paper, put there by members of this group, that seek to amend Bill C-194. That may sound like a complication compounded, but under the rules the only way at this stage to deal with a number of clauses of a bill is by putting down amendments in respect of each of those
DEBATES	5283
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 clauses. However, the Chair has already made a very acceptable ruling which groups these various amendments so they are in packages that stand by themselves.
However, may I make it very clear, and I think this is a very simple proposition to put forward, that the purpose of the total group of 15 amendments placed on the notice paper is to amend Bill C-194 and to remove from it all the things that Bill C-194 does for Members of Parliament which it does not do for civil servants and the others covered by Bill C-194.
The main purpose of Bill C-194, the purpose that runs throughout and the purpose that applies to everybody who is covered under this bill, is to provide for the escalation of pensions after people have retired. It does this under two headings. In the first place, it does it immediately, this very next month, for all people who are now retired; civil servants, R.C.M.P. and armed forces personnel, Members of Parliament and so on, by providing a supplement to their pensions based on the length of time they have been retired.
The second way in which this purpose is carried out is by providing that all persons who are now employed, whether they are in the civil service, in Parliament or wherever they are, will, when they become pensioners, have the possibility of having their pensions increased each year provided the cost of living continues to rise.
This is the main purpose of this bill. That is what it does for everybody who is mentioned in it. But my complaint and the complaint of a number of my colleagues is that there has been put into this bill something that is foreign to and beyond its original purpose, namely a complete revamping and recasting of the pension plan of Members of Parliament.
The purpose of these amendments of ours is to take out of the bill all of those clauses that do that revamping, and to leave in it only what is there for all the others. If all our amendments are carried, then there will be left in the bill for Members of Parliament and for senators just two things. The first is the guarantee of escalation of our pensions after we retire and, secondly, the requirement that we pay one half of one per cent of our indemnity into the fund out of which these escalated payments are made.
In other words, it would put us on all fours, a phrase used earlier today, and in the same position as all of the others covered in this bill. That is what we think Parliament ought
5284	COMMONS
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 to accept. It is my view that there is no justification for our using this bill, which was brought in after many years of pleading and many years of study by committees, departmental groups and so on, to revamp and upgrade the pensions of Members of Parliament and Senators.
I have said on other occasions, both when the bill was at the second reading stage and in the committee, that everybody else is being told that he must wait. In particular, the old age pensioners are being told that they must wait until we get the white paper on social security. Veterans who are on war veterans allowances are not being considered under the terms of the study being made of the Woods report and are being told that nothing can be done about their allowances until we have the results of this study presented to us in the white paper on social security.
I find it hard to understand how Parliament or the government can say to all these other groups that they must wait but that we can go ahead and act on our own behalf. When I made this point in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, to which this bill was referred, the reply of the President of the Privy Council (Mir. Macdonald) was to cite the Curtis report. He said, and I think I am being fair to him, that in the case of the pension plan of Members of Parliament there had been this special study made, separate and apart from the white paper on social security, and since we already have the Curtis report that gives us the basis for acting.
I do not accept that argument at all. As a matter of fact, I do not accept the device that the government used in setting up Dr. Curtis as being justifiable. Professor Curtis was not commissioned by Parliament to do this job, and he was not asked by Parliament to do it. As a matter of fact, there was not even an announcement in Parliament that he had been appointed.
I remember very well a few years ago when the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), who was then the President of the Treasury Board, wanted to do this, and even asked us if we would agree to a motion in Parliament to have such a study made. Many of us indicated to him that we were not favourable to such a course being taken, so the government went ahead and did it anyway, but entirely on its own.

DEBATES	March 20, 1970
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
If I read correctly the letter from Professor Curtis to the President of the Treasury Board, it would seem that this study was made just on the basis of a letter written directly from the then President of the Treasury Board, now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to Professor Curtis. So, it seems to me this Curtis report is not a Bible that can be used for the purpose of doing something the government simply wants to do. I heard of no public hearings. I remember hearing after a while that Professor Curtis was carrying on the study, but the information was conveyed to us as though we were being given secret information. There was no publicity or mention about the Curtis report until suddenly it was tabled on the very day the minister indicated that Bill C-194 would include the provisions improving the pension plan for Members of Parliament. So I think it is clear that we have no right at this stage to ask for consideration of our pensions when war veterans on the allowance, old age pensioners and others are being told they must wait until there has been a complete review of social security.
I also feel very strongly, in light of the austerity that is being preached and the restraint people are being urged to exercise, that it just does not go down for us to be urging this course on our own behalf. When that is coupled with something else that is being studied by another three-man committee, namely a possible pay increase, the announcement of which was made in the House, it adds up to a serious question of whether we in the House of Commons are prepared to accept the same proposals for restraint and austerity we are imposing on everyone else.
I feel very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the time to be doing this kind of thing. I believe that if we go ahead and do it we will just give the people of Canada an opportunity to say that the Members of Parliament are certainly moving very fast in doing something for themselves and that they are moving a lot faster in that regard than they are moving in respect of doing something for the people of Canada as a whole. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is the author of the statement that one difficulty in time of inflation is that those who can protect themselves do so and therefore do not fight as actively as they might against inflation. It certainly looks as though that is what we are trying to do both in respect of the pay question which is
March 20, 1970

to come up later and more specifically now in respect of the pension question. We would seem to be using our position in Parliament to protect ourselves. I do not think this is something we should be doing. I do not think we can expect the people of Canada to have the respect for Parliament they ought to have if we go ahead with this proposal.
No doubt today, as on other occasions, there will be arguments concerning whether or not the proposals contained in this bill are too generous. I think they are. I shall reserve my comments on that until we reach motion No. 9. But whether they are or not is a matter of judgment, and I think it is wrong to consider any improvement in our position when we are not prepared to act on behalf of the old age pensioners or the war veterans allowance recipients until we have the white paper on social security and when we are not prepared to do anything else for civil servants except provide for the escalation of their pensions after retirement. I think this adds up to a situation which puts Parliament itself under a cloud.
I know there is one other thing that is being done in the total bill for the civil servants. But that one other thing is by no means any change in the pension formula. It does not provide any change in the amount of pension people will receive. All it does is provide for a straightening out of an anomaly between the various pension plans and the Canada Pension Plan. This arises because of the integration of all these other plans with the Canada Pension Plan. It has been discovered that when people retire early they lose something under the form of integration arrived at which is a bit unfair. That is being straightened out. But do not let anyone tell me that because we are straightening out that anomaly we have the right to revamp our whole plan because there is no such anomaly in our case because our plan was not integrated with the Canada Pension Plan. We pay for our plan separately and obtain the full benefit of the Canada Pension Plan over and above our pension as Members of Parliament. So, I say it really is unanswerable that in this bill we are doing just one thing for everybody else and are doing more than that one thing for ourselves. We are providing that our pensions will be escalated and on top of that are making our pensions much too generous and are placing ourselves in a position where we are protected in ways that others are not.
May I point out there are those who say it is different here and that because of the hazards in this job we should be protected. I find
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 it difficult to accept that argument. This is not a job that we seek in order to better ourselves and obtain higher pay or pensions. It is a job we are prepared to take as a service to our people. I have not heard anyone say during an election campaign that he should be elected so that he could have a good job, good pay and good pension. No; at election time we make a pledge to serve our people. I do not believe it is fair to make comparisons between the pay and conditions here and the pay and conditions of other people in other places. They are not comparable. This is a service operation. When we come to Parliament we make a certain commitment to our people. Because of all these reasons I feel in all honesty and fairness to our concept of responsibility we should not be including in Bill C-194 these things for ourselves which as I say I think are too generous. I shall come to that more properly when we are discussing my amendment No. 9 because it deals with the clause which contains the pension formula and so on.
So far as this motion No. 1 is concerned I shall draw my remarks to a close by zeroing-in on what motion No. 1 deals with. If I seem to have been wandering from motion No. 1, it is because the Chair said that on motion No. 1 we could discuss motions 1 to 8 inclusive. I am glad the Chair has agreed there shall be a vote on No. 1 by itself. I hope members will examine their consciences very closely when they are thinking about how they will vote on motion No. 1.


An hon. Member:: Examine yours.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do
not worry about my conscience. I will look after that.


Mr. Deachman:: You let us look after our conscience and you look after yours.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is fine. Hon. members opposite can make suggestions to me, but I will make suggestions to them. I suggest to them that this motion No. 1 which seeks to strike clause 13 from the bill is one which every member of this House should support. Clause 13 says that the expense allowance we are receiving, and which we have been saying for years is an allowance only and that is the reason we do not pay tax on it, shall for purposes of this pension be called "indemnity". Mr. Speaker, we really cannot ask for it both ways and expect to be respected. Either that $6,000 is salary, in which case it could apply to the
5236	COMMONS
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 pension or it is an expense allowance and should not count as salary for pension purposes.
o (12:30 p.m.)
There are examples in the public service where people get lump sum payments in lieu of back pay. These are payments for work and they are really salary, but because they are called something else than a salary they are not applied to their pension credits. Yet, here we take something that is not a salary at all-at least we have been saying for years it is not a salary-and we say that it shall be applied for pension purposes. I think there is an inconsistency here that is very severe, and parliament should not be asked to do it. I urge therefore that we strike clause 13 out of the bill.
When I proposed this in the committee the other day the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) cited the Curtis report at page 29. I have already indicated that I do not think the basis on which we received the Curtis report makes it an authoritative document for us to follow, but even when I read what Professor Curtis had to say about whether to apply the percentage to the $12,000 or to the total $18,000, it does not really resolve the issue. He admits it can be done either way and that it is an arbitrary decision, but 1 would point out that the way this act is set up and the way the statute now stands, if this goes through, the pension contributions that are supposed to come off our expense allowance will not come off our expense allowance cheques but off our salary cheques. The statute is set up in such a way that it has to be done. We are carrying forward that inconsistency. If we wanted to raise the contribution to the size it will be under this provision, why not make it that much higher a percentage of the indemnity itself? To try to call the expense allowance a non taxable expense allowance on the one hand and a salary for pension purposes on the other, as I say, will raise some serious questions in the minds of the people who are watching what we are doing here.
For these reasons I feel that we should make this change in the bill. We should cut out all the clauses that give to Members of Parliament a benefit that we do not give to civil servants generally. That is the effect of the 15 amendments that are presented from this part of the House. So far as the first one is concerned, its purpose is to say that the expense allowance shall remain as that and

DEBATES	March 20, 1970
not be counted as an indemnity for pension purposes. I would not object if we went the other way, if we decided that because we are going to treat it as indemnity for pension purposes we will also treat it as indemnity for taxation purposes. But let us not be in the dual position of saying one thing at one moment and another thing at another.
I heard some comments across the way about conscience. Perhaps I provoked them by what I said because I was the first to use the word. I am quite aware of the fact that one who takes a position as strongly as I have with respect to both the pay and the pension question has to be consistent in what he does later. I intend to follow a consistent course and I shall let my constituents know what that course will be. But whatever other individuals might do with respect to either of these questions, in my view that does not give parliament the right to follow a policy which says to old age pensioners and war veterans allowance recipients: "You must wait", and which says to federal civil servants: "This is all we are going to do for you, but for ourselves we are going to make substantial improvements in our own pension plan".
Therefore, I hope the House will support all our amendments, but in particular I hope it will support the amendment striking out the reference to the expense allowance being treated as salary for pension purposes.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I had not intended to repeat the debate that took place in the committee, but it seems to me the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said something when putting forward these proposals with regard to pensions of Members of Parliament which I feel should not remain unanswered and some of his comments should not be allowed to go on the record uncontradicted.
The first comment with which I would like to deal is with regard to the appointment of Dr. Curtis, a decision with which, incidentally, I was not associated because it was taken several years before I became a member of the ministry. However, I believe the decision was a sound one. I have no doubt in my mind that the community generally will recognize both the ability and fairness of Dr. Curtis. There is really nothing more I can say in support of the choice of Dr. Curtis for this purpose or the wisdom of the decision than does the Curtis report itself, which is a very concise and thorough analysis of the problem of providing retirement pensions for those
March 20, 1970

who take the position of Member of Parliament and by that reason lose other opportunities for providing for their retirement. At the same time, they undertake a hazard as to shortness of tenure which does not exist in other occupations.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said that there should have been wider publicity and wider public knowledge of and participation in that question. Perhaps the procedure was wrong and there should have been widespread public hearings on the matter. We all should be more candid about these questions of salary and pension. I must say that what has disturbed me ever since I first became a member, and what was particularly disturbing to me in 1963 when I had been a member for a little more than a year and the House acted to increase our salaries, was the want of candour on the part of many Members of Parliament and many members of the public about the realities of the position taken by Members of Parliament. I do not think that any sensible country can expect good people to come forward from private life and to take responsible positions at a financial sacrifice in terms of day to day salary-a sacrifice to the member and to his family-if he is not receiving high enough emoluments and a fair opportunity in terms of pension. I confess that as a man with a young family I am particularly concerned about survival benefits which would be paid for the benefit of young children. I do not intend to stand up and wring my hands and apologize to anybody for bringing into effect comparable pension benefits to what I would have been entitled to accrue for myself and my family had I remained in private life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I want to be understood perfectly clearly, and I am not just directing my remarks to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I am addressing them to wide numbers of people in the Canadian community who, if there is any policy issue with which they disagree, feel they have a licence to make snide remarks about the emoluments or pension provisions that Members of Parliament may be drawing. I am prepared to say here, as well as to my constituents, that if you think you can get someone who is prepared to work for a lesser salary or not to provide for his children in the event of an early demise, then go out and find him and elect him because I am working


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, this bill which is before us received second reading and was referred to committee on March 10, at which time there was debate on it. I regret I was not here at that time and could not participate in the debate. I join with my colleagues on both sides of the House, who have been pressing for measures to give some relief to those who have retired from the public service, in welcoming this bill. I regret that, as a result of the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I feel compelled, by just as strong motives of conscience as I am sure compelled him, to put some other things on the record regarding the amendments which are before us.
March 20, 1970
52S9

In his statement in this House on March 10, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made a number of comparisons. I know he is essentially a very fair man, but his speech made it very clear that he was not only objecting to one particular provision being in this bill but he was objecting in substance to what was proposed, and he described the operations of the present plan in certain cliches. In particular he referred to the maximum pension of $9,000. In fairness to the hon. member I should quote him when he said, as recorded at page 4597 of Hansard:
Incidentally, under the rules of the present pension plan nobody could ever get to that $9,000.
But he did not mention any of the other figures of actual pension payments. I feel that this calls for talk not about theoretical maxima but about what the amounts of pension presently are under the actual plan. I have before me the "Report on the Administration of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act for the Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 1969," and I wish to cite cases from it. My colleague, the hon. member for Keno-ra-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), did some calculations with respect to those who have participated in the present plan. He calculated that of those who have contributed to the plan since its inception 88 per cent failed to draw any benefit whatsoever. With respect to those lucky 12 per cent who hit the jackpot- and here I recall that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to the plan as being a generous one in some features, although I do not think he really intended to do that-I would like to indicate the actual amounts which they received. One of these pensions was between $4,000 and $5,000; three pensions were between $3,500 and $4,000; three pensions were between $3,000 and $3,500; less than 3 per cent of the total pensions paid under the act exceeded $3,000, and 31 per cent of them were smaller than $1,500.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to the 60 per cent provision for widows, and indicated that the 50 per cent provision under the public service plan was less generous. But let us look at what that 60 per cent provision gave to seven widows under this act. Three received between $500 and $1,000, and four received between $1,000 and $1,500 per year. None of them received more than $1,500 per year. Now, the suggestion that this is a generous provision through the fact that it was arrived at by a mathematical formula which included 60 per cent,
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 whereas the other schemes had 50 per cent, is in my opinion something less than the candour I normally expect from the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will he not agree that when I talked about the plan being generous, I was referring to the new plan, not to the one now in existence?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wishes to clarify his context in that respect, then that is his wish, but certainly the present plan is 60 per cent. I might say that my reference to the hon. member's speech is based on page 4596 of Hansard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: was talking about Bill C-194.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970
The hon. member talks about doing something for ourselves, doing something which is so terrible. He talks about those who are in a position to control things in their own interests taking unfair and undue advantage. I am going to ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member in his conscience thinks the step to correct the kind of situation I have described is so unconscionable, so terrible, that he has to delete every reference to it from the measure before us. I find again a curious dichotomy in the thinking of the hon. member. When he talks about other pensions he is absolutely straightforward and asks for equity, asks for improvements in benefits. He made a slight slip the other day in committee when the government provision was going to deny a widow the benefit if she remarried; then he reverted to his usual way of looking at pensions and said this was not generous. But this slip did not last very long because when it comes to benefits for Members of Parliament he has a totally different standard than that which he applies to any other pension plan.
On March 31, 1969, for example I note that the excess of receipts over disbursements for this curious plan which the members of Parliament set up for themselves was $2,621,185.88. A plan that gets 88 per cent of the people to put their money into it, leave it there interest free and just get a return of contributions at the end of the period, cannot lose. That kind of plan, if it existed in private industry and a union were to make representations in regard to it, would be subject to the most vicious attacks. But I have never heard the hon. member talking about low rates of pay, these low rates of pensions the scandalous rates for the widows or the excess accumulation in this fund, although he has asked numerous questions about the operation of every other fund that exists. If I am wrong, I invite the hon. member to correct me on this score.
What disturbs me even more is that whenever a comparison is made, and the hon. member was most explicit here, his comparison is with the old age pension, with the war veterans allowance recipients; it is never with an executive in industry. He expressly repudiates that concept. Yet he expects people to come here and give of their best. I know some hon. members on the other side of the House whose wives are working, not altogether from choice. I know one hon. member who sits on the other side-it does not detract from my respect and admiration

for him, and although he is not here today, I hope I am not embarrassing him-who, in the course of providing university education for three children, has gone into debt to the bank substantially in excess of five figures. This is the situation that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) seems to put completely aside in his mind.
It is possible to come to this House and live frugally in the city. I have the greatest respect for the people who do this. You can have a room or two and eat your meals in the fifth floor cafeteria or even bring a sandwich or two. If you have the kind of constituency that returns you year after year, you conduct a heavy volume of correspondence and are active in participation, it is likely that constituents will continue to give their loyalty. But there are constituencies that have switched loyalties. I am thinking of my opponent who won the seat in Carleton with a 19,000, majority in 1958, and five years later lost the very same seat. Previously, every one of his opponents had lost his deposit, but within five years he lost his seat. This is the way some constituencies can change because people repudiate the policy of the government or of the candidate. Some constituencies with their record of repudiation of candidates, which is their democratic right and their privilege, can place a pension plan in very difficult circumstances.
In spite of what the hon. member may think-he is smiling now-a pension plan is an obligation not only to the people who run for the safe seats but to those who run for the seats that are not so safe, that is not only for the seats that have 35 years of loyalty to a member but for those that can switch loyalties. There may be a personal defect of the MP, but the point I am making is whether it is so scandalous, so wrong, so terrible to revise the rules for a plan that allows only 12 per cent to benefit and to benefit by the small amounts, I have indicated.
I respect people who come into public life and treat it as a form of service. But with the greatest respect, there are many people here who might have chosen the monastic life or some other life. They do not have the kind of family responsibilities that other members have and that is fine. Parliament is then-whole life and their contribution is great, but those members have an obligation to be charitable, too. They have an obligation to recognize that Parliament consists of average Canadians as well as the type who might choose a vow of poverty. Parliament must
March 20, 1970	COMMONS
include in its ranks men and women who at other times are carrying heavy loads in industry and society and who are capable of that kind of performance.
Thanks to some resources that I possess, Mr. Speaker, when my daughter comes to me and says that she wants to take a French immersion course this summer at Laval I can tell her to go ahead. But some other hon. members cannot afford to do that, to have their daughters participate in language immersion courses because there is not enough money in the budget. If they die they know that their widows and survivors under the present arrangements will be in penury, or absolute poverty in many circumstances. Some hon. members may feel that somehow self-denial and poverty are desirable virtues. We know that in some parts of the world people are put on a bed of nails because of the theory that this brings them to a higher degree of self-purification. I do not believe that we can run Parliament on that basis. I believe there is an obligation to members of this Parliament to vote for the proposals that the government puts before us representing a long overdue updating of what was a scandalously inadequate plan.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I now leave the Chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have the consent of the House to revert to motions for the purpose of making an important statement about the tidal power project in the maritimes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the recently completed study of the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board was a very extensive
DEBATES	5291
Statement on Minas Basin Project investigation of the technical and economic factors pertaining to the possible development of tidal power in the Bay of Fundy. The federal government contributed substantially to this study by meeting two-thirds of the total cost of approximately $2,300,000. In addition to this specific financial contribution, an appreciable amount of time and effort of a number of experts and senior officials of federal government departments has been contributed, without charge, to the activities of the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board and its engineering and management committee.
Although the immediate prospects for economic development of tidal power are not promising, it is conceivable that increasing restrictions due to the environmental side-effects associated with thermal power generation may become so significant in the future that tidal power, which is virtually free of environmental and pollution problems, will become much more attractive than it is today. The extensive background material compiled during the detailed study just completed will greatly facilitate a reappraisal of tidal power, if and when conditions such as environmental factors, technological advances in tidal power plant equipment, or reduction in the cost of money warrant such action.
The federal government has made significant contributions to the development of electric power in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The Atlantic Development Board provided a $12 million grant for the construction of the Trenton thermal-electric station in Nova Scotia and a $20 million grant towards the Mactaquac hydroelectric project in New Brunswick. In addition, long term loans in excess of $125 million have been made or committed under the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act for construction of thermal generating stations and inter-connecting transmission lines and associated facilities in these two provinces.
Improving the competitiveness of the industrial base in the Maritime provinces remains an important element of the policies of the federal government. However, cost alone is not the only consideration. We must work closely with the Maritime utilities to ensure that sufficient spare capacity is built into their systems to meet the needs of new industries which cannot wait the four to five years necessary to provide new generation.
Obviously, tidal power is not the immediate answer to the electrical energy needs of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. These provinces
March 20, 1970

Statement on Minas Basin Project do, however, have access to low-cost fuel in the form of imported oil. To use this fuel to maximum advantage large, efficient thermal electric generating plants must be built and the utilities of the two provinces must work in a fully co-ordinated manner to support such plants. This action, accompanied by the construction of strong interconnections with adjoining utility systems in Canada and the United States, will go a long way towards making power costs in the Maritimes competitive with other areas of Canada.
We, as a government, have already indicated our desire to help achieve this end. The government of New Brunswick will receive federal financial assistance of at least $4 million from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to the electrical interconnection under construction between that province and Quebec. Through this tie, the Maritime area will receive power from the giant hydro complex now being completed at Churchill Falls.
This government stands ready to consider other appropriate assistance to projects of major significance to the power systems of these provinces. The utilities on their part must move towards the co-ordinated planning which is essential to the achievement of a low cost and dependable power supply.


Mr. Comeau:: This is terrible.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, although I thank the minister for giving notice of his intention to make a statement in the House and for delivering to us a copy of the press release on the question of Bay of Fundy tidal power issued by his department, I must say that the report of the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board was very disappointing, as was the minister's statement.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Certainly, those in the Atlantic area who twice a day have heard the roar of the Bay of Fundy tides and realized their potential for development are most disappointed. Notwithstanding this report, I still believe the potential for the development of tidal power in the Bay of Fundy is just as strong today as the sound of that Fundy tide when one stands at the edge of the shore. The bay is in my constituency, it is true, but the implications go far beyond my own constit-

uency. They concern the whole of the Atlantic northeast, particularly the northeastern United States.
As the minister says, this has been a joint project shared by the federal government and the governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. I have just had a copy of the report delivered to me. I suppose I would have to agree with what the minister said in his statement; as far as the technical factors are concerned I am not in a position to question them at the moment. But they do not tell us anything new. We were aware that for technical reasons tidal power would be more costly than other sources of power. But though the press statement referred to it, the minister did not mention this afternoon that part of the report which states, on page 21:
It is concluded that tidal output could become competitive with energy from alternative sources when the interest rate drops to about half its current value.
High interest rates are among the main reasons why, to judge from the attitude of the minister toward some of the opinions expressed in this report, this project did not proceed further. I shall not attempt to deal with the subject of interest rates today. I recognize they present a perplexing problem. But when interest rates so directly effect an area such as my own which lacks the economic potential of other provinces such as Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia, I had hoped-and I still hope-the governments which have power to control interest rates in some way, would try to eliminate or reduce their impact on projects such as the one I am considering now.
Both the minister's statement and the report are disappointing because of their negative outlook. As I say, we knew it would cost more to develop Fundy power. We had hoped, though, that after spending 2J years on this survey, those responsible would have done more than clarify technical details; we had hoped that the report would contain positive recommendations to reduce or eliminate some of the problems which were bound to be connected with the realization of the project. I ask you this, Mr. Speaker: if people had paid attention to the arguments put forward by the minister and embodied in the report, founded on immediate economic considerations, would the CPR ever have been built from coast to coast across this land?
Let us turn to the present day. Would the consideration of immediate economic factors have justified the building of the St. Law-
March 20, 1970
rence Seaway which is still a charge on the public purse? Yet this is another project which has been of benefit to all Canadians- perhaps it has benefitted us on the east coast least of all, but we agreed to it nevertheless because it was undertaken for the good of Canada. Then again, would immediate technical and economic considerations have justified Premier Bennett going ahead with the Peace River project? Today, we can see what this project has meant in so many ways for the benefit of British Columbia. If Premier Bennett had thought in that way, we might never have had the Peace River project. The experts said it could not be built at the cost assigned to it. The politicians said it could. The experts said that if it was, indeed, possible to build it, the power could not be sold because there would be no market. Yet already still more power is needed in British Columbia.
Speaking as a politician, but also as a concerned Canadian, I ask whether the concern so often expressed about area of economic disparity is to be only a phrase used at election times, and whether the sincere efforts of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand)-I am not complaining about the minister-


An hon. Member:: Why not?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: This project could be the basis for a measure of economic development in the Atlantic area more important than all the piecemeal schemes and patchwork efforts of all the ministries concerned, both in the immediate future, to use the minister's own phrase, and for many years afterward.
If there is any doubt about the need for additional power supplies by the northeast of this continent, one has only to look at page 14 of the report. I intend to take some time reviewing the minister's statement, Mr. Speaker, because the single project with which it deals could do more to offset economic disparity in the east than anything else which could be undertaken. There is only one thing which could come near to it, and that is if we were to find oil off the coast of Prince Edward Island-


Mr. Peters:: All that would do would be to eliminate the fishing industry.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I want to read page 14 of this report by the Power Programming Board which says, as far as the need is concerned:
Turning to markets in adjacent areas, to which exports might be made, The Hydro-Quebec load 21774-57
Statement on Minas Basin Project in 1966 amounted to more than 33,000 million kwh and the peak demand was approximately 6,100 mw. Current forecasts predict that the requirements will increase to 110,000 million kwh and almost
19.000	mw in 1980 and to 231,000 million kwh and
29.000	mw in 1990.
Now, I come to the important part.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Those who say "good" and those who laugh do not understand to what extent we in the east, together with the minister working to remove economic disparity, have set our hopes on this report which is before us today. It is not a laughing matter. I do not care what government is in power, either in Nova Scotia or in Ottawa; they will be working against economic reality in attempting to reduce this disparity of opportunities and living standards if they try to slough off a project which could do so much in a positive way to end the difficulties which the region is encountering.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) is involved in negotiations concerning the continental energy package. He said something about importing cheap oil. Perhaps there will be further questions about importing cheap oil for use in a thermal plant which will further pollute our air. Many questions were asked recently about the voyage of the Manhattan. The Manhattan and vessels like her, will not only pollute the Arctic but will bring back more oil to be made into gas with which automobiles will in turn pollute the cities. Yet here we have Atlantic tidal power which does not pollute the atmosphere, which is a constantly renewed resource, and which we now intend to neglect after years of study. In actual fact, interest in this project started before 1920. The president of the university in the town I reside in was, I think, the first I know of to take an interest in this, and he formed a company to do it.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
But it is the negative element of the whole report which concerns me. I have not finished reading about the potential demand for energy. He said:
In the United States the total requirements of the six New England States in 1965 were 41,782 million kwh of energy with a peak demand of 8,586 mw. The requirements are forecast to increase to 111,000 kwh and 41,000 mw in 1990.
There are billions of kilowatt hours of energy which are really just going to waste with the changes in the tides. Do you know

March 20, 197C

Statement on Minas Basin Project how big those tides are, Mr. Speaker? I wish Mr. Speaker rather his deputy were in the chair because-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I do not want to prevent the hon. member making a very interesting and long speech, but it is the practice of this House that statements and comments thereon are to be short.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I apologize. I was not referring in any personal way to the Speaker but I should like to compare the potential created by tides that ebb and flow four times a day. Five days of the normal flow on the St. Lawrence at Cornwall would produce the same volume of water. That is the type of thing we are talking about today. I appreciate we are supposed to be short in our statements, and there are many other things I would deal with; but there will be many speeches made on the report.
As I say, the report stresses the negative. It does not refer to the billions of kilowatts of untapped energy that is going to waste. It does not stress the positive elements, such as the renewable resources. These are resources that are pollution free. While this energy potential may cost a lot to develop, once developed it is a fixed asset. Capital will have been expended, and in this way it will be a relatively inflation free resource. It will also be a source of foreign exchange because we will be able to sell this power to the northeast United States which is crying out for it. Judging from some of the articles I have been reading lately, if we do not start developing some of the power potential in Canada, then somebody will spend some money somewhere at rates of interest that the board have said are too high.
Most important of all, the report does not mention the fact that this development could be the base for a real, viable program to combat economic disparity. Not only would we build new plants, but this development would mean higher income for the people and increased tax flow back to the treasury to help offset the cost. For the first time ever, the Atlantic area would be able to pay in a plus way into the national purse rather than always being at the receiving end.
I have read the most important proposal which should be considered positively. But for the high interest rates, this tidal output would be competitive with other energy sources; the board says so at page 21 of the


report. However, the board and the minister stop there, even though it is suggested that further construction or further generating capacity might make the project competitive and viable in the future.
I hope that this minister and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) will undertake to do some research into different types of power plant construction and into how you can reduce cost with new generating equipment. I suggest this question requires continuing consideration and perhaps it could be referred not only to a committee of this House but to a government committee with perhaps New Brunswick and Nova Scotia as members. This question is too large for one provincial government to handle on its own. We should look at the matter positively and see how best to tackle the many problems.
If there is anything that I have learned in my political life, especially from listening to my friends to the left, and one of them in particular who I will not name, it is that if you do not look at projects positively so you can avoid the hurdles, then you will never make progress. Instead of saying: "This is a good idea but we won't be able to do it", let us say we should do it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member will understand that there are other hon. members who want to comment this afternoon.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I apologize. In conclusion-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -what concerns me most about the report is the positive-negative-pessimistic aspects of it, which the minister himself seems to have adopted in the brief time that he has had to look at it-though I do not know how long he has had. Instead of saying that it is a good project but that we cannot implement it, we should say that it is vital and necessary to implement it and ask ourselves how we go about solving some of the problems.
I have taken some time here this afternoon, in spite of some of the catcalls to the left of me that show that some members do not care about development of the east. The board that studied this matter did so at a cost of $2.5 million. We spent almost $2 million on the royal commission on the status of women. We spent $7 million odd on the bilingualism commission. All of these matters may be important. I do not know if the commission
March 20. 1970	COMMONS
on women will change their status; but what I do not want to see is that, having gone into the technical approach to this question and expended a lot of government effort, especially at the federal level, we will say we will take a look at it again in another 20 years. If we do that, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion will never be able to get his proposal off the ground.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the excellent speech to which we have just listened was given, in part, as an example of the tidal waves that one can see and hear on the Bay of Fundy.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That is right. I wish I had the kilowatt energy to go with it.


David Lewis: I think the hon. member showed megawatt energy, let alone kilowatt. I assure him and others in the House that if some of my colleagues made some good-natured interjections it was not because of any lack of concern about the subject but because the hon. member, with an aplomb that I admire and do not condemn, went on several minutes longer than at this stage we are supposed to do.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You had better watch yourself. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have heard the hon. member for York South go on a little too long on some things that I did not think were half as necessary or important as the development of Atlantic tidal power potential.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for York South.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I must admit, knowing the hon. member with great pleasure, that I should have known better than to make the remark that I did. I was merely explaining the reason to him. I loved what he said and how he said it, and as far I am concerned he could have gone on saying it. The matter he raised may be more important for the people of Canada than one part of the bill that is now before us.
Obviously, it is impossible for any member of this House who does not have engineering training to be able to quarrel with, indeed to evaluate, the report that has been placed in the hands of a few of us in this House. I do want to make a few brief remarks, however.
I am disturbed by the fact that the board said-and the governments concerned have accepted the proposition-that the idea of developing this tidal power must be delayed
DEBATES	5295
Statement on Minas Basin Project until interest rates drop down to about half the present level. Let me say to the minister this means that this tidal power will never be developed. There is not a chance in the world of interest rates going down to half their present level within foreseeable generations. Indeed, the whole tendency over a good many years has been for interest rates to go up. Interest rates will go down somewhat, I hope, but certainly not to the 4 or 5 per cent that the minister and the report talk about.
Secondly, if it were possible for this government and the maritime governments involved to think in terms of a public undertaking to develop this energy, then the interest rate may not be so important. It may be possible for the government to obtain and provide the capital for this development at a rate much lower than the present prevailing rate for the welfare of the Atlantic provinces and the people who live in those provinces.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
The second point I want to make is that it seems there is a lack of imagination both in the report and in the minds of the government in accepting the report. The government seems to be overlooking the obvious importance of the fact that tidal power can be developed free of any environmental consequences or, to put it in simple English, free of stinking pollution. That seems to me in the long run to be a very important consideration. A very large expenditure in developing tidal power may well be justified in order to have a source of energy that is free of the effects of air pollution, which is not the case with thermal energy generating plants.
If I am correct in my reading of the report, this development would take a number of years. I think it mentioned five to nine years. It may well be that seven, eight, or nine years from now Canada, as a whole, would be grateful beyond description for having a power generating capacity in the Atlantic provinces that would not pollute the air around those areas, including a section of the United States as well.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the thing that perhaps disturbed me most about the minister's statement, and I say this to him very seriously, is that he presented no alternatives. He talked blithely about getting the existing generating companies to produce sufficient and surplus capacity. He talked blithely about the need for developing efficient thermal generating plants. He talked blithely about present utility planning. None of these things
5296	COMMONS
Statement on Minas Basin Project Will happen until such time as the government of Canada in particular, and the maritime governments as well, have the courage and the imagination to take initiatives and spend vast sums of money.
To talk in terms of $4 million or $10 million-a lot of money though that may be- when you are dealing with building power generating plants is of course to talk of something that has no meaning at all. What will be required if any of these things are to happen, that is if there is to be sufficient surplus capacity and generating plants are to be increased and utilities are to plan, is initiative on the part of this government which must do these things
I wish to summerize what I have said in two sentences and then I will sit down. Like the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan), I am not confident that governments are right in accepting this report. In view of the great advantages of tidal energy and the need for such power in the Atlantic provinces, I am thoroughly disappointed that when the minister accepts the idea of rejecting this development he does not have a tittle of a suggestion as to what might positively take its place.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker,
I was quite disappointed when the minister announced today that the establishement of a tidal power plant in the Bay of Fundy would be delayed for an indefinite period of time.
Mr. Speaker, we remember that in ancient Greece, at a time when one of the finest civilization in the world was thriving, a great number of Spartans had several helots or slaves in their service. Today, thanks to science we have succeeded in controlling certain forms of energy to make them available like slaves to the individual.
I had the opportunity to visit some time ago the area which is concerning us today and I am pleased to state that it is perhaps one of the most beautiful areas of the country, after the Abitibi area of course. When I see that for economic reasons, the government is deferring some projects which could assure a considerable development in the depressed Atlantic provinces where the rate of unemployment is the highest in Canada, I cannot understand the thinking of the authorities.
I must congratulate the minister for the statement he made a short while ago, because it represents a substantial improvement over what we heard yesterday, namely that if that

DEBATES	March 20, 1970
project is uneconomical, it is because the interest rate is much too high.
For financial considerations and owing to restrictions on credit, the development of an area is paralyzed. We have achieved important endeavours in the past, such as the St. Lawrence Seaway which cost a pretty penny because we had no idea how to finance it.
For instance, when one considers the balance sheet of the Canadian National, one finds that for the interest on the debt alone, we have paid out more than $225 million, which is about equal to the debt which the Canadian National must pay back.
Another project which would have greatly helped in the development of the Atlantic provinces, the building of a causeway between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, was postponed to a much later date. Today, we are giving up the building of a tidal power station in the Bay of Fundy.
I would also like to mention another project which could be carried out in my district, the building of a seaway in the Harricana River, or as is generally called the building of the Grand Canal. Even the study of this project is frowned upon because it is not known just how to finance it. I suggest, however, that, instead of letting financial interests, which control not only this country but the whole world, hamper development in Canada, the government should make use of existing possibilities in order to carry out such projects. As a matter of fact, we have the material, the scientists, the technicians and the engineers, in short, all the labour required. What we lack is the money.
Mr. Speaker, there is an institution in Canada called the Bank of Canada which should be at the service of Canadians. That is what the Creditistes are asking for more and more urgently. However, when they make that proposal those who serve the capitalists only smile.
Mr. Speaker, I maintain once more that should the government want to use the Bank of Canada to finance these various projects, they could be carried out within a few years.


GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-194, to provide supplementary benefits for
March 20. 1970
[Stage Direction]
certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to amend certain Acts that provide for the payment of those pensions, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I tried to outwait some of my colleagues, but I did not make it.


An hon. Member:: You outweigh some of them.


William Arnold Peters: 
Cyril Lloyd Francis: I do not think it was that much.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, after 17 years he received $3,000. In those 17 years, he had not been connected with any industry or any educational institution. He was in no position to supplement his income when he was retired by his electors. This was not a voluntary retirement; he did not choose to retire at that time. He retired involuntarily and he did so after that many years of service for a salary that was probably $1,000 below the poverty line and which certainly was not in keeping with the contribution he had made to Canada. I am informed by my colleague that M. J. Coldwell was here 23 years, which does not make the situation any better. For 23 years of service to Canada, surely the people of this country should have considered it fair to donate to him $3,000 a year. Mr. Coldwell should not have had to contribute to a pension fund to receive that kind of money. I am sure there are many people in Canada who would have agreed that if the amount were doubled, and came directly out of the treasury, it would not have been too much.
My point is very simple. If this pension program that has been suggested by the gov-
March 20, 1970	COMMONS
ernment will not produce sufficient money to make it possible to make the payments that are indicated in this plan without additional money having to be provided by the treasury, then I suggest somebody should say so and we will change it. But if I wish to contribute 10 per cent of my wages to a pension plan, I should have the right to do so and would expect my employer to match that contribution.
When the Canada Pension Plan was passed I, and some of my colleagues, recommended to various organizations and agencies that the vested pension plans in Canada that were already in existence should be added to the Canada Pension Plan. If this had been done in a number of areas-one of them being my area where the engineers and firemen have been participating in an Ontario pension plan-and if those pension plans had been stacked on top of the Canada Pension Plan, the resultant pension would have been very close to $2,000 a month on the retirement of these people, which would have been almost $1,000 more than they were earning. I suggest there is nothing wrong with that if people want to contribute that high a portion of their wages to a pension plan and if that pension plan does not become a drain on someone else. I think this decision should be left up to the people who participate in the plan, and they should be allowed to make that contribution if they can afford it.
I suggest that there are differences of opinion. In many cases they probably stem not from people's conscience, as has been said, but rather from their environment and background, from the type of people they have worked with and the relationships they have had with other classes of people, sometimes much more fortunate than themselves. Sometimes these differences of opinion arise from the desire not to reduce everybody to a common denominator but to raise the lowest standard of living to the highest possible standard that people can afford.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: intend to be very brief and deal primarily with the amendment before us, but others have had one or two general comments to make on the bill and I understand that this is permitted in discussing the first amendment. It seems to me, and the point has been made before, that we should be dealing with two separate bills. One of them should be a bill dealing with the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, and the other bill
DEBATES	5299
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 should deal, of course, with the legislation dealt with in the rest of the bill before us.
I have listened to the government speakers, or at least to the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) who spoke prior to the lunch break. I did not hear him mention the specific amendment with which we are dealing. It seems to me that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is a sound one. He is asking that allowances, which today are classed as expenses, are not taxed by the government and are not classed as income, should not be included as salary for pension purposes. I go along with this. The previous speaker indicated that there are other methods of increasing the pension. You can raise the percentage on the sessional indemnity of $12,000. If an increase is warranted this is the way it should be done.
I,	personally object very strongly to Members of Parliament setting such a poor precedent, not only for the House but for the whole country, by giving themselves special privileges in order to improve their own pensions. This is not right. Not only is it a poor precedent, it is mighty poor legislation. Surely, the government should realize this and should at least accept the amendment of my colleague. If they wish to increase the pension, they should increase the percentage on the $12,000. However, to write a provision into this act and not to allow the same provision to be written into other pension acts is not good legislation and should not be allowed. It is not in the best interest of Members of Parliament or in the best interest of good government. We should not accept this type of foolish legislation.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I should like to say one or two words on the pension proper. I would be very happy to know that we had legislation on the statute books before us that would give adequate increases to our senior citizens and to our veterans. I would be happier dealing with this legislation if I knew the other type of legislation for senior citizens and veterans was on the way and would be passed in this session of Parliament. I believe most hon. members feel the same way about the present bill and about pensions in general.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to members describing their financial troubles, and there is no doubt that some hon. members are having financial difficulties. But I point out that there are hundreds of thou-
5300	COMMONS DEBATES	March 20. 1970
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 sands of Canadians from one end of Canada to the other who do not know what it is to have a pension, who do not know what it is to have a monthly income when they finish their normal term of employment. We should set up proper, portable pension plans for the whole country. We have never really done that. We have never really done a top-notch job in this field, although there has been some improvement in the over-all picture.
I have heard stories of hon. members who are having difficulty in sending their children to schools and universities. Mr. Speaker, I can name hundreds of children who could not go to university because their parents could not afford to put the money down on the line. This situation does not apply only to Members of Parliament; it applies to a broad spectrum of Canadian citizens.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I endorse this amendment which proposes that clause 13 be stricken from the bill. If the government wishes to propose other measures to make up the difference, that may be all right, but the $6,000 expense allowance in no way, shape or form should be used as a basis for pension purposes when it is not used for taxation purposes. If we adopt this bill we will be giving ourselves special privileges, which is something we should not do.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I think the government is to be commended for its courage in bringing forward this bill. To look after yourself is not a popular thing, although our Socialist friends are all preaching that it is. Speaking for the greater number of the members of this House, I say they are quibbling when they talk about whether or not the $6,000 is an expense account or is pay. It is probably an outdated method of paying people something in the nature of what they are worth. We have this situation because governments in the past have not had the courage to come forward and look at the question and bring it up-to-date. We know they should bring all pension rates up-to-date, but let us bring on one thing at a time.


Max Saltsman: Us first?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I wonder if the hon. member who interjected would tell us how much money he has in his private fortune and what it is like to be so independent as to be able to devote your time to the Canadian people in such a fashion. I think there is hypocrisy here. I say that if you are rich enough, you should

donate your time. Why don't you come here as a dollar-a-year man and give your member's pay to the starving children in Biafra?
I have been a civil servant all my life, very inadequately paid, and the pension is not worth mentioning. I heard no ravings from that corner of the chamber to increase my pay in that time-and they have had 40 years to do it. I heard no ravings from that corner about the soldiers' pay. To them I say, I know you are all pacifists. Why? You live in a country defended by the soldiers of this country. Are the soldiers of the past and the soldiers of the present being adequately paid? Are the paraplegics in our hospitals being adequately paid, those who suffered through defending our country? They defended their country to allow you to spout your socialism. You want it both ways. Do you want the soldiers to fight for you for nothing, to spend the rest of their lives in hospital beds for nothing? Why? Because you believe in western freedom?


Mr. Nysirom:: You would like to see them in Viet Nam, wouldn't you?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Where would you like to see them?


Randolph Harding: We have been trying to get a raise for them.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: They stand for western freedom. Where do you stand? Everytime you talk about Viet Nam I know it is the same old red herring, and I mean red. Why don't you talk about Laos today? Who is invading Laos today?


William Arnold Peters: Would you call Spiro to order, Mr. Speaker?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: We are having interjections from my red friends to my left. If they will just keep quiet for a time we will get on with this biff.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to withdraw that remark, if I was one of those included.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: My bright pink friends, please keep quiet for a while.


William Arnold Peters: I am not his bright pink friend, either, Mr. Speaker.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: My salmon-coloured friend, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must ask him to be as relevant as possible to the subject under discussion.
March 20, 1970	COMMONS


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I have always considered it a right and a privilege to answer the interjections of hon. members of the House. If my hon. friends will please confine their remarks to a positive contribution to this debate and to what they think Members of Parliament are worth, it will be better. I know what some members of Parliament are worth perfectly well. I know perfectly well what the price of treason should be, and I have heard a great deal of treason in my day.
As a civil servant I was not allowed to take the positive action which is usually necessary, but I know something about serving my country-very inadequately-and I know something about the fault of past governments in refusing to pay me personally for my service in the civil service, in the armed forces and in the mounted police. While I am at it, I also want to congratulate this administration for increasing some of those pensions, for example the mounted police pension. That pension has been increased 42 per cent in some cases. The only thing I can see wrong about it is that some of those pensions should have been increased at least 100 per cent-and if you pardon me for saying so, I think that includes mine.
It may be of some interest to you to know that for 23J years service I get the magnificent sum of $100 a month. Is that adequate in this day and age, with the cost of socialism mounting daily, the socialism which my hon. friends on the left, the salmon-coloured gentlemen, are so fond of bringing forward? Everything free; medicare, education-everything but the protection of this country. And who is going to pay for it? Who is going to reward them adequately when it is over?
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
This bill is far from adequate; there are still holes in it. There are members of the mounted police who are not allowed to include their war service for pension purposes. You never heard that mentioned until now. Why not? Is active service and service to your country less valuable to the people of Canada than good, safe highway patrols at home? Where was your lobby then? Isn't it fair to assume that the reason is that they do not want to reward people for service to their country, for supporting western freedom and democracy, but only the new democracy? What is new democracy? Why use the word "democracy" if you refuse to reward one for service to it? I should think the New Democratic Party would rise to a man and say that a man who
DEBATES	5301
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 serves his country is just as entitled to a pension as one who stays home in a safe job.
I am sorry I have to make such a plea to this House, to cut out hypocrisy and get down to the fact that hon. members should be properly paid.
Mr. Speaker, I have received a letter from the Toronto Star asking me to explain how much money I am out of pocket by keeping two homes. I cannot afford to keep two homes. 1 do not own two cars, because I cannot afford it. If my wife comes here to visit me, I should not have to speak to my landlady and beg her to allow us to use the upper room, back, on the third floor. Surely, like a corset salesman, I should be able to put my wife up in an ordinary first-rate hotel without having to explain to the Toronto Star how much money I am out of pocket.
If you have a visitor from your own community who is travelling Canada-the most vital, prosperous young nation on earth- should you have to apologize for not being able to afford to take them out to dinner or send them home in a taxi because you do not have two cars and cannot afford anything but streetcar fare? When you represent 100,000 square miles of this wonderful country, are you supposed to travel over it winter and summer, day and night, at your own expense? Some hon. members pretend to be ashamed to stand up and ask the people of Canada to pay their reasonable expenses to get around.
If you have a constituency where you do not need $6,000 to get around, you had better take a constituency like Athabasca-as I did for ten years-and you will be $4,000 out of pocket every year. I do not have to tell the Toronto Star, Mr. Speaker: I am telling the House of Commons, if they do not know it already. The hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) covers 2 j million square miles, and you ask him to do it on $6,000 a year. How, in the name of decency, can any citizen of Canada ask a man to represent 2J million square miles of this country on a miserable $6,000 a year?
Don't get me wrong. I did not come down here for the money. I did not even know how much the job paid when I came. But I know that the average Member of Parliament today does not have enough take-home pay to make it worth while to give up teaching public school to sit in this House for the number of days and hours that we spend here. I am willing to give the Auditor General or anybody else access to my books. He can publish them, and if he can show that there is any

March 20, 1970

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 profit in being a public servant at this level I am quite willing to give all that profit to the starving people of Biafra or anywhere else. But there is no profit, and you know it. To criticize the positive parts of this bill is sheer hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker. It is a cheap political attempt to put Members of Parliament on the spot, and particularly members of the government who have the courage to update their own pay and allowances and pension scheme.
Mr. Speaker, I have never heard a positive suggestion from my Socialist friends on how anybody will be able to pay their bills unless we update our pay and allowances, nor as to who is going to raise the money or work a little harder to do it. Reformer as I am, I might be tempted to give them some political support if they had the answer to that question. How are you going to get individual Canadians to work harder and serve their country better? I have tried to serve my country but I have never been thanked for it from that corner of the House. My pension troubles have never been raised and no lobby has ever suggested that war service should count. Why shouldn't war service count in other service pensions? I can only assume it is because they do not condone the fact that I served my country as a volunteer soldier- but I did it willingly and I am not whining. Mr. Speaker, the alternative is simple: they can give the money back to the Crown, if they do not want it. This would be one way of avoiding income tax on it, and I am sure it would be most welcome.
By and large I think this bill is a step in the right direction. As I said before, I think it puts an unnecessary strain on the government and on this House to talk about what our pay should be. Perhaps the matter should have been put into the hands of an independent commission, but then I suppose they would have said, "Another royal commission; another bunch of Grits looking for good jobs; another waste of the taxpayers' money."
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take up any more of the time of the House except to say that I think this measure is long overdue, particularly for younger members who have to think about their families and for professional men who have given up lucrative positions to come here and donate their time. To those who think we are overpaid now, or that we will be in the future, I say the door is open to give back to a grateful country any overpayment they happen to receive.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in the debate, and I do not intend to take very long. I have been rather astonished and distressed by the reaction of hon. members to the fact that there are some in this House who question the wisdom of an increase in members' pensions as proposed. I think hon. members who have talked the way the preceding speaker spoke have gall. What they lack in intelligence and understanding of what this question is about, they certainly make up in nerve and extravagance of expression.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: You are the richest Socialist I know in this country.


David Lewis: I want to say to hon. members, on behalf of my colleagues, that they should not think that anyone of us who opposes this bill, or even anyone who supports it, is less than dedicated to serving the people of Canada and the Parliament of Canada.
Let us understand the basis of this discussion. My friend, the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters) says that we will be paying for this pension; we will pay a larger proportion of our salary and expense allowance. But so will the public treasury, Mr. Speaker. I am certain that other public servants in Canada would be quite prepared to pay a larger proportion of their salaries in order to have it matched by a contribution from their employers so that their pensions might be improved.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I am not one who says the Member of Parliament should not enjoy an improved salary or pension until everyone else in Canada has reached his level. That is an impossible, wrong position to take. It is simply not practical or sensible. But I do say that when the government brings down a bill covering public servants like Members of Parliament, judges, members of the RCMP, Senators and veterans, it ought to cover and treat all public servants equally.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: That is my objection to this bill.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question? Is it his opinion that the pension plan for civil servants is even remotely related to the kind of plans existing in the other sectors described?


David Lewis: Of course not. The hon. member must not think I am so ignorant as not to
March 20, 1970	COMMONS
know there are variations in wages and salaries all across this country, and in pension plans. Pensions are not equal, and I do not expect them to be. I do not take issue because the pension plan tor Members of Parliament is to be improved. So it should be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I do not deny that it should be, nor does the hon. member tor Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). What I object to, and what he objects to is that Members of Parliament should improve their pension plan at a time when little is being done for other public servants and at a time when the government and Parliament ask working men of this country to tighten their belts. There is a time for things to be done. The workers always have a reason for asking that their incomes and pensions be increased.
Can anyone say that a worker earning $4,000, $6,000 or even $8,000 a year does not deserve an increase, especially when one considers rising living costs? Yet we are saying to them, "Don't ask for a big increase: Ask for a little increase, say of 3 or 4 per cent. We do not say you do not deserve 7 or 8 per cent; we merely say this is not the time to give you 7 or 8 per cent." When you say that to the working people of Canada, I submit it is not the time for Members of Parliament to improve their own conditions. It is as simple as that.
This is not the time to bring down a bill that deals with 99 per cent of our public servants one way and merely escalates their pension by 2 per cent, and deals with the other 1 per cent of public servants who happen to be sitting in this chamber and in the other place in a different way and gives to them a completely new pension plan that will double their pensions.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: And their contributions.


David Lewis: I ask the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis): Are there not many civil servants in Ottawa, and would not the civil servants he represents be prepared to pay another percentage point of their income to receive the kind of pension the hon. member is ready to vote for himself?


William Arnold Peters: If he tries to negotiate it, the government will say no.


David Lewis: As my hon. friend for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters) says, even if he tried to negotiate such a plan the government would say no to it. But in this chamber Members of 21774-584
DEBATES	5303
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 Parliament negotiate among themselves on this issue and the government says, "You can have better pensions because you like the idea."


Mr. Whicher:: That is NDP twaddle.


David Lewis: There are differences of opinion on this matter in the chamber, and I know that many people are angry because we are saying these things. Whether their anger stems from their disagreement or a guilty conscience is something they must decide.


An hon. Member:: That's cheap.


David Lewis: Those who support my argument are doing what they think is right, and others who disagree with us no doubt think they are right. They are welcome to their opinions, and I wish they would give me the right to state mine.


An hon. Member:: Nobody is stopping you.


David Lewis: This, in our view, is simply not the time to do this kind of thing with the pensions of Members of Parliament. At a time when similar provisions are not included for all other public servants, and when we are asking the people of Canada to take smaller increases in wages because the situation is such that they ought not to receive what they think they deserve, Members of Parliament cannot, I think, justify this kind of measure. That is why I am against it.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: That is not the position of the hon. gentleman's party in the Ontario legislature.


David Lewis: If the hon. gentleman wishes to ask a question and has the courtesy to say so, I will permit him to ask it.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I wonder why my hon. friend has not had a chat with Donald MacDonald, the leader of the NDP in Ontario, who took an additional 100 per cent in the legislature at Toronto. He reached for it with both hands.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who asked the question was at one time, I think, a member of the Ontario legislature. He ought to ask Donald MacDonald, or John Robarts, or my son, about this. Frankly, I am not concerned about what Donald MacDonald, Stephen Lewis, John Robarts or anyone else did in the Ontario legislature. I am not a member of that legislature; I am a member of the House of Commons.
March 20. 1970

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 < Mr. Whicher: But you belong to the same party as Donald MacDonald.


David Lewis: I speak as a Member of the House of Commons. Some members of my party disagree with me. Without accusing anybody of displaying a lesser morality, lesser intelligence or a lesser concern for our country, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion the government is wrong and Parliament will be wrong in approving so substantial a pension for Members of Parliament without doing a single thing to improve the pension plan as a whole of other public servants.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, a member of the opposition who spoke earlier in the debate congratulated the government for its courage in bringing forward this legislation. Whatever the government displayed, I do not think it was courage. May I refer to what the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) suggested when he indicated that it was not a matter of great substance that pensions for public servants and Members of Parliament are dealt with in the same bill.
I think it is precisely because the government lacked courage that it introduced these separate measures in the same bill. In other words, the government knew perfectly well that a bill to increase pensions of Members of Parliament and Senators at this time-and it has been emphasized by others that the phrase "at this time" is all-important-would be unpopular with the public and embarrassing for Members of Parliament and Senators; so it decided to bring in under part II of this bill the provisions dealing with pensions of Members of Parliament and Senators. It brought in part II of the bill, which it knew would be unpopular, under the cloak of raising the pensions of civil servants, which it knew would be popular. That is exactly what it did, even though the bases of the two pensions are entirely different and the benefits paid under part II are far more generous than those to be paid to recipients under part I.
I therefore think the President of the Privy Council was quite wrong when he tried to pretend that it was not of great consequence that these two measures should be included in one bill. They were included in one bill quite deliberately, with the hope that the popular part, the pension increases relating to the

public service, would carry the unpopular part relating to Members of Parliament and Senators.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The campaign to raise pensions of public servants has been fought long and hard by many boards, bodies, commissions, public servants themselves and by people like my colleague for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Of course, in this campaign my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre has played a very consistent and persistent part in this victory which is by no means confined to a few people.
I want to touch on a point with which the President of the Privy Council omitted to deal. He was careful to say that the recommendations are based very largely on the Curtis report. But there is one part of the report with which he did not deal, namely, what appears on page 5. The report recommended that pensions be paid at age 55 on retirement, but not before that age. Mr. Curtis said in his report:
It should also be stated plainly that the present system of paying allowances immediately upon retirement from the House is inequitable in that it gives younger "retirees" a great advantage over older members... The time has come to make the system more adequate, equitable and appropriate to present-day conditions and more in line with pension and retirement plans in general.
In other words, the report recommended that MPs be eligible for pensions henceforth at the age of 55. The government disregarded this advice completely when drawing up the new pensions schedule. So far I have heard no explanation from the government as to why they brushed off this recommendation.


William Arnold Peters: The government wants retired members to be young enough to enjoy it.


Mrs. Maclnnis:: My hon. friend is not on the government side, yet. I said I had heard nothing from the government side. Now I want to touch on one or two points which were made by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis). I see he has returned to the chamber, and I am glad he has. It seems that when he was worrying about members' pensions and being such a strong advocate of the needs of Members of Parliament, he was doing something which was important and about which he felt very strongly.
But I would just like to suggest-I will come in a minute to the need of Members of Parliament for this pension, and in some
March 20, 1970

cases the need is very great indeed-that when the hon. member made at least the suggestion that for certain Members of Parliament who have safe ridings it is easy enough to go along with criticizing pension increases for Members of Parliament, but that for members whose ridings are not so safe it is a must to have very substantial increases in pensions, that having a riding which is reasonably safe for a member is not entirely unconnected with what one does in pleading the case for people who really need help in the riding, the people on low incomes and those who have no pensions or very low pensions.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I rise on a question of
privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member has quoted me and I think in fairness she should quote me accurately. My concern was that for certain types of members the conventional rules of eligibility had the result of excluding 88 per cent of members of this House from any benefit whatsoever-not in regard to the quantum of the pension but mere eligibility for the pension. I believe the hon. member has misconstrued my remarks on this point.


Malcolm MacInnis: That was the next point I was going to make, but the one I have already made stays, because I suggest that there are very many people besides Members of Parliament who have very low pensions or no pensions. He may feel as righteously indignant as he likes over a pension which is as low as $3,000 under the old act, but I should like to know how many people in his riding, excluding perhaps some of the higher paid public servants, are enjoying pensions of $3,000 for the rest of their lives. I refer to ordinary members of the riding.


Mr. Anderson:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question?


Malcolm MacInnis: If you want to ask a question, let me finish with him first and then I will let you have a shot. I want to deal with this other point. The hon. member is melancholy about the old pension system, because he says only 12 per cent can qualify under it to get a pension. I ask him, what does he want? Is it a situation in regard to pensions where every member who is once elected to Parliament becomes attached to the public payroll and is pensioned for life? If that is not what he wants, I am at a loss to understand what he does want, because it seems to me very much like that. And don't

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 let him make another speech on this clause. He can make another speech later, because we have other amendments.
I suggest that if he would put half the attention into pleading for a guaranteed income and for pensions for the low-income people in his riding as he has today for members of Parliament, perhaps he would find there would be less of a turnover in his riding when it comes to future elections. Perhaps the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) would like to ask his question now.


David Anderson: I should like to clear up one point. I hope the hon. member does not feel, as I understood her to say, that one's performance in the House and as an MP entirely determines whether one is re-elected, whether in the same seat or not, because I feel that her hon. friend from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) would take strong exception to that statement.


Malcolm MacInnis: No, no. I made no such suggestion. I said it was not entirely unconnected with that. You can find your examples where you like. Of course, accident also comes into it very definitely. Accident comes into our getting here in the first place and in our leaving it, in the second place.
I would also like to say that I wish the hon. member for Ottawa West would go back and read the speech which my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre made on March 10 and from which the hon. member for Ottawa West was quoting so freely this morning. In every case he would find that my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre was not talking about the pension scheme already in existence, but about what is being proposed for us, when he said it was too generous and this sort of thing. Just let him read Hansard. You can get your shot on the next round. Look at Hansard in the meantime and it will save time.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The statement is on the record, and it is a misstatement. I should like to ask the hon. member: When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) referred to a ceiling of $9,000, which plan was he referring to-the present one or the new one?


Malcolm MacInnis: I am saying that when he referred to the plan being far too generous he used the words, "what is being proposed for us in the future." That is what he said. I guess I have dealt with everything up to date. I now want to come to my own position on
March 20. 1970

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 this proposal. Of course, 1 am supporting the amendment which is before us. Oh, yes; I knew I had forgotten somebody. It is the member in our own group who referred to members who believed that the affluent society must be bad, and who prefer to wear hair-shirts and have long faces on Sundays. I am not in that category at all, believe it or not; but I do believe that in an affluent society, when we start to raise pensions and allowances it must begin at the bottom where the need is greatest.
I am not saying this today for the first time and if some of you have not heard me say it before I will speak more often in the future. The place we should seek to build security first is where the people are the least secure, those in the low-income groups, and we should seek it by every possible means. On the day we get a guaranteed income for low-income people in this country I will be far happier about our spending time and worrying about raising our own pensions and salaries.
1 want to say one thing about my hon. friend from Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). He said it was perfectly O.K. to go on putting any amount of money we like from our own salaries into a pension plan, and he said, "I would expect my employer to do likewise." Who is our employer? Our employer is the people of Canada, who foot the bills. Frankly, I do not think you can justify taking money to an indefinite extent from the pool of taxation across this country while we have people with so much less income and security than ourselves.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I come now to another point. I realize the need for increased pensions for Members of Parliament; I see the need and hear about it all the time. I know there are members who have very great family requirements, with youngsters growing up and needing education. Some carry the extra burden of supporting elderly relatives. Other members have large constituencies with particular travel problems, and so on. I realize all this. But I think we could find some way other than upping the pensions to cope with some of the expenses we have to bear.
There are also some members whose obligations are greater than one suspects. It is a rather dangerous thing to count the noses in a member's family and to say that he has 6, 8 or 10 children, that another member has no children, and therefore the need of the first member for a pension is 6, 8 or 10 times that
[Mrs. Maclrmls.)
of the other. I suggest that until and unless you know the obligations of each individual member, you could not begin to make any sort of rough calculation of what are his requirements.
Most of us are required to run two homes. At times certain individuals and organizations seem to feel that a money tree grows in our offices. We know, too, that constituency expenses are mounting. Therefore, I will not presume to judge the needs of anybody else by looking at their obligations. You could not begin to make any assessment, and there is no reason why you should be able to do so.
Certain people in this House are angry, upset, and feel badly about this situation. But I think we must admit that we are all here because we are trying to do a good job for this country, and that we are earnestly and sincerely trying to say that which we believe. I am not presuming to judge other people, but I have to judge my own position in this matter. In doing so I have to tell this House that as a representative of the riding of Van-couver-Kingsway I cannot go along with a pension increase for ourselves at this time. Neither, I think, should Parliament. I have the right to say that I do not think Parliament should do so because I am helping either to make the law or to protest the making of law, as the case may be.
My colleague has outlined specific features of the bill to which he objects and I do not need to repeat them. But I want to make this point, which is central to my argument. The people of the constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway sent me here to represent them and to do as much as I possibly could to further their interests. The great majority of these people have less income and less security than I have. At the present time no proposals are being put before us to help in any material way to improve the income or security of these people. The budget is quite fresh in our minds, and there is no provision therein that will benefit people of low or moderately low income. As far as the people of Vancouver-Kingsway are concerned, there is nothing for them.
For the old age pensioners, for the people who need housing, for the people who have large families and inadequate income, for people who are unemployed, for the youth of this country who will be pouring out of our schools in a month or two with no jobs to go to, nothing is provided. How can I at this time tell these people, "Although there is nothing for you, I have come back with something worth while: I have just helped raise, without
March 20, 1970	COMMONS
protest, pensions of Members of Parliament and Senators"? You and I know, Mr. Speaker, how these people will feel, and I just cannot face them on that basis and I am not going to.
I hear somebody snorting. Perhaps it was three snorts that I heard combined into one large snort. I think it is a mistake for Members of Parliament to compare what they are getting with salaries and pensions paid in the business community. If a Member of Parliament feels that in comparison with somebody in the business community his salary and his pension are not what they should be, that his prestige is not what it should be, that his economic status will not allow him to get those things that a person he regards as of comparable ability and advancement in the business community can get, I suggest to that member that he get out of this House and join the business community.
We do not come to this Parliament essentially for the purpose of making a living. Certainly it is not why I came here. Nobody forced any member to come to this House. Hon. members know-at least, I give them credit for knowing-their abilities are such that they could get a better-paid job in private industry if they wanted to. I also give hon. members credit for coming here because they wanted to render public service. Therefore, since people are being told that they must exercise restraint, that they must go easy on any monetary increases, I give these hon. members credit for believing that this is not the time to take advantage of our particular position by putting our hands into the bill and taking out more than a fair amount, an amount that is more than other people can take.
That is the position I am going to take at this time. I realize that each hon. member has to decide this question for himself. Personally, I cannot support these pension increases for Members of Parliament. My people would regard such action as a betrayal of the trust that they have placed in me, the confidence they have that I will put their interests ahead of my own. I cannot do that if I go back and tell them that although I have looked after myself, there is nothing for them. For these reasons I support this amendment which will delete that part of the bill that makes special and different provisions for Members of Parliament and Senators.


Mr. Ray Perrault (Buinaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I have but a short comment to make. We have been told that this matter is one of
DEBATES	5307
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 conscience. Reforming the pension plan for members in this way has led to expressions of moral anguish on the part of the members of the New Democratic Party.


An hon. Member:: Some members.


Raymond J. Perrault: Some members. The only rider that has not been added is, "Local papers, please copy". I am shocked, bewildered and dismayed that after all these verbal histrionics there has appeared on the Order Paper no proposal by the New Democratic Party to amend the measure before us by introducing a conscientious objector clause that would enable all members of that party to turn back their pension benefits to consolidated revenue if they so desire. There is no proposal on the Order Paper that would permit them to opt out and to back their moral outrage with practical dollar contributions, whether to consolidated revenue, Biafra relief, Canairelief or whatever they want to do with the money.
We have had a great deal of moral indignation but very little follow-through. However, perhaps I am being unfair. Perhaps these members are about to move an amendment from the floor for the purpose of making even greater dramatic impact. Perhaps we can now await an amendment from the New Democratic Party that will deny unto their members any benefits of the pension plan and turn them back to consolidated revenue. We will therefore listen with interest to find out how solidly is this moral anguish backed by performance.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I must say that when one talks in this House about histrionics, the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) is usually quite capable of giving us a fair demonstration of what that word means. His remarks about amendments, and so on, implied that members of this House are not free to discuss the merits of proposals placed before us from time to time in various government bills. Some of us have proposed amendments in our names which we consider to be appropriate and in accordance with our judgment as members of the House of Commons of the merits of the proposal we have under debate. It is from that point of view I should like to speak for a few minute* on the matter before us.
It should be apparent, despite the allegations of the hon. member for Burnaby-
March 20, 1970

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 Seymour with reference to the political party of which I happen to be a member, that when it comes to discussing a bill of this kind it is open to us in this part of the House to discuss it as Members of Parliament and not as members with any particular political affiliation. This is the way I feel such matters should be discussed.
I rose to my feet because I felt I might forestall an impulse on the part of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) to reenter the debate. I am not quite sure from the exchange that took place a little earlier whether the hon. member for Timiskaming or the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) will wear the hair-shirt. But I am sure that whichever one of them chooses to come into the House in that apparel, Mr. Speaker will consider it suitable for this corner of the chamber and we can then judge which one looks the most becoming in that attire.
I rise to speak on this amendment to deal with two points, both of which have been mentioned before, about which I have some feeling. I have always felt that as far as it is humanly possible, members of this House should have the right to make a decision on a particular issue without having to be gummed-up by extraneous issues. I should like as a member of this chamber to register my personal objection to what I can only describe as the way the government has bootlegged the whole question of the pension plan of Members of Parliament into this bill. While it is true the bill deals with pensions it is, nevertheless, not directly related to them.
I do not know why it is, but every time we deal with matters which affect our own situation, particularly from the pension point of view, we seem to be swept into a situation which generates more heat than light. Because of the action the government has taken and the way it has chosen to bring this matter before the House, I suggest it has added to the heat of the debate. I wish the government had left these issues separate and apart in order that we could appraise them individually, on their own merits. Then none of us would feel, in voting on the proposal in the first part of this bill, that we were in fact having to compromise our position in respect of the other part.
The other point I should like to touch upon, because it has been debated, is the business of combining for the purposes of this bill our indemnity and expense allowance. Ever since I have been a member of this House I have 
tried to put forward the point of view that proper recognition should be given to the expenses which a member must incur in the performance of his duties both as a member of this House and in providing proper service to constituents. I have always felt that the present system, which sets a flat rate for every member of the House of Commons, is neither equitable nor fair and that this is a matter which should be considered and appropriately adjusted. I feel that by entangling our present, so-called expense allowance with our indemnity we are creating a snarl we probably will never manage to untangle, and we will never be able to take a realistic approach to the matter of expenses a member incurs in performing his function as a Member of Parliament.
Let me refer to the question of the pension proposal in respect of hon. members. In this regard I suppose my personal experience has been as varied as that of any member who currently sits in this chamber. I suggest in all seriousness that as the proposal stands we are moving very directly away from the original concept of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.
An hon. member quoted and commended part of a speech on the original bill by a former leader of the party to which I belonged. When I first came into this House the Hon. M. J. Coldwell was that leader. Anyone who followed that debate on the matter shortly before I entered the House-I think in 1952 the plan came into effect, and I entered the House in 1953-will realize that the whole concept of that plan was based on the concept that the longer an individual was away from the normal employment or occupation from which he made his living, the more difficult it would be to readjust to what one might call civilian life after retiring either voluntarily or involuntarily from this chamber. It was on this basis that the special provisions of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act was developed.
No one would quarrel with the suggestion that the initial plan was not adequate. Speaking as an individual, I have no particular quarrel with the principle of the plan. When I was defeated as a member of this House in 1958, I had not been elected three times. I have no particular quarrel with the fact that the only benefit accruing to me was a refund of the amount I had personally contributed to the fund: I had not been a member of the House long enough, nor had I reached an age where it was impossible for me to re-enter employment which would earn me a living.
March 20, 1970


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being four o'clock, the House should at this time turn to private members' business.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether hon. members would consent to extending this debate into the private members' hour.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that I had the experience of leaving this chamber and having my personal contributions refunded, and having to readjust to another way of providing myself with a living. I have no quarrel with the fact that at that time I had no pension entitlement as a Member of Parliament.
I did draw a pension for a short time, and while I freely admit it would have been nice if it had been larger, at least-as I sometimes put it-it bought the groceries and it was much better to have it than to have nothing at all. This was at a time when it was not quite as easy, having been longer in the House, for one to make a personal readjustment and obtain gainful employment. I think the original principle is still sound.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Without going into the amount of the pension, I feel one of the criticisms of the present proposal is that it departs radically from the concept of what is a Member of Parliament's pension. I disagree with the parallel which has been drawn in some speeches between the pensions of Members of Parliament and the pensions of civil servants, those in industry, and so on, in a situation wherein one would normally expect to work until a definite retirement date.
It seems to me the departure has stemmed from the fact that the proposed bill contains in it recommendation No. 3 of the report of Dean Curtis, to which reference has been made earlier. This recommendation would entitle a member to a pension after he had spent six years in the House. The bill ignores the parallel suggestion that if one is to be entitled to a pension after such a short period of service, the pension should not be payable until a certain retirement age, and the age suggested here is 55.
If a person has been here for only six years and presumably leaves at a fairly early age, it is evident that in the majority of cases no contribution would have been made in an amount that would pay for such a pension for the rest of that person's life. Nor do I think it
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 is proper to argue that a member who has been in this chamber for only six years would not be able to make the necessary readjustment in respect of a previous occupation or find some other occupation after leaving this chamber.
On the other hand, in any ordinary concept of a pension with contributions calculated for a period of years into the future, a modest pension entitlement could be considered warranted. I would suggest that this consideration, apart from any other, is sufficient for not passing in its present form this particular part of the bill. As one of my colleagues quite properly noted, this whole scheme was hurriedly brought before the House. It was rushed through the committee and brought back into this chamber, and no one can say there was an opportunity for the proper, rational consideration to which such a proposal should be entitled.
Having said that. I must say that on balance I agree with what was said by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), to the effect that the timing, apart from any other consideration, is not very appropriate in view of the stated policies of the government. I agree with him that if we are to be asked, as we are, to support the policies of the government in respect of the economy and the slowing down of inflation, regardless of what we may think of the merits of this proposal which the government is putting forward to deal with such matters, at least we should be asked to set a good example ourselves and the government should see that any measure it presents is in keeping with its general policy position at the time.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few remarks in respect of this particular motion. It deals with the base on which pension contributions are to be made. I believe Dean Curtis summed it up fairly well when he said we can take 7J per cent on $18,000 or a higher percentage on $12,000 in order to reach the same amount. I suggested to Dean Curtis that it might be preferable to base the contribution on the $12,000 so long as the result could be adjusted in some way. However, that is not a point on which I feel strongly.
The government has decided differently, and it is the government's responsibility. The government is doing in this case what Dean Curtis recommended. Having said that, it is not my intention to support the amendment. This government has taken its responsibility
March 20, 1970

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 and concurs with what Dean Curtis has recommended. I am content to leave it that way. I might add that in this matter which affects the conscience of all members, the members of this party personally are free to vote in any way they wish on any of these amendments.
Since the debate has taken a rather wide-ranging turn on this subject, I shall take the opportunity to say what I believe in general terms is the view of most members of this party although, as I have said, we are not bound to vote in any particular way on any amendment. Having said that, I should like to say that in general terms we support what the government is doing. I have always had a dislike for omnibus bills, but in this case the bill at least has the merit of dealing all the way through with pensions. It is true that some of these pensions relate to Members of Parliament and others relate to civil servants and members of the RCMP; but no matter what the category, all individuals concerned are or have been paid by the federal government. In every case the individuals were or are paid by the taxpayers of Canada. In that sense there is a common thread through the whole bill from beginning to end.
I agree with the statement I believe the the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made, to the effect that it is up to the individual member to express what he believes to be his own thoughts on the matter and what his own conscience forces him to say. I agree with that, but in that process I think people should attempt to be as objective as possible. I thought one thing the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said was extremely unfair so far as public relations between Members of Parliament and the general public are concerned.
I hope his statement was unintentional. I shall paraphrase what I believe he said. He indicated he would go along with the improvement to the retirement plan for Members of Parliament only if it applied to all other categories of pensions, including the pensions of civil servants. I believe thereby he left the impression that every benefit that is available to civil servants is also available to Members of Parliament. It is because that is not the case I feel most strongly that amendments to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act are long overdue. I am sick and tired of having the hat passed around for the children of some deceased Member of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Mr. MacLean.l


John Angus MacLean: The time is long past when the orphans of Members of Parliament should receive the same relative benefit that is received by orphans of civil servants.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Secondly-and this is most important-I see no reason why a Member of Parliament should not be just as entitled as is a civil servant to calculate his benefits from his best six years of service multiplied by the years of service. I see no reason why the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith), for example, should have had to serve three years in this chamber some years ago to obtain the same benefit as a member now gets for serving one year. I think this is an amendment that is long overdue and if adopted, will only bring us into line with the civil service.
There are other points. For example, in some cases, at least, civil servants who served in World War II could include the years which they spent in military service for superannuation purposes. We are precluded from that and always have been. I think-although I do not want to go into that question now- the time is long overdue when there should be a further integration of pension plans in all cases where the federal government is the employer, so that if one moves from the civil service to the House of Commons, or vice versa, and has been in the armed services one should continue to accumulate pension benefits. We would then be in the same position as someone who stayed in the armed services throughout.
I do not want to be personal in this matter, but some people say, "I wonder if I am worth this?" Frankly, I have no hesitation in saying that most Members of Parliament I know are entitled to the benefits which these amendments will bring them. We should not forget that according to the latest figures available, for every Member of Parliament in this country there are 1,399 civil servants. I have the highest respect for civil servants but among that number there must be at least one who will receive a far larger pension than any Member of Parliament will ever see, and the same applies to the armed services.
If I were to cite a personal case, my contemporaries who were in the same class as I when I joined the armed services just before the beginning of World War II retired two or three years ago, and depending on their rank many have a higher pension than any of us here will ever obtain. Like them, I had the opportunity of staying in the services with a
March 20, 1970	COMMONS
permanent commission. They, too, are employees of and are paid by the federal government. Please understand, Mr. Speaker, that I do not object to the rates of pensions paid either to civil servants or retired members of the armed services, but I do not subscribe to the philosophy that by humiliating ourselves and going around in sackcloth and ashes we will thereby win the adulation of our constituents.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr, MacLean:: If that is the only way to do it, then I will not adopt that method. I want to say also that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about retiring allowances of Members of Parliament among the general public, and I think that the members of the press here have a responsibility because they should know what they are talking about when they write about the bed of roses in which we in Parliament loll. They usually use the figure of the maximum pension that is available to Members of Parliament. The maximum that exists now is $9,000, which takes 30 years to attain. With the amendment, the maximum will be $13,500 after 25 years of service.
I want to inform the House that since P.E.I. came into Confederation, which is almost 100 years ago now, six members represented P.E.I. for some years, and four members since that time, and not one of the members who sat in this House from Prince Edward Island would ever have qualified for the maximum either under the present system or under the amendments. So we have to look at averages.
It has been said that this is an inopportune time for amending the act. There is always an inopportune time for doing anything, I suppose. I point out in this connection that any member who has been here since 1963 will have to make retroactive payments, in addition to his regular payments, of approximately $4,410 plus interest to cover the seven years. No member will benefit from his pension until after the next election. The only people who can possibly benefit between now and then will be some of our widows and orphans, if we do not happen to make it to the next election.
I think that this is all I want to say except to point out that the insecurity of service here makes it impossible to compare a retirement plan for Members of Parliament which would give a minimum of security to widows and orphans, with any scheme that might be used in either the armed services or the civil ser-
DEBATES	5311
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 vice which provides almost complete security of tenure. Anyone who does a reasonably good job in the civil service is perfectly secure in his employment so long as his health lasts, and even that is taken care of. That is not so in Parliament. You can be the best member in the House, but due to political trends or accident be defeated.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: People ask you to leave so nicely.


John Angus MacLean: In my short time here I have seen about 1,000 members in this chamber. There are only 264 of them now here. Most of the remainder retired from this place, not of their own volition but because the majority of the people they represented thought it was a good idea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt amendment No. 1? All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
According to agreement arrived at earlier this day, it is now my duty to put motions Nos. 2 to 8. Rather than do that, I suggest we consider the motions to be put and the votes to be deferred on them. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Then we will proceed to motion No. 9. Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg' North Centre), seconded by Mr. Barnett, moves:
That Bill C-194, an act to provide supplementary retirement benefits for certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to amend certain acts that provide for the payment of those pensions, be amended by
March 20, 1970

Act, 1970
Statute Law Amendment deleting therefrom all of clause 21 except lines 24 to 32, both inclusive, on page 19, and lines 30 to 39, both inclusive, on page 20.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the instructions from the Chair earlier today I understand that at this point comments are in order on motion No. 9, which you have just read, and also on motion No. 10, which is in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). In view of the fact that we have had a pretty wide-ranging debate, I suspect we would all be satisfied if the debate at this time could be a bit shorter. Therefore my remarks at this point will be brief.
Perhaps I might deal with the two motions in reverse order and say that if motion No. 9 is defeated-in other words, if we are going to keep clause 21 in the bill-we shall be pleased to support the amendment moved by the President of the Privy Council, particularly because of the slight improvement it makes with regard to the pensions available to the orphans of Members of Parliament who die having been predeceased by their wives.
Motion No. 9, Mr. Speaker, is perhaps the most all-embracing of the whole group of 15 proposed amendments, but that does not mean that the discussion has to be extended. It deals with clause 21 of the bill which, as hon. members realize, covers about 14 or 15 pages. It is the clause in which are spelled out most of the terms of the new provisions for pensions for Members of Parliament. My amendment would strike out everything in those 14 or 15 pages except the part that would require us to pay one-half of one per cent into the fund for supplemental benefits, it being understood that in an earlier part of the bill it has already been provided that Members of Parliament are entitled to the escalation that is paid out of that fund. That, then, is the purpose of this amendment. As a matter of fact, it gets to the heart of what we in this party have been talking about all day, namely, that the portion of this bill dealing with Members of Parliament should do only what the bill as a whole is doing for all of those others who are covered by it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I did not take exception to the words that the hon. member for Mal-peque (Mr. MacLean) put in my mouth a moment ago because he was quite fair. At least, he did not do violence to what I said, but there was a slight difference which I think I am entitled to point out. He said that in light of what I said at an earlier point it appeared that I did not want to do anything

for Members of Parliament at any time unless we were doing precisely the same thing for all others with regard to their pension plans. That is not what I said.
I recognize that there have to be some differences among the various pension plans, but what I objected to, what I still object to, and what most of my colleagues object to is the fact that in this bill when we are doing something with respect to pensions for all of us, all of us whose pensions come out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, we have picked ourselves out to do something extra for ourselves, namely, to revamp our pension plan and recast it altogether.
The President of the Privy Council and others have said that this is a logical thing to do, that we are opening up the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, so why not do this now? By the same token, Mr. Speaker, this bill opens up the Public Service Superannuation Act, and there are things that need to be done to that act. So let us do them now. For example, a moment ago I said I had no objection to the proposal made by the President of the Privy Council in motion No. 10. One of the things it relates to is the pensions paid to widows, although his motion is imposing a slight restriction on their love life after they become widows. But may I point out that what we are doing with this combination is looking to the Public Service Superannuation Act, and we see in that act that the pensions available for the orphaned children of a deceased public service pensioner can go up to 80 per cent, and so we are saying, let us do the same thing for Members of Parliament.
That is a reasonable argument. But, Mr. Speaker, the civil servants then come along to us and say, "Why is it you take for yourselves a better point which you find in our act, but you won't do the reverse? You won't give us something for our act that in your act is better." I refer in particular to the provision for widows. One of the things civil servants are most anxious about is to have their plan amended so that widows will get at least a 60 per cent pension, comparable with the pension we pay under this plan to our widows.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Would the hon. member
permit a question? Does he not agree that the public service superannuation plan payments actually made to widows are substantially in excess of payments that would be made, even under these amendments, to the widows of Members of Parliament, and that the specious
March 20, 1970	COMMONS
*comparison between 50 per cent and 60 per cent ignores the very basis of the contributions under the two plans?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.
Mr. Speaker, I do not agree at all with what the hon. member has said, and I have not agreed with him all day. He quotes statistics regarding the old plan and then tries to say that the same statistics apply to the new one. The number of widows getting pensions under the old plan is very few. In the first place, there was no provision for a widow's pension at all from 1952 to 1963. Since then there have not been very many given, so that to compare these few examples with the total number of widows' pensions given under the Public Service Superannuation Act is a false comparison, and to try to tell us that the conditions that applied before are going to be the conditions under the new scheme, the new regime, is also quite false.
Under the new scheme the pensions that Members of Parliament will be able to draw will be larger. There will be more of them, and as time goes on there will be more widows and their pensions will compare very favourably with the pensions of the widows of civil servants. And as we get our $8,000, $10,000 and $12,000 pensions it must be remembered that the pensions of our widows will be 60 per cent of those amounts, and in the case of the widows of civil servants they will get only 50 per cent of the amount of their husbands' pensions. I say to the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) that he is wrong again, even as he has been wrong two or three times already today. The comparison the hon. member is making is an erroneous one, and I say again that we are taking for ourselves a good thing that we find in the Public Service Superannuation Act, namely, an 80 per cent ceiling on pensions for our children, but we will not give to them from our act a better deal, namely, 60 per cent for their widows.
I suggest to the President of the Privy Council and others who stand up and say, "Oh, we are opening up our act so let us go through with this thing," that the same precept applies to all the other acts. We are opening up the Public Service Superannuation Act, so let us cover some of the crucial points that are of concern to those people. But if we are not prepared to meet any of these points that the public servants are calling for, we have no moral right in this bill, which does one thing for everybody, to give this special privilege to ourselves.
DEBATES	5313
Statute Lav>
Amendment Act, 1970
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, this morning the hon. member for Ottawa West tried to suggest that in my speech on March 10 I described the existing plan as a generous one. I think he has had occasion to look at my remarks since then and I am sure he realizes that when I talked about the plan being too generous, I was talking about the new one. It is there in two or three places, and I have checked it. There is even a paragraph in that speech where I said that we thought the old plan was generous when we brought it into effect in 1952. But those like M. J. Coldwell who are now getting only $3,000 a year know that it is not. Incidentally, with respect to those expressions of concern for Mr. Coldwell, may I ask what we are doing for him under this bill? He has been out since 1958, 12 years, so he will get about a 25 per cent increase in his $3,000 a year pension. It will go up to only $3,750.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Stanley Howard Knowles: He
was here for 22 or 23 years, but members here today who serve as long as he did will draw a pension of $12,000 or $13,000. I say to my hon. friend from Pembina (Mr. Bigg)-


James Aloysius McGrath: Two wrongs don't make a right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -that I agree with the point he made about the higher pension that people now retiring from the RCMP receive compared to the pension he receives. He need not be concerned that some of us have not worried about pensions for the RCMP and retired armed forces personnel; we have for a long time.
In this very debate I have been arguing the case of the war veterans allowance recipients who, when they get an increase in their civil service pension under this bill, will have it taken away by the means test in the War Veterans Allowance Act. I have waited each time for a voice to be raised from some other party in support of my contention. In committee the only other voice raised was by one who said it could not be done there, except for the minister who said the government had decided not to do anything about it. Who is it who has contended that we should not again penalize the veteran on the war veterans allowance? It is this member standing here right now, the member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. The point was made
March 20, 1970

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 very clearly in committee that there are a number of anomalies under the War Veterans Allowance Act that can only be corrected under that act. This is not the act to correct them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this is no point of privilege. The hon. member is as dead wrong on this as he has been on it all along.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How is it you are always right?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Bill C-194 does not amend just one statute, it amends 15 or 20. It is an omnibus bill and it amends every statute that the government found it necessary to amend to carry out its purpose. If the government was willing to carry out as its purpose that war veterans would not lose the increase they will get in their retired civil service pension, this is the place to do it. If it is not done here, it will not be done.
I can see the day coming when members of this House will ask questions and complain because war veterans on the allowance are not getting the benefit of the increase in the civil service pension, yet they are saying nothing now. I say, Mr. Speaker, the operation we are going through is full of this kind of thing, where we are doing one thing for pensioners in the civil service generally but doing a special thing for ourselves.
The hon. member for Ottawa West is concerned about the 88 per cent of the people who have contributed under the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act since 1952 but who do not qualify for a pension. Of course, that includes all those who were elected only once or twice and it may even include some who have died and, of course, they do not get it. People coming to the civil service and working only four or five years do not get a pension either, and people who go into industry but do not work the minimum amount of time do not get a pension. Does the hon. member want us to come to the situation that when a person is selected once or twice he is on pay for the rest of his life? If that is what he wants, let him say so. Let us start by calling it a guaranteed annual income. If we do it for ourselves, let us do it for everyone, but let us call it a guaranteed annual income.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, there again the hon. member knows what I said. I am supporting the measure before this House which


says six years; I am not supporting anything else nor am I alleging anything else. For the hon. member to suggest that I am somehow implying that everyone who is elected to Parliament can get a guaranteed income for life is the kind of distortion that is not worthy of the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is supporting a scheme under which anybody who gets elected twice, because six years is about that, qualifies for a pension. Oh, yes, and on that basis he will qualify. He was elected once, then defeated, then elected again and if this bill goes through he qualifies. If he is here for only six years, he qualifies for $3,780 a year for life.
I may have this protestant ethic or viewpoint that was referred to by one of my colleagues; I may look like a person who likes to lie on a bed of nails. I can live frugally, and all the rest of it. Maybe I come from that kind of constituency that is made up mainly of working class people who don't know pensions of that kind. I think that $3,780 a year after six years of service at whatever age you might be-30, if you please, becomes possible-for the rest of time is a pretty generous deal that we are providing for ourselves with this legislation.
I am sorry I got off into that, because that is not the issue. Whether it is mildly generous, moderately generous or too generous, the issue, as was so well stated earlier today by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), is that we have a bill here in which we are doing one thing for everybody but we have imported into it not only that one thing for ourselves but this special deal. Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is fair and I do not think we should be doing it.
I have more notes, Mr. Speaker, but time is going on and I think during the course of the day we have made our position clear. I said earlier today that some of us know what consistency will call for in respect of this matter. I think we should be concerned as a Parliament as to whether or not we have the right, in face of the austerity and restraint we are preaching, to do this special thing for ourselves which we are not doing for others. I think we should not, and that is why I have presented motion No. 9, to delete all that portion of clause 21 except the portion that would require us to pay one-half of one per cent into the fund for supplementary benefits.
March 20, 1970

This would put us, so far as this bill is concerned, in the same position as everybody else.
If things have to be done to change the Public Service Superannuation Act to put the widows of public servants in the same position with respect to pensions as applies to the pensions we are providing for our own widows, let us make those changes. Let us not do something special for ourselves, which I think is a case of smuggling into this bill something that does not belong there at all.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make one or two remarks about the amendment in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). What I want to say is really in the form of a question, but I do not see the President of the Privy Council here at the moment though perhaps there is somebody else who will be able to explain it. When he introduced the amendment the question was asked whether "widow" also meant "widower". I should like to pose the question: Why should the pension cease on remarriage in the case of a widow? If a pension is an entitlement, why should it not continue? As far as I can check out that part of the section, if widow means widower it means in effect that if a widower remarries his pension ceases.
It seems to me that concept is rather outmoded. Why should the question of whether you are going to lose a pension enter into the question of marriage? It seems to me this is a carryover of a rather archaic concept. A woman is necessarily an economic dependent of her husband. In this case it means that in reverse a man may become the economic dependent of his wife. I am wondering whether this particular aspect has been considered by the government and just what is the purpose of the President of the Privy Council in proposing this particular provision detail in amendment No. 10.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). If the part he referred to is to remain in the bill, I would agree with the other part of the amendment proposed by the President of the Privy Council. I am puzzled by the second part of the amendment particularly, since "widow" includes "widower". Could anybody on the government side comment on this matter?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, this type of question can best be pursued in committee. Per-
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 haps the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) could reply.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, this question was extensively debated before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. The matter referred to was raised at page 913 in Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 9, by the hon. member for Lanark and Renfrew (Mr. McBride). At page 915 of that report the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) said in part:
Extensive consideration was not given to this point. I think the experience is that most of the other pension plans the government of Canada is responsible for, including the Canada Pension Plan, have a provision resembling this one. In effect, the supplementary changes were only to generally change the financial terms to increase the benefits. So this was not given a fundamental review at the time.
Earlier, at page 913, Mr. H. D. Clark, director, Pensions and Social Insurance Division of the Treasury Board, said:
I might just mention, Mr. Chairman, that the Public Service Superannuation Act also provides for termination of the widow's benefit on remarriage and there were in the fiscal year 1968-69, 108 of these cases under the Public Service Superannuation Act. So in the over-all scheme of things there are a fair number affected each year.
At that time there was a general discussion in committee as to the general advisibility of asking the committee to take the matter up in a general way at a later date, but the chairman ruled that was beyond the bounds of the bill. There was an indication the matter would be dealt with when the white paper on social security was brought down.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to thank the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) for explaining the matter. I will go along with the idea of instituting this proposal under the Public Service Superannuation Act.


Murray Arndell McBride: Mr. Speaker, we should not misunderstand what the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) has said, and therefore it is important to discuss the matter at the earliest opportunity in committee. The matter, of course, was touched on by my hon. friend for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). We should consider what happens to the widows and children of hon. members who have died. Pension benefits are usually cut off when a widow remarries, the idea being that the children will be supported by their stepfather.
March 20. 1970

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970
My comment is serious although it may appear facetious. Rules like that in pension regulations means that a woman sometimes may be encouraged to live, shall we say, common law, in sin or in a similar condition with another man. Let us take a hypothetical case. A woman may be faced with a choice of entering into blissful or otherwise holy matrimony and giving up a sizeable pension, or steering clear of matrimony and keeping the pension: it seems that monetary and romantic considerations both are involved in the point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next motion is No. 10, in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on motion No. 10 stands deferred.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker, does anyone wish a recorded division on motion No. 10?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear that the voting on motion No. 10 must wait until after motion No. 9 has been disposed of. Perhaps we could ascertain at that time whether a recorded division is necessary.


Mr. Monteith:: Everyone accepts the
proposal.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I was misunderstood. My understanding is that the question is deferred.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I do not see how the question can be deferred unless the question is put and there is unanimous consent to deferring it. I believe it is only the recorded vote that can be deferred.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I believe the understanding was that if motion No. 9 were defeated, motion No. 10 would be put to the House and agreed to unanimously.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is correct.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that point clear?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is
clear in our minds, anyway.


Grant Deachman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some of us are slightly confused by what has gone on. Has the question been put on motion 10, and has the motion carried? First, has the motion been put?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: My understanding is-and this is what I thought was the understanding of the House-that motion No. 10 can be put only after a decision on motion No. 9 has been taken. A decision on motion No. 9 has not been taken; it has been deferred. Therefore, I have deferred putting the question on motion No. 10 until after the decision on motion No. 9. Is that understood?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question now is on motion No. 11, in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: That Bill C-194, an act to provide supplementary retirement benefits for certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to amend certain acts that provide for the payment of those pensions, be amended by deleting therefrom clause 22 of the said bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only a few minutes. It is understood that while speaking on motion No. 11 we are free to discuss motions 11 to 16 inclusive. I might point out that they all relate to changes being made with respect to Senators in the other place.
March 20, 1970

[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: You mean 11 to 16.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 1
thank my hon. friends. Yes, I mean 11 to 16. These amendments have the effect of opening certain options which Senators were given when they were placed on a retirement-at-75 basis, and they contain one or two other benefits which are being offered to them. My feelings about these proposals are similar to those I expressed earlier today with regard to those which affect ourselves, except that I feel even more strongly about them.
This bill would re-open certain options to Senators, some of them having decided, it would seem, that they chose the wrong option previously. I think it is a little much to allow them to go into that again. I think of the dozens of letters I receive from railroaders and others on pensions who want certain options to be opened or re-opened, but who are told this cannot be done because it would be in violation of the terms of a contract.
This amendment of mine would, therefore, remove all those portions of the bill relating to what is being done for the Senators except for clause 28 which would require them to pay one-half of one per cent to help pay for the supplementary benefits which they, too, will receive. I hope the House will support motions 11 to 16 inclusive.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) moves:
That Bill C-194, to provide supplementary retirement benefits for certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Funds and to amend certain acts that provide for the payment of those pensions, be amended by deleting therefrom clause 22 of the said bill.
Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This vote will be deferred in accordance with Standing Order 75 (11).
Pursuant to the agreement arrived at earlier this day, may I suggest that motions 12 to 16 which were to have been debated at this
Division
time be deemed to have been put, and votes deferred on them and embraced within motion No. 11? Is that agreed?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House wish a recorded division on motion No. 1 now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Call
in the members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 1, moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), as follows:
That Bill C-194, an act to provide supplementary retirement benefits for certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to amend certain acts that provide for the payment of those pensions, be amended by deleting therefrom clause 13 of the said bill.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: As agreed earlier, we will now deal with motions Nos. 2 to 8 inclusive on a single division. The motions are as follows:
That Bill C-194, an act to provide supplementary retirement benefits for certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to amend certain acts that provide for the payment of those pensions, be amended by deleting therefrom clause 14 of the said bill.-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
That Bill C-194, an act to provide supplementary retirement benefits for certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to amend certain acts that provide for the payment of those pensions, be amended by deleting therefrom clause 15 of the said bill.- Mrs. Maclnnis.
That Bill C-194, an act to provide supplementary retirement benefits for certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to amend certain acts that provide for the payment of those pensions, be amended by deleting therefrom clause 16 of the said bill.-Mrs. Maclnnis.
That Bill C-194, an act to provide supplementary retirement benefits for certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to amend certain acts that provide for the payment of those pensions, be amended by deleting therefrom clause 17 of the said bill. -Mrs. Maclnnis.
That Bill C-194, an act to provide supplementary retirement benefits for certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to amend certain acts that provide for the payment of those pensions, be amended by deleting therefrom clause 18 of the said bill.- Mr. Barnett.
That Bill C-194, an act to provide supplementary retirement benefits for certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to amend certain acts that provide for the payment of those pensions, be amended by deleting therefrom clause 19 of the said bill.-Mr. Barnett.
That Bill C-194, an act to provide supplementary retirement benefits for certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to amend certain acts that provide for the payment of those pensions, be amended by deleting therefrom clause 20 of the said bill. -Mr. Barnett.

Pringle
Prud'homme
Reid
Rochon
Rock
Simpson
Stafford
Stanfield
Stewart (Cochrane) Sulatycky
Turner (London East)
Watson
Whicher
Whiting
Woolliams-74.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is now on motion No. 9 which is as follows:
That Bill C-194, an act to provide supplementary retirement benefits for certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to amend certain acts that provide for the payment of those pensions, be amended by deleting therefrom all of clause 21 except lines 24 to 32, both inclusive, on page 19, and lines 30 to 39, both inclusive, on page 20.- Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
March 20, 1970


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
NAYS Messrs:
Aiken Allmand Anderson Badanai Baldwin Bell Benson Bigg Blair Borrie Buchanan Caccia
Cadieux (Labelle)
Chretien Clermont Comeau Crossman Cullen Cyr
Deachman Dionne Forget Foster Francis Gauthier Goode Gray Hales Hellyer Hogarth Hopkins Howe Isabelle
Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand)
Laing
(Vancouver South)
Latulippe Lefebvre Loiselle
Macdonald (Rosedale)
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now consider motion No. 10 in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) :
That Bill C-194, an act to provide supplementary retirement benefits for certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Rev-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now, in accordance with the previous agreement, consider motions Nos. 11 to 16 inclusive in a single group. The motions are as follows:
That Bill C-194, an act to provide supplementary retirement benefits for certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to amend certain acts that provide for the payment of those pensions, be amended by deleting therefrom clause 22 of the said bill.- Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
That Bill C-194, an act to provide supplementary retirement benefits for certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to amend certain acts that provide for the payment of those pensions, be amended by deleting therefrom clause 23 of the said bill.- Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
That Bill C-194, an act to provide supplementary retirement benefits for certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to amend certain acts that provide for the payment of those pensions, be amended by deleting therefrom clause 24 of the said bill.- Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
That Bill C-194, an act to provide supplementary retirement benefits for certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to amend certain acts that provide for the payment of those pensions, be amended by deleting therefrom clause 25 of the said bill.- Mr. Saltsman.
That Bill C-194, an act to provide supplementary retirement benefits for certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to amend certain acts that provide for the payment of those pensions, be amended by deleting therefrom clause 26 of the said bill. -Mr. Saltsman.
That Bill C-194, an act to provide supplementary retirement benefits for certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to amend certain acts that provide for the payment of those pensions, be amended by deleting therefrom clause 27 of the said bill.- Mr. Saltsman.
Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond) MacLean Macquarrie MacRae McBride McGrath Mahoney
Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo)
Monteith
Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Munro
Murphy
Nesbitt
Nowlan
Orange
Ouellet
Penner
Pepin
Perrault
Peters
Pilon
Pringle
Prud'homme
Reid
Rochon
Rock
Simpson
Stafford
Stanfield
Stewart (Cochrane) Sulatycky
Turner (London East)
Watson
Whicher
Whiting
Winch
Woolliams-76.

March 20, 1970
Division


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting of the House.
Order, please. I understand the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) wishes to revert to Motions for the purpose of tabling a document.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we are glad to give our consent but let me say, as a caveat, that it is not the intention of this party to give consent from now on to motions which are not made at the appropriate time unless there is justification for this being done, and we do not consider justification to be the need to synchronize with press releases.


ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short statement indeed. I desire to table a document. The main emphasis in the policy embodied here is a substantial reorientation of financial resources in the program to give more adequate backing for the administration of the money of the national sports governing bodies.
In that connection, Mr. Speaker, and on this general subject matter of sports, I should like to recognize two youth ambassadors from Saskatchewan who are travelling across Canada inviting all provinces to participate actively in the 1971 Canada Winter Games at Saskatoon. The young ambassadors to whom I refer, Marie Robson and Bill Ehman, are outstanding athletes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the short statement made by the minister, along with all other members of the House I am very pleased that these two young athletes are with us today. We certainly wish them success in their travels across the country.
March 20, 1970	COMMONS
However, in respect of the smuggling-in of the minister's statement at this time of day, I suggest that perhaps the minister should have taken a hard look at the statement because it is rather ambiguous. The statement became available to members of the opposition only very recently, but in the brief review I have had of it, it would seem that the minister has gone astray on several issues. There is no question that if the statement had been presented in the normal way, the minister would have to be a good deal mote physically fit than he is, because it is a rather lengthy document. It would have to be tabled, in any event.
On the subject of physical fitness, I repeat that the minister's document is very ambiguous. I suggest he should review it. To give an example, he might look at page 3 and then go on to page 13, where he will see that he crosses himself up. However, in order to keep in form with the minister's brief statement, I shall also be brief.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I think it is rather shameful that he did not put his foot down and get this done the way he wanted, rather than allowing it to kick around for months. I hope that the intention of Members of Parliament will be fulfilled with the support of the minister, who needs to be fit probably more than most of us, in respect of providing something for the members of this august chamber who need much in the way of physical fitness facilities. As the minister indicated, physical fitness does not enable everybody to perform his duties a lot better. However, there is no question that the more physically fit you are, the better you are able to think, and I think it is time this government started a physical fitness program for themselves in order to help them in their thinking.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to be able to reply to the statement on motions of that great athletic supporter, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro). It is ironic, I think, that this government's much-touted and long-awaited sports policy for Canadians was tabled exactly on the day we learned of the collapse of Canada's amateur hockey team, the Nats. The Nats were shafted because the team had no place to play once the International Ice Hockey Federation ruled out the use of nine professionals on the Canadian team.
So in one sport at least the control of the commercial interests is now locked up. The
DEBATES	5321
Tabling of Sports Document minister's proposals cover a 50-page document chock-full of high-sounding phrases and good intentions. I was particularly interested in words like "participation", "involvement" and "status" which abound throughout. Sociological jargon such as "other directed" and "non goal oriented" appears there too, but I take it that "non goal oriented" is a phrase not specifically meant to apply to the Toronto Maple Leafs, although judging by their recent performance it fits. In any event, I hope that the minister, by dropping names of profound social thinkers like David Reisman and Paul Goodman, is not attempting to intimidate those of us who are not as well educated.
The report calls for such things as equal opportunity to play, the fun aspect of sports and industrial recreation, with which few could quarrel. It criticizes our North American work ethic as it has extended itself into sports, and at least in the lengthy preamble of the sports policy, enjoyment is stressed and competition played down. We in this party support the point of view that for too long the sole justification for mass sports activity on the part of Canadian children was to provide a screening device by which the athletic elite-the pros and the champs-could be identified and hothoused. "To win at all costs" is a phrase exchanged for the theme of "play and play the game", and rightly so. We feel that by broadening the base of sports activity, a higher pinnacle of international competition could be rationally achieved.
That Canada has a sorry record in both sports participation at home and international competition abroad is self-evident. For far too long, since 1961, the National Advisory Council on Fitness and Amateur Sport has professed to encourage mass participation but approves grants much more liberally for large national and international sports meets. Authorized spending by this body of $1 million rising to $5 million has never been closely approached, and it will be seen that what was spent went largely to the elite and not the masses. This emphasis may well continue, for after you wade through all the verbiage of the minister's report it will be found such proposals as Ottawa office space for government bodies, travel expenses for executives and paid executive directorships for priority sports may continue to encourage a sports bureaucracy with little to support it.
While agreeing that financing is far from the whole story behind our low-grade sports performance, there is no doubt there has been in sports, as in other economic areas, a star-
5322	COMMONS
Tabling of Sports Document vation of public goods in favour of private ones. Those sports which are not marketable have a much more difficult time attracting private financing than do the others. Business in our affluent society only encourages mass participation in sports by those who are financially capable of consuming, such as skiing and golf.
The proposition of charitable tax exemptions to patrons of sports, such as outlined in the report, it seems to me may increase the amount of money available for such sports, but what I would be particularly interested to know is which sports will be selected and who will really control the priorities as to which sports are to be so favoured. Obviously, the man who pays the piper. This system may well perpetuate the ugly ramifications that the earlier part of the report pretends to abhor.
There is a certain fuzzy vagueness about this interim white paper on sports. What we and the public would like to know is whether this paper is really window-dressing or whether the government really means it this time. We know, for instance, that while the minister possessed the authority to do it, to date he has done absolutely nothing to democratize the major Canadian professional sports of football and hockey. How have players in these sports been helped by the minister, who professes such noble intentions, to have more say about their contracts and game rules? However, whenever there is an important sports announcement to be made,
DEBATES	March 20. 1970
we can expect for certain to see our ministei bathed in the full light of television publicity
After we have cleaned all the dust away, how precisely are the lower and middle-income groups going to achieve greater participation? Where do you put facilities in the dense urban parts of our cities without slum clearance destroying housing? Where are the proposals to grant funds directly to the communities that need it for non-competitive, recreational facilities?
I should like to say, in conclusion, that the paper ends with a long-term challenge for Canadians. The question is: How long, oh Lord, how long? All grandstanding aside, it should be the right of every Canadian, handicapped or not, to participate in a sport of his own choosing at his own level.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could confirm the business of the House for Monday. The first item to be called will be third reading of the bill that was under debate today, to be followed by the report stage of Government Order No. 72, the consumer textile articles bill, to be followed by Government Order No. 78 with regard to the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act, to be followed finally by Government Order No. 47, second reading and debate on the standards council of Canada.
At 5.40 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, March 23, 1970