1970-03-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 60, subsection 2, I would request that an Order of the Day be designated for the consideration of a ways and means motion so the Minister of Finance may make his budget statement on Thursday night.



FINANCE


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I have tabled today copies in the two official languages of the report by the Tariff Board on Reference No. 144, together with a transcript of the evidence presented to the board at its public hearings. The report covers woven fabrics of man-made fibres used in the manufacture of garments.
I would like to assure the House that the Tariff Board's recommendations will be carefully considered by the government. Therefore, interested parties who wish to comment on this report should bring their comments to the attention of the Department of Finance as soon as possible.



U.S. IMPORT RESTRICTIONS-REQUEST (MR. LAMBERT, EDMONTON WEST) FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of a statement on motions by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in respect of the marketing of Canadian oil in the United States,
arising out of the statement made at noon today by the President of the United States with regard to restrictions on the marketing of Canadian oil in the United States, effective March 1, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask for unanimous approval to move a motion to refer this whole question to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. Surely this motion is worthy of unanimous consent of the House at this time in that at noon on this very day a delegation of members of this House and the other place left for the United States prepared to discuss this very problem with their legislative counterparts in the United States.
I am waiting for the formal motion I dictated after I heard of the President's statement. I was unable to give you notice, Mr. Speaker, because the statement by the President of the United States was made during the noon hour and I was apprised only a few moments ago of the details. I was able to dictate the motion only a few moments ago, but I must present the motion to the House and I trust the House and Your Lordship will bear with me-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -and Your
Honour will bear with me while the mechanics are being accomplished.
Representatives from western Canada and, in fact, representatives from all parts of Canada are vitally interested in this subject inasmuch as it affects the balance of payments and the level of employment in Canada as well as many other related subjects. With leave of the House and Your Honour I could give the import of my motion while waiting for, shall we say, the housekeeping and administrative difficulties to be cleared up.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
The motion would be to the effect that the whole question of the implications of the statement by the President of the United States with regard to the restrictions on oil imports into the United States from Canada as announced today be referred to the Committee on National Resources and Public
March 10, 1970

US. Oil Import Restrictions Works for examination as to its effects on balance of payments, government revenue- both federal and provincial-and the level of employment in Canada, as well as all related questions thereto. I would ask leave of the House for presentation of that motion without the customary notice.


Mr. Speaker:: I notice that the President of the Privy Council is seeking the floor at the present time. I am not sure whether it would be proper to allow the minister to participate in the discussion at this point.
We have before us a proposed motion of which the hon. member for Edmonton West is now giving notice under the terms of Standing Order 43. This motion cannot be put without the unanimous agreement of the House and under the terms of the Standing Order there cannot be discussion of the matter. Perhaps I could put the question and thereafter ask if anyone wishes to seek the floor on a point of order. It is a little difficult to do otherwise. Is there unanimous agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous
agreement to the proposed motion of the hon. member for Edmonton West so it cannot be put now.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, out of courtesy to the hon. member I might mention that since the President's statement was made only a few minutes ago and the government has not had time to consider all its implications, we feel it would be premature to put the motion today. This would not preclude a statement being made on motions tomorrow or on another occasion when the full implications of the President's statement can be assessed.



U.S. IMPORT RESTRICTIONS-REQUEST (MR. DOUGLAS, NANAIMO-COWICHAN-THE ISLANDS) FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, if I may I would put the same proposition from an angle, about Which the House may feel differently. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to consider a motion. Under Standing Order 43 I am allowed to make some brief comments and I assure Your Honour they will be extremely brief.
[Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) .1

The President of the United States, Mr. Nixon, has announced this morning a substantial cutback of Canadian oil exports to the United States east of the Rocky Mountains from the present level of 620,000 barrels a day to 395,000 barrels a day.
Whereas this unilateral action by the United States government in sharply curtailing Canadian oil exports will have a most serious effect on the Canadian economy I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House discuss today the announcement by the United States government on Canadian oil exports and the response of the Canadian government to this arbitrary and unilateral action taken by the government of the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say I have some reservations about the possibility of two motions on this subject under Standing Order 43 when one has been put to the House and a decision taken that there should not be a discussion. The hon. member may well argue, and I assume would argue, that there is a distinction between the motion he is proposing and the one first proposed. But I still have some general reservations about the advisability, from the procedural standpoint, of having two consecutive motions on the same subject. This is said in a general way.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has indicated what his motion is. Hon. members have heard it. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 unanimous consent is required. I will ask whether such consent is forthcoming.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members have heard, there is no unanimity and the motion cannot be put now.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and perhaps for clarification. In light of the statement by the Government House Leader I take it that the decision of the government today is without prejudice to my motion if it were put tomorrow.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, the hon. member will be no more prejudiced in putting it tomorrow than he was in putting it today. Let us put it that way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
March 10, 1970



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. It relates to the fact that for more than a century Canada and the United States have set an example to the rest of the world by maintaining one of the few unarmed frontiers in the world. Does the government intend to protest to the United States government regarding its decision to allow United States immigration and customs officers to carry guns in the exercise of their duty, thus symbolically negating the undefended border concept?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: I do not really think that this kind of action would negate the existence of the undefended border between Canada and the United States because I am quite sure that the United States immigration and customs officers will not carry guns in order to prevent an invasion of that country by Canada.


An hon. Member:: Would it be to keep out oil?


Mitchell William Sharp: I regret that there should be weapons in the hands of officers of the government, but this is a decision that the United States must make not only with regard to its relations with Canada but in relation to the security of its own public servants.


John Angus MacLean: Has the government of the United States given any advance information or explanation to the Canadian government as to why they deem this necessary, and is it the intention of the Canadian government to discuss the matter with the U.S. government in the hope that the former situation may be restored?


Mitchell William Sharp: I was not aware until I read the reports or listened to the radio this morning of the action of the U.S. government. The very fact that they did not discuss it with us indicates, I think, that they did not think it related in particular to relations between Canada and the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: But now that we are aware of the fact, I will be discussing it with the Secre-
Inquiries of the Ministry tary of State because, as I said before, I am quite sure that this action is not directed against Canada.


John Angus MacLean: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of what the Acting Prime Minister has just said, is it the intention of the Canadian government, since any menace that might face the U.S. officials would, I think, be even greater or at least as great in the case of Canadian officers, to examine the situation with regard to the possible arming of Canadian customs and immigration officers?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I know of no such intention.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Is it not the intention of the minister to protest against this most unusual step, particularly in light of the fact that no consultation took place? Do we not have an ambassador in Washington?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer to the last part of the question is, yes, and he carries out his duties very well indeed.


John George Diefenbaker: Is this the government's idea of responsibility?


Mitchell William Sharp: I would like to repeat what I said, I think the members of the opposition are looking for a fight with the Americans. That seems to be the whole purpose-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: -and I do not intend to succumb to the temptation.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs make statements like that seriously? Surely he has a little more common sense than that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members are looking for a fight between themselves.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding the announcement this morning by the President of the United States that Canadian exports into the American market are to be curtailed some 30 per cent.
March 10, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry In view of the fact that there have been warnings of this for some months, may I ask the minister what response the Canadian government proposes to make and what action, retaliatory or otherwise, the Canadian government has in mind in view of this very serious step taken by the government of the United States?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we have been in consultation with the Americans in this regard for some time and we believed that the market should be kept open, as it was. The Americans took this action as they have every right to do under their own policy. I would point out that despite the cutback it means that sales of oil to the United States will increase in this year from some 575,000 barrels per day last year to 650,000 barrels a day this year, compared with 253,000 barrels per day when we took office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is irrelevant.


John James Greene: I am somewhat taken aback by the schizophrenic socialism of my hon. friends.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John James Greene: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression these words are unparliamentary. I believe the hon. member has a supplementary.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, since the minister apparently wants to debate this subject, I suggest he should have accepted my motion. In view of the fact that official sources in the United States, according to press reports, have indicated that the President of the United States is prepared to remove these restrictions on Canadian oil exports to the United States provided the Canadian government agrees to an energy package policy by the end of this year, will the minister assure the House that no agreement will be signed by the Canadian government until the terms of that agreement have been discussed by this House so that we do not have another under-the-table oil policy like we had before?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. gentleman's question, of course, is


not correct. The Americans have never said any such thing, that they would remove these conditions in the event that he has stated. I would point out that there has been a continually improving market in the United States. I would also point out that yesterday the NDP were in here moaning and groaning about the fact that we were going to have too big a market, and today they are moaning and groaning because they say it will not be so big.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the comfortable pew attitude of the minister who comes from central Canada, and that most of the effect of this action -will be felt in western Canada I want to ask him whether there have been continuing discussions with the provincial governments primarily affected by this action in light of the financial implications to these governments with regard to their revenues? This is not an isolated effect. Is it the intention of the government to give instructions or brief Canada's representatives who are today travelling to Washington with regard to the impact of these changes in American marketing regulations with respect to western Canadian oil?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, as stated, we have been in consultation with our American friends. I would point out that While I appreciate the fact that any cutback is not accepted readily by western Canada, we have been in consultation with the premiers of Saskatchewan and Alberta on this subject. I would further point out that from the time we took office until now sales have increased by more than 400,000 barrels a day bringing in some $400 million a year to the economy of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that we are entering the field of debate. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre on a supplementary.


Mr. Paproski:: It is not a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, it is a new question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North on a supplementary question.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: In
light of the decision announced by the United States, is the government giving fresh consideration to the question of constructing an oil pipeline from western Canada into the Montreal and eastern Canadian markets?
March 10, 1970


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, all these matters are given continuing consideration by the government. The American market is still an extremely good one and an evergrowing one, and we believe it will continue to be so in the interests of Canada and Canadian oil producers.


David Orlikow: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister now agree to table the feasibility study prepared for the government on the question of an oil pipeline into eastern Canada?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the question of an oil pipeline from western Canada to the Montreal market has had continuing review not only by the public but by the private sector since the time of the Borden report. There has not been any application from the private sector to build a pipeline into the Montreal market. Nothing precludes such an application and of course it would be considered by the Energy Board and by the government if one was ever made.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister indicate whether the quota announced this morning leaves room for an increase in exports of some 80,000 barrels per day or some 10 per cent over the average of last year's exports?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the averages last year were, in districts one to five, some 575,000 barrels a day. On the estimates they will go up to 650,000 barrels a day this year. The quotas in districts one to four will go to 417,000 barrels a day this year, averaging the January and February figures-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the minister that we are actually having a debate and I wonder whether we should go into the details of the situation as we are doing now. I gather the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East has a supplementary.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary I
should like to ask the minister whether the import quotas announced by the President of the United States have any impact on government thinking in terms of sources of acquisition of oil for eastern Canadian use, in particular the Atlantic provinces? Is there any contemplated change in our source of oil?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, most of the eastern sources of
Inquiries of the Ministry oil are from offshore, and certainly this question will be considered by the government in long term plans. As indicated by the President of the United States, it is a temporary decision for the balance of this year only, but it certainly will be weighed in respect of its effect on eastern as well as on western questions.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I might interpret the minister and ask him to confirm whether I have interpreted him correctly. I take it that eastern Canadian sources of oil are going to be a matter of review and will be subject to inclusion in any further negotiations or further review of the total over-all oil policy?


John James Greene: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, in determining oil policy as other policies we have to consider the effect on the whole of Canada, and certainly in oil, where there is a peculiar and particular situation in respect of eastern Canada in that most of the supplies are from offshore, that situation will be considered in any policy review.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the answer given by the minister to the hon. member for Winnipeg North, is the government giving consideration to the possibility of a publicly owned pipeline to Montreal?


John James Greene: Not at the present time, Mr. Speaker. All our pipelines in this private enterprise economy are currently private enterprise pipelines and, as indicated, if it pays any entrepreneur to build a pipeline I am sure he will put in an application to the National Energy Board.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have the minister and the government had a chance to consider and assess the implications of the president's statement on the oil industry in Canada? Also, is the minister or any member of the government prepared to make a statement in this House, hopefully before the end of the week, to clarify many of the unsettling questions the President's statement raises?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to consider that thought. I point out that the President's decision raises the level in districts one to four from 332,000 barrels per day-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the minister has already dealt with this.
4582	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that we might go to the next subject.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council. In view of the fact that the first report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture tabled in the House on Tuesday, February 17, 1970, deals specifically with the dairy industry, and considering that the next dairy year is to start in about three weeks' time, is the President of the Privy Council in a position to say when the House will resume consideration of the motion for concurrence in the said report standing as item No. 74 on today's order paper?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I shall take this question as notice and shall study the suggestion of my hon. colleague.



MANPOWER


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the unemployment crisis for students last year, what action has been taken to date and what action is planned to improve job finding opportunities for university and high school students this summer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will recognize that that question has been asked a number of times recently. On the last occasion it was put in the form of an inquiry as to whether the minister would be making a statement. At least, that is my recollection of the matter.


Louis-Roland Comeau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister make a statement on this subject very soon?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have already made a statement outlining the situation last summer. The situation then was far from being a crisis and our action resulted in

DEBATES	March 10, 1970
the placement of 93 per cent of those students who wanted work. We are following with action along similar lines this year and hope to have a successful program for the coming summer.


Louis-Roland Comeau: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister endeavour to obtain reports from those manpower offices on university campuses which employ the tri-semester system of operation so that we may know whether the tri-semester system, if expanded to other universities, could make available more jobs over the year for other university students?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, any change that would improve employment conditions would be welcome but a change in the semester system is a matter for the universities and provincial authorities.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works but as he is not in attendance and has no parliamentary secretary, I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister.
Could he state whether the government intends to build a $100 to $175 million complex in Montreal, as announced recently by the member for Papineau-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question was asked yesterday and I believe that the minister has answered it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to that of the hon. member for Sainte-Marie.
Has the hon. member who has just been referred to been authorized to announce the details of the proposal?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not believe the question, as worded by the hon. member, is in order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
The question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the hon. member been authorized to announce such a project when facts prove the opposite?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question, I repeat, was asked yesterday. It was the first question
March 10. 1970

first put by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie and the minister, as far as I can remember, replied to it.


Mr, Valade:: Mr. Speaker, could the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether the government intends, in the future, to have its plans and its policies announced by the chairman of its party caucus?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the continuance of the disastrous war in Viet Nam and the opinions expressed by distinguished United States citizens such as Mr. Roger Hilson, former Associate Secretary of State for Asian Affairs, that Hanoi would be willing to accept terms that should also be acceptable to the United States, has the Canadian government made any representations to the United States government in regard to steps to end the war or in regard to the negotiations taking place in Paris?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government has been consulting with United States authorities about the war in Viet Nam over the last few weeks and months. The reports we have had indicate that negotiations have not been proceeding very quickly, and I think this is obvious to all concerned. We are willing to be helpful but we have not yet seen any particular initiative we could take that would be acceptable to both sides. My hon. friend seems to feel the United States government should respond to this particular initiative. Many initiatives have been taken and many ideas are in circulation. This is only one.



POLLUTION


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, on February 24, as found on page 4024 of Hansard, I directed a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It had to do with whether, in view of the great seriousness of air pollution, as indicated by a Toronto doctor who says that over 50 per cent of the diseases suffered by people are directly traceable to air pollution and that we have
Inquiries of the Ministry only two years to do something about it, the minister would make a statement on motions in order that the people of Canada might be assured that measures are being taken to meet this serious problem. Is the minister able to make a report about this alarming statement that over half our diseases are attributable to air pollution?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing specific to report on that statement except that the question of air pollution and federal responsibility in this regard are being considered by the government, and any policy decisions in this respect will be announced in the House in the normal manner.



SUGGESTED SUSPENSION OF ARCTIC OIL EXPLORATION

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. The Canadian Commission for UNESCO has called for an immediate halt to Arctic oil exploration until government research shows that there is a safe way of shipping oil without danger? Can the minister say whether Canada has initiated any special and specific research into this aspect of exploration?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have taken a number of initiatives in the field of environment. For instance, in NATO we supported very strongly the idea that NATO ought to be concerned about questions of environment, and we are supporting the same ideas in the United Nations. Of course, in the field of Arctic pollution we have probably been more active than elsewhere, because this is a very special responsibility of ours in Canadian waters. But we are concerned not only about Canadian waters but about the general problem in the Arctic and forthcoming legislation I think will indicate that interest.



EFFECT OF EAST COAST OIL SLICK ON HARP SEALS-CONTAINMENT OF SPREADING

J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have a question and I am gambling on it being somewhat related. Has it been brought to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry that the present east coast oil slick has now reached Sable Island and will affect not only on Sable Island but all along the coast of Cape Breton
March 10, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry some thousands of harp seals which are about to drop their pups and are going to be seriously imperilled?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not related. However, the question having been asked the minister may perhaps wish to reply.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, our officers have kept the situation under very close scrutiny. They will be assessing any damage, totalling it up and presenting the bill to the right place.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Minister of Transport is not here, can the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry indicate whether the federal government intends to join with the province of Nova Scotia in building a causeway or dam in order to contain the further spreading of oil from the tanker Arrow?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have been proceeding on our own in these respects and if the government of Nova Scotia can help us in any way we will certainly welcome the help.



REPORTED OIL IN SEA OFF ALASKA

['As I have said many times\n\nin the House, Mr. Speaker, we are still awaiting information on the results of the first test. Of course, all the discussions that take place in this House are well known to the United States ambassador, who I am sure passes this information on to his government. We have not yet made up our minds whether to take exception to another test. Before doing so we would like to see the results of the first test.\n[Translation\\']
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has he had any discussions with officials of the United States to determine whether the oil slick in the North Pacific has resulted from the earlier underground atomic test at Amchitka?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have not personally. I will have to ask in my department. They have probably acted on certain information that has appeared in the House and elsewhere. I will take that question as notice.



Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question concerning the proposed underground nuclear test in the Aleutians. The minister wrote a note to Washington concerning the first test. Has the minister made any representations to Washington since this matter was brought up some two months ago?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I have said many times

in the House, Mr. Speaker, we are still awaiting information on the results of the first test. Of course, all the discussions that take place in this House are well known to the United States ambassador, who I am sure passes this information on to his government. We have not yet made up our minds whether to take exception to another test. Before doing so we would like to see the results of the first test.
[Translation\



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Would he tell the House whether he intends to wait until after the debate on the report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture to announce the dairy policy for 1970-71?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Not necessarily, Mr. Speaker, because we have to make that announcement before the House recesses or some time before April 1.



IMMIGRATION


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the many wonderful enticements to enjoy the good life in Canada, can the minister state why the number of immigrants to Canada during 1969 was 12.2 per cent lower than in 1968?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will
appreciate that the question is asked in an argumentative way. In this sense, it is not in order. The hon. member may want to rephrase his inquiry.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Can the minister say what new action is planned to increase the flow of immigrants to Canada for the remainder of this year?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the main reason for the decline is-


Mr. Ricard:: The white paper.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -the buoyant economy in Europe. The hon. member will notice that
March 10, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry
despite the decline from Europe, the tradi- will be an occasion in the future to set it tional source of immigration, there are forth in a clear and satisfactory way for my increases from the United States-	hon. friend.


An hon. Member:: Don't boast about that one.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -the Caribbean and Asia. In reply to the question, Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to promote Canada as a good place for immigrants to settle. We hope we will be able to attract considerable numbers to Canada this year.



REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF SELECTION CRITERIA

['Mr. Speaker, the subject is under consideration in the cabinet. I think it would take a little longer than Your Honour would permit at question time for me to announce government policy. I hope there']
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the increased complaints by Canadian citizens who wish to sponsor immigrants from central and eastern European countries, will the minister review the selection criteria which are now being applied as far as immigrants are concerned?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems that the Parliamentary Secretary is now making a suggestion. He has to assume the minister will take note of the matter.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has the minister been able to calculate the statistical multiple correlation between the immigration policies of Canada and the United States and the present United States attitude toward our oil exports?



Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to say if a decision has been made by the cabinet which will permit the government of Canada to participate this year in the United Nations program for birth control and family planning?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the subject is under consideration in the cabinet. I think it would take a little longer than Your Honour would permit at question time for me to announce government policy. I hope there



VETERANS AFFAIRS


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Some time ago the minister was asked a question about whether the government was giving immediate consideration to increasing pensions and war veterans allowances. In view of the very serious situation in which veterans find themselves-the minister has that information at hand-is it the intention of the government now to bring in an interim measure at least so as to assist those who are suffering as a consequence of the high cost of living?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this question has been asked before.


John George Diefenbaker: When are we going to get the answer?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: The answer is the same. This matter is under consideration. When an announcement is to be made, it will be made by the government in due course, not as an answer to a question during the question period.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, by taking an attitude like that surely the minister realizes that he is actually saying to the veterans of Canada that he does not care a snap.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Ceniral Nova):: have a supplementary question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Can the minister advise if he will be bringing legislation into the House during the present session to increase veterans pensions? If so, will it be on the basis of what the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs reports to the House? The committee will be reporting prior to the Easter recess.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, this matter is still before the Standing Committee. I understand the committee will have three further meetings to hear requests from the Veterans Associations. As soon as their report is presented to the House, we will prepare legislation. If the House moves fast enough, that legislation will be placed before it.
March 10, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Angus MacLean: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the government does in the fullness of time, make a decision in regard to the increases in veterans pensions, will these increases be retroactive at least until January 1, 1970, and will the increases be payable to the estates of many veterans who will have died in the meantime?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, the recent
increases in 1968 were made retroactive to January 1, 1968.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-USE OF NURSE CROPS

Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. With regard to the recently announced wheat surplus reduction policy, will farmers wishing to seed forage crops early this spring be allowed to use nurse crops while still retaining those acres for wheat quota if they undertake to remove those nurse crops before July 15?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that we have under active consideration now in drawing up the regulations to apply to this program. I am sure the hon. member realizes that there are some great complexities with respect to seeding other crops, whether or not they are called nurse crops, such as barley and oats which would substantially increase the output of those two crops when the major objective of the over-all program is to reduce wheat acreage and at the same time, as far as it is possible, to refrain from overproducing these other crops.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-INCLUSION OP LAND BROKEN LAST YEAR IN SUMMERFALLOW ACREAGE

['Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs which has to do with the question about the United States arming their customs officials on the Canadian border. I wonder whether the minister would suggest to the United States authorities that they adopt the new Canadian custom of welding the triggers on our guns?']
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a supplementary question. Under the announced operation "Lift" program, otherwise known as the Lower Incomes For Tomorrow program, will last year's breaking be included as part of the summerfallow acreage for the calculation of this year's quota since it was not recorded in the permit book?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, if the breaking was not recorded in the permit book at all, even as new breaking, I do not believe that land will be added.
[Mr. DubS.l
My understanding of this situation is that even for the 1969-70 permit year any land that was broken in that year shows up for new breaking in that permit book.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question. In order that the situation will be clarified, there are many cases where the breaking occurred late in the fall and consequently could not be recorded in the permit book. Will this acreage that was broken last year be included as part of last year's summerfallow in the calculation of this year's quota?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think so.



Albert B. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs which has to do with the question about the United States arming their customs officials on the Canadian border. I wonder whether the minister would suggest to the United States authorities that they adopt the new Canadian custom of welding the triggers on our guns?



TAXATION


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. On January 15 the Minister of Finance indicated to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs that he would be presenting a white paper dealing with three questions in regard to which the government had arrived at some conclusions as to certain difficulties. In light of the fact that this morning the minister tabled, through the committee, a mini white paper or supplementary paper on one question, can the minister indicate when he will express his views with regard to the remaining points, namely, approval for professionals and the status of investments to be made in less developed countries than Canada?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my hon. friend has the same respect for the committee that I have, which is not always the case with hon. members opposite. The information to be given was not in the form of a white paper; I was simply to supply the committee with the
March 10, 1970

information. This morning I supplied information with regard to one of the points. The information with regard to the two other points will be forthcoming very quickly.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I just quote the minister's own words at page 1215 where he said-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -he would "send along a white paper expressing our views in this regard".


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, since my hon. friend has quoted that, would he also quote the correction made in the afternoon of the same day.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Could the minister tell the House whether soldiers-perhaps I had better say members of the armed forces-civilians or materiel from the United States will be participating in Operation "Viking" in the air, over the water or on the ground?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker.



POLLUTION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Did the provincial governments submit briefs on the subject of pollution control to the federal government during the federal-provincial conference held in Ottawa on February 16 and 17? If so, why has the minister not made these briefs available to the national resources committee which is currently dealing with the Canada Water Act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. J. E. Brown (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Some hon. Members:: He is not here.
Oil and Gas Act


James Elisha Brown: If the minister is not here, then perhaps someone from the department can answer. Does a recent announcement to the press of the closing of the Mohawk Institute at Brantford, Ontario, the largest Indian educational institution in Canada, without prior consultation-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


James Elisha Brown: -with the Six Nations Council, or even with myself as the Member of Parliament for Brant-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Elisha Brown: -constitute a change in government policy, or was it a slip-up by someone in the department?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, March 9, consideration of the Motion of Mr. Greene that Bill S-5, to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, and of the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Aiken (page 3591).
Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.
Seme hon. Members: Yea.

March 10, 1970
Division


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
Is the House ready for the question on the main motion? Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Angus MacLean: Carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.

Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill C-194, to provide supplementary retirement benefits for certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Reve-
March 10, 1970	COMMONS
nue Fund and to amend certain acts that provide for the payment of those pensions, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the larger portion of the bill before you is required to give effect to the government's decision to introduce legislation to provide for increases in the pensions of retired public servants and their surviving dependants commencing in the month of April, 1970. As the House will recall, that decision was announced by my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), just before the Christmas recess in December, 1969.
As that proposed legislation was to include provision for the escalation of pensions of former Members of Parliament, it was going to be necessary to amend both the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the 1965 statute which dealt with retirement from the Senate. The government considered it desirable, therefore, to include in this bill the amendments which it was proposing to Parliament as a result of its review of the report on parliamentary allowances of Emeritus Dean C. A. Curtis of Queen's University. Due to the interrelationship of these two sets of amendments, it had the great advantage of simplifying the drafting of the legislation to combine the two in the same bill.
In dealing with the general escalation question, I do not have too much to add to what the President of the Treasury Board said to the House on the afternoon of December 19. The proposals which are now before you are based on a report by the advisory committee on the Public Service Superannuation Act which examined proposals made to the government for a special contributory plan financed by contributions of the government and employees. That committee concluded that such a plan financed by equal contributions of the government and employees is feasible as a continuing method for updating pensions payable in respect of retired public service employees under the Public Service Superannuation Act.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Assuming that this bill is approved and receives royal assent before the House rises for Easter, those now receiving government of Canada pensions in respect of employment with the federal government would have their pensions increased as of April 1, 1970. For example, for those who retired in 1969 the increase will be 2 per cent, while those who
DEBATES	4589
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 retired earlier will receive larger percentage increases up to a maximum of 42 per cent for those who retired in 1952 and earlier. Again commencing in 1971, pensions may be increased by a maximum of up to 2 per cent in each year, geared to a formula based on the cost of living, if in any year that should be appropriate.
These increases will in turn be financed by additional contributions of one half of one per cent by present employees, contributions that will be matched by the government. Both contributions will go into a special contributory account for funding the additional benefits.
My preceding remarks related primarily to the public service employees in the technical sense, and while representatives of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP attended the meetings of the advisory committee during its study of the subject and the preparation of its report, this committee confined its recommendations to the financing of the escalation of pensions of public service employees.
The decision in respect of the Canadian Forces and of the RCMP Force was taken separately in consultation with those responsible for those forces. The same considerations which led to the acceptance of a joint employer-employee contributory scheme for the benefit both of those already retired and of those retiring in the future in the case of public service employees were recognized as being equally applicable in this case also. The costs involved for present members were partly responsible for the choice of age 60 as the normal commencement age for these increases.
The bill also incorporates an additional change with respect to the Canadian Forces pensions and those of the RCMP. As lion, members may recall, when the Canada Pension Plan came into force those two groups elected to have the superannuation benefits received attributable to military or police service reduced at age 65 by the amount of the Canada Pension Plan payments attributable to that service. Those two groups have now signified that they would like to be treated in the same way as other retired public servants, namely, that their superannuation and Canada Pension Plan benefits be co-ordinated so as to produce somewhat higher benefits. The bill includes an amendment to effect that change.
There are, in addition, a number of special classes of public officials who are also dealt with in the bill. Under the Governor Gener-
March 10, 1970

The present provision on eligibility for pension after contributing in respect of sessions in three Parliaments has been changed to one of being a member for six complete years. This will undoubtedly mean that some members will qualify after being elected only twice instead of three times as in the past. On the other hand, some members have been able to qualify in as little as 34 years under the present system.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Dean Curtis also proposed that payment of the full pension be deferred to age 55 with provision of reduced actuarial equivalent benefits payable earlier. The government decided that the principle in the present legislation, which was introduced in 1952, should be retained whereby the pension should be payable immediately a former member qualified. To help fund these payments, the government proposed an increase in the members' contributions to 74 per cent from the 7 per cent recommended by Dean Curtis.
The bill also meets what has been a serious worry to many members in providing annuity benefits for dependent children of deceased members. Under the present legislation, while survivorship benefits are provided for spouses, none are provided for children. This bill provides that an annual allowance of one-tenth of the basic allowance shall be paid to each dependent child up to a maximum, of three, along with the payment to a surviving parent, of three-fifths of the basic allowance. In the case of orphaned dependent children, the bill departs from Dr. Curtis' recommendations which were that the widow's three-fifths should be allocated among the surviving children whatever their number. Instead, the children's allowances are doubled from one-tenth to one-fifth each.
In the case of senators, a parallel change is provided in that those under the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act will contribute on their combined sessional indemnities and expense allowances immediately. The provisions which I have described will be generally applicable to them with the benefit formula accumulating at the rate of 3 per cent for each year of pensionable service as a senator.
The bill also provides that those senators appointed before June 2, 1965, who are under the Senate retirement provisions, will be given an opportunity to resign and go on pension if they are over 75. Those under 75 can indicate their intent to resign on reaching
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 age 75 and thereby provide automatic annuity benefits for their widows if they die before reaching that age.
This is a complicated bill, Mr. Speaker, and there have been some consultations through the usual channels with respect to the best method of dealing with it in committee. I think there might be general agreement that instead of referring the bill, as the motion indicates, to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, it would be desirable to amend the motion on second reading so that the bill may be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. If we could have unanimous consent for that purpose, I should like to suggest that the motion for second reading be amended in that way so that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement to amend the motion as suggested by the hon. minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of part I of this bill is to neutralize to some extent the effects of inflation as applied to certain groups at fixed incomes, namely those on pensions as a result of having served to a pensionable age as civil servants, members of the armed forces, in the RCMP, the Senate, the House of Commons or anyone else covered by schedule A on page 39 of the bill.
We, in the official opposition, are fully in support of the principle of the bill but we have some criticism to offer in that the government delayed so long in introducing it to Parliament. We propose, therefore, that this stage of the bill be as brief as is reasonable so that it will reach the committee in a reasonable time and the committee will have some time to consider it.
Of course in this bill, the government is in the role of an employer and Parliament, therefore, is being asked to make certain amendments and corrections to the conditions of former employees of the government. This bill must receive royal assent by March 25, on our present schedule. Clause 4 of the bill is mandatory and provides that commencing with the month of April 1970, the benefits under the bill shall be paid. Clause 6 provides that these benefits shall be paid at the same time and in the same manner and during or in respect of the same period as the pension payable to the recipient.

March 10, 1970
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970
My information is that the various pay offices have been and are now engaged in adjusting the April cheques. This government has allowed less than five days since the printing of the bill for an assessment of it. It now allows only 12 days for the rest of the Parliamentary process. Part I is essentially a financial adjustment between the employees of the government, past and present, and the government as an employer. There are benefits to be paid to past and present employees but there are also increased financial burdens to be placed on present and future employees and on the people of Canada who must match the additional contributions of the public service, the RCMP and the armed forces.
To meet the April deadline, this bill must have debate on second reading, be considered in committee, be reported out for consideration on the report stage, get third reading and then go through roughly the same processes in the Senate before it receives royal assent. This timetable can only accommodate government witnesses as to the committee stage. It cannot be expected that organizations representing the public service, ex-members of the RCMP, the armed forces and other organizations will have adequate time to present to the committee whatever their views might be. There is a slight odour of political blackmail rather than participatory democracy in this kind of timetable because it limits debate.
The consideration that Members of Parliament will be able to give the bill in committee will be limited and there will not be as good an opportunity as there should be for those affected by the bill and interested in it to put their views forward to the committee.
Having said that, I say that not only is there not enough time left for its consideration in a reasonable manner but it should have been introduced much sooner because retired civil servants and others have been suffering from the erosion of their pensions for a number of years by inflation. In some cases this has been very unjust.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear, e (3:50 p.m.)


John Angus MacLean: I want to turn now to Part II of the bill. I note, Mr. Speaker, that it is based in its most important respects on the Curtis report. I commend the government for having appointed Dean Curtis to study this matter of parliamentary pensions because it is a difficult matter. Dean Curtis has had this question under review for about three years now. It is a complicated and difficult task that

is not generally understood by the public. In my humble opinion such a study should be made by an unbiased, objective expert as is Dean Curtis instead of a committee of this House, so that we may have a decision that is fair to the public and to members of the House. In his report Dean Curtis says:
The whole matter of retiring allowances, pension plans, etc., has received a great deal of attention in recent years and has become one of the most important aspects of employment conditions. The great growth in private pension plans, and the social security system in the United States and Canada are all evidence of this. It is therefore appropriate that the position of Members of Parliament under existing plans should be reviewed.
The growth of private pension plans in recent years has been accompanied by the initiation and development of retirement allowances for Members of legislative bodies in the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. At the present time eight provinces and the federal parliament have established some type of plan.
In earlier times, being a member of a legislative body was regarded as a form of public service which the individual contributed with the obligation to cover the costs involved. Indeed, it was not until 1911 that the British Parliament introduced payment of House of Commons Members. And in Canada the indemnities were always relatively low. The view that such positions were for people of means has given way to the recognition that adequate payment must be made if people of ability are to be attracted to the field-irrespective of their economic circumstances. It is thus necessary to have retirement plans which are comparable with those existing elsewhere.
The situation of members of elected bodies is that their retirement may be involuntary-
That is a polite way of saying members may be kicked out by their constituents. I continue:
-after a relatively short period of service. There is, so to speak, an occupational hazard not common in other occupations. Few people go into public life for the money income involved; indeed the real income of the position comes in the form of prestige, power and the ability to influence decisions.
I sometimes think that backbenchers and members of opposition parties cannot influence the decisions of this government as much as they ought to be able to do. I continue:
In the main, it is non-pecuniary. But this should not obscure the fact that many able and willing people may be disbarred from this occupation because of economic considerations and the risks involved. It is, therefore, the function of the financial returns to people in public life to reduce such economic handicaps to a minimum. It is also true that being a Member of the House of Commons is now a full-time occupation. In earlier days the House sat less frequently and the Members could continue with their usual occupation in some manner. Now, it is nearly impossible for a Member to carry on his usual business or occupation. If he does, something is neglected.
March 10, 1970	COMMONS
I could not agree more with those sentiments. May I point out some of the occupational hazards of being an elected representative? According to statistics available for the last few Parliaments, almost half of Parliaments' membership will fail to qualify for the minimum period of six years for the minimum pension. In other words, almost 50 per cent of hon. members serving will not survive long enough as Members of Parliament to qualify for a minimum pension. The statistics of the last few years also show that not more than 1.5 per cent of the total membership of the House will qualify for the full pension. Only 1.5 per cent of all members here will survive that long as members. Only about 10 per cent of the membership of parliament survives in Parliament as long as 15 years. These statistics, obtained by studying a number of past Parliaments, are quoted by Dean Curtis in the report.
No one should think that when a Member of Parliament finishes his parliamentary career, however brief, he will automatically qualify for the $13,500 pension. The ex-member who qualifies for the full pension will be quite a rare bird. The bill generally follows, in most of the important aspects, the recommendations of the Curtis report, and therefore I agree in principle with it.
As the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) pointed out that the government did not accept the recommendation which states that the qualifying age for a pension should be 55 years. Because that recommendation has not been accepted, half of 1 per cent has been added to the total contribution and members who are under 55 years of age as well as those who are over will now contribute an extra $90 a year. The member may begin to collect his pension immediately on ceasing to be a member, regardless of age. By the nature of things few members will qualify for the pension during their younger years, but there may be some. The additional one half of 1 per cent members will have to contribute, plus the one half of 1 per cent we shall have to contribute to provide for the rising cost of living, will mean that the individual's contribution will be 8 per cent of his income, which is quite a heavy contribution so far as pension plans go. But, as I said, we cannot be judged on the same basis as employees who have security of tenure in their employment and can look forward to a long period in the same employment, probably until their normal retirement age of 60 or 65.
DEBATES	4593
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970
Because Members of Parliament may qualify for a pension when relatively young, some may think that the pension provision is unjustifiably generous. May 1 point out, Mr. Speaker, that individuals are not usually selected by parties or nominated by parties or individuals to represent constituencies in Parliament until they have made some reputation and name for themselves in their own communities. It is usually at the beginning of their most productive years, whatever their profession or business may be, that individuals are drafted by their friends or neighbours to run for Parliament. That being so, hon. members frequently find they have given their best years to Parliament and leave it poorer than when they entered. I am, therefore, delighted to see that the bill will remove the terrible insecurity that has been hanging over the wives and children of Members of Parliament. Too often we have seen cases where serving Members of Parliament have died and left their dependents destitute.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in his opening remarks the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) referred to the announcement that was made on the afternoon of December 19, 1969, by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). That was an afternoon I shall long remember. In fact, those who were in the House that day will understand what I mean when I say that for me it was one of the most exciting moments of all the years that I have been in Parliament.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
It was in 1944 when I first started arguing the case for an increase after retirement in the pensions of retired civil servants. I have spoken about this matter quite a few times in the intervening years, although I have no record of the number of times. It was, therefore, with great appreciation and real delight that I rose that afternoon to respond to the statement of the President of the Treasury Board when he indicated that legislation would be brought in for the escalation of pensions of all federal superannuates, both those who are now retired and those who will retire in the future. I am happy today that the bill before us, in so far as it deals with that aspect of the matter, implements to the full everything that the President of the Treasury Board announced on the afternoon of December 19.
In the intervening weeks I have received hundreds-it may well run into thousands-of
March 10, 1970

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 letters from retired civil servants, retired armed forces personnel, retired RCMP personnel and others from across this country and also outside the country, expressing their pleasure that this battle has been won and that from now on the pensions of federal superannuates will go up if the cost of living continues to rise.
In referring back to what happened on December 19, I say again it was one of the happiest and most exciting moments of my career in this place. I am very happy that we have before us in legislative form what was announced on that occasion. However, Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that the edge of that excitement and happiness has been somewhat reduced by the action of the government in putting another matter into this bill, namely the complete revamping of the Members of Parliament pension provisions. I shall come to that aspect of the matter in a few minutes. Before I do so. I want to say a little more about the provision for increasing the pensions of retired civil servants.
The President of the Privy Council today, like the President of the Treasury Board on December 19, has given the main outlines of this provision. Starting next month, April, all federal superannuates will receive an increase in their pensions. The scale has been made clear. Those who retired in 1969 will get a 2 per cent increase; those who retired in 1968 will get a 4 per cent increase, and it goes up, with a bit of compounding, back to the year 1952. Those who retired that year or earlier will get a 42 per cent increase in their pensions. In January 1971 there will be another increase. We can say now that that will be a 2 per cent increase because of the way in which the cost of living has been rising during the past or so.
If the cost of living continues to rise, there will be increases in these pensions of up to 2 per cent every year from now on. In other words, the formula of the Canada Pension Plan is being applied in this case. That is all good, Mr. Speaker. I welcome it. I welcome the fact that there is no means or needs test and no dollar limit on these pension increases. I welcome the fact that everybody is included. I have long contended for the principle of universality in pension matters. I am glad to see it is being carried out in this case.
There are a few matters on which I want to comment, some of it perhaps critical. I think it would have been a good idea to find a way to pay a higher percentage in the case of those pensions that are very low in amount. It
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) .1

is the same old story, to them that hath shall be given and from them that hath not shall be taken away even that which they have.


An hon. Member:: Hallelujah!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I don't mind the jest at my quoting scripture, or at least paraphrasing it. I do not mind at all. It is one of those facts of life we shall have to do something about some day, and I shall say something about that later in my remarks today. The way in which we forever find an excuse for widening the gap between the poor and the rich does not gibe with the principles of a just society. I wish a way had been found to increase, by a little higher percentage, those pensions of federal superannuates, be they retired persons themselves or their widows, which are in the lower brackets.
The next criticism I wish to make is not so much about what is in the legislation, but rather of the government in its failure to explain the matter. I say this with particular reference to the additional one-half of one per cent that everybody is going to be required to pay. I support this. I am glad it is universal. Members of Parliament will have to pay it as well as civil servants right up to the top level. Those civil servants with 35 years' service who are no longer paying to the superannuation fund will have to pay this extra one-half of one per cent. I am glad it is being paid on behalf of the judges and the Governor General, and any others who do not make contributions to their pensions.
A certain amount of antagonism to the whole plan is developing in some quarters because some people have the notion that those who are now working are being required to pay the increases for those who are now retired. I think I understand these figures, amounts and calculations well enough that I can see how it can be argued either way. I suggest that the realistic approach to this whole problem is to say that the people now at work, who now pay one-half of one per cent, are paying for their own escalation after they retire. Indeed, I have received letters from people who do not realize they are going to get a benefit when they retire. They think they are simply being asked to pay now for those who are already retired. This is a total package. It is one society. We have to stand together on matters of this kind. As I say, I support the extra half of one per cent, but I wish that the government had done a little better job of explaining to the people
March 10. 1970	COMMONS
involved what it is all about. The President of the Treasury Board sent out a letter to every recipient of these pensions in the early part of the year. Some of those who received the letter have sent it to me, and I find no explanation of this fact in that letter.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I also regret that the government has not found it possible at this time to make some other changes in the public service superannuation legislation. I contend that the formula under which pensions are paid could be improved. I think that the people who have been retired for a number of years might have been given the option of benefiting from the best six year average. I think the amount payable to widows might have been increased to 60 per cent or to 75 per cent. There are a number of other changes in the formula that might have been made.
I did not say this on December 19, Mr. Speaker, and I would not say it today if all that the government was doing in this bill was simply providing an escalation of pensions that have been put in pay. But as I shall point out in a few moments, with respect to one particular group of people namely ourselves, we are revising the formula, revamping the whole scheme. Therefore, I think I can now make a criticism of the government and say that it should, in the case of the civil servants, have made some important changes as well in their pension plan.
There is not time to go into this now, and I will not try to take the time of the House in any case; this I can deal with when the bill gets to committee. However, it does seem to me that there is, particularly in view of the other provisions of the bill, a very strong case for making changes to the public service superannuation plan in addition to those proposed in this particular legislation. I say to those who are complaining about the extra half of one per cent that that is not the thing that is wrong. The thing that is wrong is that something is not being done to improve the other aspects of the plan.
There is one other point I should like to make about the effect of this escalation on one particular group of people, a group that always seems to get it in the neck. I will come at this question by reading a sentence from the letter that the President of the Treasury Board sent to all federal superannuates. This letter went out with all the cheques that were mailed at the end of January; the letter is dated February 2. The President of the Trea-
DEBATES	4595
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 sury Board had the pleasure of telling our superannuates that this increase was coming in April, and it is a letter that I am sure he enjoyed writing. In his letter he said this:
I would also like to point out that there will be no means test or needs test in this connection, and that all in receipt of pensions, whether former employees, or their widows and dependents, will benefit from the new provisions.
That sentence is categorical. It says "all"- not "most" of them, not "all but a few", but every one of them-will benefit from the new provisions.
There is one group that will not benefit. I have asked at least one question in Parliament this year to try to bring this point out, and the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) to whom I put the question gave me a sympathetic answer. He has since written me a letter in which he points out the difficulty of meeting my request.
Here is the situation. There are some retired civil servants included in this category of "all" that the President of the Treasury Board referred to who are on very low pensions. In fact, their pensions are so low that even after they get their civil service pension and their old age security, they still require to get a marginal amount as a war veterans allowance. As the legislation stands, when these retired civil servants get this increase in their civil service pension, their war veterans allowance will be reduced by that same amount under the means test provided in the War Veterans Allowance Act. That situation vitiates, flies in the face of, the statement of the President of the Treasury Board to every recipient of the civil service pension that "all" will benefit from the new provisions.
The President of the Privy Council may tell me that that is something for some other piece of legislation. I would point out that the government did not fail to amend 15 or 20 different acts so as to cover all the matters it wanted to cover. There could have been an amendment in this omnibus bill that is now before the House to provide that, in the case of those who are receiving both war veterans allowance and a civil service pension, they would, as the President of the Treasury Board said they would, benefit from the provisions under this bill.
I expect to be on the committee to which this matter will be referred-I am sure that that will not come as a surprise to hon. members-and I shall certainly go into this matter at the committee hearings. Nevertheless, I think it is a bit raw that a group that was vie-
March 10, 1970

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 timized by the means test when the guaranteed income supplement was brought in is now to be victimized again by that same means test because of the government's failure to deal with this point in this piece of legislation.
I must now move on to the other aspect of this bill. Despite the critical comments that I have made, I still welcome the portions of Bill C-194 that deal with the escalation of pensions that have been put in pay as a very desirable piece of legislation. From my standpoint, this aspect is good in itself. It is also good because it sets a pattern. I hope that the Canadian National Railways will be the first to follow this pattern, and that if there are any other emanations of the Crown that need to do so, that they will do likewise. Further, I hope it will not be long before all pensions do the same. Indeed, I want to see it made clear in our pensions standards legislation that a pension is not a pension unless provision is made for escalation. But I say, I welcome this part of the bill.
With respect to that part of the bill that alters and amends-in fact completely recasts-the pension plan for Members of Parliament, I must say this aspect takes the edge off my enthusiasm for this bill. Let me say immediately that I do not think that these wide, sweeping changes should be in this bill at all.
It is perfectly all right to put in this bill, as the President of the Treasury Board said on December 19 he would do, a provision relating to the escalation of pensions of retired M.P.'s, those who are out now. It is also perfectly proper to provide that the pensions of members who are now in the House, once they go out, will also escalate in the same way that all civil service pensions will escalate. But to incorporate in this bill a complete revamping of the M.P.'s pension plan at a time when we are doing only one thing for everybody else does, I suggest, if I may put it mildly, make us look a bit ridiculous.
Although that view may not be shared very widely in this House, I suggest that from the outside the serious question will be asked: How is it that we can do only one thing for all the others, namely escalate the pensions, yet for ourselves we can recast the whole plan, making it much more generous than most other plans that one can find in the pensions field? There are two completely different aspects here. There is what is being done for the civil servants and public employees generally; then there is what is being done for us. I think that it is unfair to

us to have put this total revamping into this one bill. I suppose I feel something like some of my friends to my right and my left felt when we had the omnibus Criminal Code bill before us. They did like some of it and did not like the rest. They wanted the bill divided. I argued with them that they could not very well make that claim because, after all, there was a report stage when hon. members could single out those parts of the bill they did not like, move the appropriate amendments, and test the House on them.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Having said that, I think it will be clear that this is what some of us have in mind with regard to this legislation. We have no option, because we want this increase for the retired civil servants, and we want them to get this in April. We have no option but to support the principle of this bill at this second reading stage. But in the standing committee and at the report stage, some of us will be asking that the bill be made just a bill doing one thing, namely escalating all pensions but leaving the question of dealing with M.P.'s pensions as	a separate matter
altogether.
Even apart from the question of having the M.P.'s pension plan dealt with separately, which seems to imply that maybe some of us are merely stating an objection to the way it is being done and not to its substance, I want to make it clear that I speak for myself and some of my colleagues when I say that we are opposed to the substance. Not all of my colleagues agree with me on this and they will have a chance to state their views. But most of us feel that, particularly in the light of today's conditions, and particularly in the light of the austerity that is being preached, as well as in the light of delays in dealing with old age pensions and war veterans allowance, what is being proposed for us is far too generous.
Where can you find a pension plan where for any period of time you get 3J per cent credit per year? With the 3& per cent per year after the first ten years plus the other arrangements down the line, it makes it possible in 25 years to reach a maximum of 75 per cent. Our civil servants take 35 years to reach a maximum of only 70 per cent. Just on the surface of it, I suggest that is too generous. I might say at the same time, though of course this generosity was in our plan before in that a 60 per cent pension provision for our widows was provided, while the civil service plan still provides only 50 per cent. Yet,
March 10, 1970

we are reopening our plan and making changes in it. Why do we not reopen theirs?
Then, there is this whole way in which our calculations are to be made. Some of my colleagues feel more strongly about one point in this bill than they do about anything else in it, that is the provision that from now on our $6,000 expense allowance is to be called indemnity for pension purposes. How many times have we tried to tell the press and the people of Canada that the reason we do not pay income tax on that $6,000 is that it is not salary, it is not indemnity, it is expense money? Now, we turn round and say that for pension purposes this is salary and we are going to pay our pension contributions on our full $18,000, and have our pensions based on that full amount as if it were all salary.
Under the present pension plan the maximum possible pension is $9,000 per year, and that figure was arrived at as being 75 per cent of $12,000 salary. Incidentally, under the rules of the present pension plan nobody could ever get to that $9,000. It would take 30 years on today's rates of pay. For some of us who were here when the pay was a lot lower it will take closer to 40 years. Whether I will be welcome around here for 40 years remains to be seen.


An hon. Member:: You are, Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: thank my hon. friend. Now, we have decided that we are going to allow a maximum pension of $13,500 which is 75 per cent, not just of our salary but of this whole $18,000, and it is going to be possible to achieve that amount in 25 years if you are a private member. It is going to be possible to achieve it in about 13 or 14 years if you are a cabinet minister.
I know that what sounds generous now will not sound generous ten years from now. I know when we brought in the first pension plan, it was to be for a maximum of $3,000. This sounded terribly generous but some of our friends who are out now know it is not. Apart from that, I suggest that we are destroying a myth when we say that the $6,000 expense allowance, for pension purposes, is now salary. I think if we are to do that in this bill we ought, in the same bill, to say; all right, because this is salary we will expect it to be subject to income tax.


Mr. McCleave:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: was waiting a minute for some "hear, hears" to that.
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970


Robert Jardine McCleave: I said "hear, hear".


Stanley Howard Knowles: should be cautious about these motions to increase our salaries, our pensions and other benefits lest we simply widen the gap and lose the respect of the people of this country and their belief that we are seriously trying to solve the problems of poverty and want in this country.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that I feel pretty strongly about this matter. I have tried not to shout or use emotional or strong language about it. I have attempted to be reasonable. I shall continue to take that stance in the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. The fact that this bill is being referred to that committee is an interesting switch. I knew about it an hour before we came in the House today. I agree with the switch, but what interests me is that if we were to do anything about old age pensions this is the very committee to which we would be referring that matter, but no such reference is being made. That matter, says the government, has to wait for the white paper on Social Security.
So, in that committee, while we shall be dealing with our own pensions we shall not be dealing with the pensions of the people of Canada generally. Some of my colleagues feel so strongly about this that they would like to vote against the bill. I hope they can be persuaded not to do so because I do not think we should do anything to prevent the 80,000 federal superannuates receiving their increases in their April cheques. The hon. member for Malpeque said he has learned that the pay offices are already writing the cheques in the higher amounts. I am glad to hear that, and I hope we will get through the part of this legislation which affects these people so that the cheques can go out on time. We must not stand in the way of that. For that reason, for the sake of 80,000 people who need their increases, I am prepared to support the second reading of the bill and its reference to the committee.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Good.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My
hon. friend says "good". I hope he will say "good" to the next thought. I shall plead in the committee, and I shall plead when we get to the report stage, for another look, a new perspective in respect of what we are doing. Thought might have been given to improving our position reasonably and justifiably, but not to the extent that we so widen the gap that the people of Canada wonder whether we really are concerned about those at the
21774-14J

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 bottom, those on the war veterans allowance and the old age pensioners.
I shall end where I began, by saying that I was delighted on December 19, 1969, with the announcement of the increase in the pensions of retired civil servants. I am delighted today that that announcement is now taking legislative form, but my delight is dimmed by the fact that we are going too far in the improvements we are making for ourselves.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to listen to the thoughtful exposition of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) and the philosophical approach of the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) that this is a problem of great concern to a large number of Canadians. To a certain degree, it was interesting to hear the views of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) with whom I served on a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons which dealt with this particular matter a number of years back. It is interesting to note that on Tuesday, January 10, 1967 this House empowered that particular committee to inquire into and report upon the matter of pensions paid to retired civil servants or their dependants under the provisions of the Public Service Superannuation Act. Then, as time went by, our terms of reference were broadened for us by the House so that we could consider the pensions of former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and former members of the armed forces. That committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard), held eight meetings, heard 21 witnesses and then with remarkable speed was able to report back to the House and to the other place on May 8, 1967.
The committee unanimously recommended that six things be done. Perhaps it would be worth while to read the portion of the report in which the recommendations were made almost three years ago. The committee recommended:
(a)	it should be capable of quick and early implementation in the form of legislation in the next session of this Parliament;
(b)	any adjustment in pensions should not be limited to a particular date of retirement and should be in addition to any other increase already granted under the Pension Adjustment Act of 1959;
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I pause there to note that it only took the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) some one
4600	COMMONS
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 and a half years to come to grips with the problem. It has taken the government of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his predecessor almost ten years.
The report continues:
(c)	It should maintain the principle contained in the present legislation that benefits should be related to length of service:
(d)	It should conform to the principle that any adjustment formula should take account also of the time which has elapsed since retirement;
(e)	It should take into account the increase in living costs during that period of time; and
(f)	It should increase the ceilings in the 1959 Pension Adjustment Act.
As I said, with unanimity and after those meetings, on May 8, 1967, the joint committee reported to the respective Houses. Since then, the members of that committee, myself included, have sat in frustration wondering when something was going to be done. On December 19, we heard the announcement from the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) that something would be done. Hence, the measure before us now. As I understand from the explanation of the President of the Privy Council, and as I read the special report by Dean Curtis, it is apparent to me that we do not propose to give ourselves or the people of the other place anything. We are going to pay for what we receive under this legislation.
The scheme that is proposed for us is actuarially sound, and I would be very interested to know whether the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has had his enthusiasm dulled or blunted by it. I wonder what other formula he would suggest, instead of throwing to the gallery some sort of general suggestion or hint that all is not well in Parliament and that in some underhanded way we are dealing with benefits for ourselves. I say, sir, that this plan is established on the best of actuarial principles, and when the government rejected the concept of retirement at the age of 55 it was suggested that a pension could be obtained earlier. The very sensible provision was made to tack on another .5 per cent to pay for that benefit to those who did not wish to wait until the age of 55. However, according to the mortality statistics of the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean), some of us have no chance of reaching the age of 55. This may be true, knowing the burden that my colleagues on all sides of the House face with an aggravated situation in the committee system. I, myself, am supposed to be at two committee meetings at this time, and would be at one of them if I 
DEBATES	March 10, 1970
did not have to be here. I do not think that one could apply to us, in view of the very special hours that we work and the very special responsibilities that we have, the concepts that one would apply to people in grey flannel suits in the suburbs of Canada who live nine to five lives. So I feel no twinges of conscience about the formula that has been devised for members of this and the other House. It is actuarially sound and I think also just.
I do have some question in my mind about the formula by which civil servants now working help, in effect, to underwrite the increases for those who are retired. Let me not be misunderstood on that point. I do not quarrel with the increases rising up to 42 per cent for those who are retired. I think that is justice. I am only sorry that it did not happen at least three years ago when the committee to which I referred made its report. But the fact is that it should be a matter of principle for Parliament and the government that nobody now working should be asked to assume a part of the load for those who are retired. I agree that civil servants, the RCMP and members of the armed forces should pay for their own increases at two percent per year. They should pay into that fund because, on an actuarial basis, they will be receiving the benefit from it. But there is a portion of the increased levy that will be used to pay those who are retired, and I suggest that that sum should be paid out of the whole treasury of Canada.
I further make the argument-and I did raise it once in the House-that to proceed as the government has proceeded with the retired civil servants by putting part of that burden on present civil servants in effect makes the present employees of the government subject to a special tax. I say, sir, that all of us should be paying that tax. Why do I make that argument? Am I just in making it at all? The statment is that some of the money being raised by the special levy will go to help those who have already retired.
When the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) made his announcement to the House on December 19 of last year he listed a good number of points, but that particular piece of information was not given by him. However, in January of 1970 the personnel policy branch of the Treasury Board secretariat made to the bargaining agents in the public service proposals regarding public service pensions. I obtained in Halifax the copy of them that I am now holding from one of the bargaining groups. I also believed that
March 10, 1970

other Members of Parliament should enjoy this special information, and notice of motion for the production of papers No. 361 on our Order Paper dated February 3, 1970 requests:
That an Order of the House do issue for documents sent by the Personnel Policy Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat, to those groups which are the bargaining agents for employees in the Public Service (including Armed Forces and RCMP), relating to the statement of the President of the Treasury Board on December 19,	1969, in the
House of Commons concerning extra benefits for superannuates.
Neither the minister nor anyone has as yet tabled that particular document. I cannot understand why, and I regard that as a discourtesy. I asked for a document to be tabled well in advance of this debate, so it could be made available to all Members of Parliament who have not had the advantage of reading the document that I happen to have in my possession. I am surprised that the government did not accede to my request.
What does the paper say with regard to this point? I am saying again that it indicates the government is putting a special tax-which may be minute-on those still working to cover those who are retired. At page 3 of the document I referred to it, it is stated:
The entire amount at the credit of the Superannuation Account is required to meet the liabilities undertaken with regard to the purchase of the basic pensions payable under the Public Service Superannuation Act. There is no surplus in the account which could be used to pay for the increases to present pensioners. Consequently, the escalation funds have to come from the plan's contributors-the federal government and its employees.
Farther on, the following statement is made:
Initially, the additional contributions will be seen as offsetting increases in pensions already in pay. But the plan looks both forward and back.
There are only a very few civil servants in Canada, apart from those who do the active bargaining with the government to obtain these collective agreements, who are aware that they are in fact being asked to pay what I call a special tax. This aspect was never put up to them, in any way, shape or form. When I raised the matter in the House of Commons initially there were some members of the press who saw me about it afterwards. Apparently, they did not think the point was of sufficient importance to bring to the attention of the people, for example of the Ottawa area, where there are a great number of public servants. Yet to me, it is an important matter of principle.
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 [DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I state again that I don't object to the increases, but I think the increases for those who have retired from public life and are entitled to the benefits under this bill should be a matter to which all taxpayers of Canada should contribute. This special increase properly looks after those who will retire later on but, in my opinion, improperly helps bear the cost for those who have retired already.
There are several other points I think will bear examination in the committee. I note that there is provision in the bill for military and civil servant retirements that are enforced by the mental or physical condition of those being retired. However, as I read the bill there is no provision for those who may be compulsorily retired, that is those people in the public service and in the Armed Forces who are being pushed out before their normal terms of service elapse when they would expect to draw whatever pensions were available to them. And I think that this is a point, particularly with the government having a retirement policy that is somewhat aggravated in these days, that we will have to follow up.
I regret, too, that the government could not have persuaded the Canadian National Railways or its predecessors, the Intercolonial Railways-I think there is a Prince Edward Island Railway in there as well-to give some increased benefits to their retired employees. But perhaps by setting the example in this bill, the railways can be persuaded to take steps that a normal, good intentioned employer would take.
Sir, I can say that I welcome the bill with the exception that I still think it is not a dangerous but a wrongful principle to impose a special tax, as I have argued is being imposed in this case and as I am sure I will be able to prove in the committee when we study the bill, or have somebody prove it for me. But I welcome it. I think it is long overdue. These steps should have been taken at least three years ago, and should have been taken as a matter of principle by the government and by Parliament to keep faith with their retired employees in these inflation infested times.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to speak too long on this Bill, C-194, but there are a few aspects with which I would like to deal. I might say at the outset that I have not heard any criticism thus far with regard to the escalation of
March 10, 1970

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 increases of 2 per cent, with a maximum of 42 per cent to retired civil servants, RCMP officers, and to judges and so forth. I rather welcome that, Mr. Speaker, although I might say that in the last few years the cost of living has not increased 2 per cent a year; it has increased 4 per cent and 5 per cent a year. I would hope that the government, in its generosity, would take a second look at that 2 per cent increase and possibly raise it to 3 per cent in some cases.
I thought that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had an excellent point with regard to those retired civil servants whose pensions are not sufficient and who have to depend on the War Veterans Allowance to get by. If perchance these people are deprived of the increase by a deduction from the War Veterans Allowance,
I think the government again should give serious consideration to prevent this happening to these people who have given a great deal of service over the years.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said that December 19 was one of the happy days of his life because of the announcement by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), I could fully appreciate why he was happy. Speaking as a member who has been here from only 1965 to the present I can say that, in that short period of time if there is any person who has pursued the rights of old age pensioners, retired civil servants and other people who need the protection of Members of Parliament, it has been the hon. member from Winnipeg North Centre. When he said, rather in jest, that he would hope to be here for 40 years, and I said, "You are more than welcome, Stanley," I meant it, because if there is any person in Canada who has given prestige to Parliament it has been Mr. Parliament himself. He has contributed not only in debate and in procedure, but by his exemplary life he has shown to Canadians the type of people who represent them in Canada. I think December 19 was a happy day for him, and we as members share it with him.
In his criticism of the second part of the bill he said it appeared to him the government was being overly generous with regard to the pensions of members of Parliament. I might say that I was impressed by the hon. member from Malpeque, (Mr. MacLean), who told the members of the House that a study of Members of Parliament over the past few years revealed that only 1.5 per cent have reached the total of 25 years for the purpose


of having the full pension, and that only 10 per cent have served for a period of 15 years. I think that this is a very important aspect, Mr. Speaker, and I shall continue at eight o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard)-Indian Affairs-Northern Quebec- Transfer of jurisdiction over Eskimos; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-External Affairs-Withholding of contributions to United Nations Birth Control Program; the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr.	Skoberg)-Housing-Construction	by
Polymer for Low-income groups.
It being five o'clock, the House will not proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, public bills, private bills, notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Tom H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond) moved: that Bill C-33, respecting Pilot Training Flights by International and Regional Air Carriers at International Airports in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
He said: Mr. Speaker, the under lying purpose of this bill is to restrict pilot training flights by international and regional air carriers at international airports in Canada. It provides that, subject to the provisions of section 17 of the National Transportation Act, the Air Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission may order the cessation of all such training flights.
March 10, 1970
I am sure many hon. members will realize the pressing need for legislation such as this to provide a measure of relief, small though it may be, for those living in communities surrounding international airports all across the country. However, during this debate today I will deal mainly with the problem as it affects persons living near the Vancouver airport in my constituency of Burnaby-Rich-mond, although similar situations have existed, or do now exist, at the other international airports in Canada.
Broadly put, the problem would be said to be one of pollution-noise pollution. Now, since the first airports came into existence, aircraft noise has been a source of irritation to persons living nearby. When bigger, more powerful aircraft, especially jet airplanes, began to fill Canadian skies the problem became more and more acute. Nowhere has this been more true than at the Vancouver airport. It is now almost 39 years since greater Vancouver's first airport was opened on almost the same location that the present $32 million terminal complex now stands on Sea Island in the municipality of Richmond. In the intervening years, the original airport which boasted a single 2,400 foot long runway and a total land area of 475 acres has grown to a base which includes more than 3,000 acres and has a main east-west runway 11,000 feet long. This growth was made necessary by the very great increase in the use of the Vancouver facility. Vancouver international airport is one of Canada's busiest centres of aviation activity. In 1967 it recorded 112,826 aircraft movements. Included in this total were 86,000 scheduled flights carrying 1.8 million passengers.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is not difficult to appreciate that with such a great deal of air traffic the seemingly inevitable noise problem has increased accordingly. This fact has caused very real hardship to those persons living in relative proximity to the airport. It is, to say the least, very difficult to live anything like a normal life when jet aircraft are constantly in flight just overhead. But these people of whom I speak are reasonable people. They fully understand and appreciate the vital role which air transport plays in our society. They do not wish to stand in the way of the advances our technology has produced. They merely ask that we begin to turn this technology to the task of solving some of the problems that earlier advances have produced.
Undoubtedly one such problem is the question of noise caused by aircraft during land-
Pilot Training Flights Cessation Act ing and takeoff. I remain unconvinced that this government is moving quickly enough to force commercial carriers to adopt vitally needed noise abatement measures for jet aircraft engines. Nor is it advancing rapidly enough the required research program in the whole field of noise pollution. Nevertheless, some progressive steps have been taken. For example, I give credit to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) for instituting new aircraft noise abatement measures at Montreal international airport. These measures involve the curtailment to an absolute minimum of aircraft movement to and from Car-tierville airport which, I might add, was for five consecutive years Canada's busiest airport in terms of total traffic.
This curtailment permits increased use of the runway on the northwest side of the Montreal airport which means that many flights which had been using the southeast runway and passing over a dense residential area, are now making their approaches and departures over the Cartierville airport and the less built up area adjacent to it. As a result, there is a substantial reduction in noise in Ville St. Laurent, a highly concentrated residential area. I have asked the minister, and do so again, to implement similar action on Sea Island at the Vancouver airport. There are presently plans to construct a second major runway at the airport. If these plans are brought to completion, many flights which at present land and take off over the residential areas of Richmond could be diverted to the new runway with the result that approaches and departures would take the aircraft over the Fraser River and adjacent industrial area rather than nearby homes. The present delay in constructing this new runway can not be tolerated any longer. The target date of 1975 is completely unacceptable to this member.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the persons living near the Vancouver international airport are reasonable people with a reasonable request. They want the government to see that the same advanced technology that can produce such flying wonders as the 365-ton Boeing 747 is now turned to ensuring that the noise factor from these jetliners is kept to the absolute minimum. They recognize that increased air service is both necessary and desirable. With this necessary service there is, unfortunately, bound to be for some years to come a certain degree of discomfort from aircraft noise. This fact is accepted. But note here that I have said "necessary service".

March 10, 1970

Pilot Training Flights Cessation Act There is one practice, one further addition to the general level of hardship, which neither they nor I think should have to be endured. This practice is the use of Vancouver international for pilot training by commercial carriers. My bill seeks to eliminate this additional burden.
CPA is presently the worst offender with regard to pilot training flights at the Vancouver airport. This company conducts 34 per cent of its training flights there with only the most rudimentary restrictions on flight activity. At this time their training flights are subject only to a voluntary effort to avoid noise sensitive areas. How effective have these voluntary efforts been? Allow me to quote, Mr. Speaker, from a letter I received concerning an incident which occurred one evening late last year. My constituent wrote:
I would ... like an answer why CPA when it was training this night at precisely 8:06 p.m. dove at my house with a four-motor jet, cut the engine power hack, let the jet sink then gave full power to the engine and flew off into the dark.
Another letter which came to my office in January read in part:
Take note that CPA jet No. CF-CPS drove us nuts on Saturday, January 10, 1970, from approximately 9:00 a.m. until noon, and on January 11, CPA jet No. CF-CPI from approximately 7:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. Also on the latter date the jet made two extremely low passes over our houses, cut engine power and then gave it full power. These passes were at 7:40 a.m. and 8:40 a.m. Sunday morning.
It seems clear enough, Mr. Speaker, that these so-called "voluntary efforts" CPA is supposed to be undertaking are not enough.
Now I recognize that the company has need to conduct a pilot training program. The argument of myself and my people is not against training flights per se, we just cannot understand why Vancouver international must be used for such flights when there are facilities which are, or soon can be made, adequate at airports near less highly populated centres. One such facility I should mention is Abbotsford airport which is already used as an alternate air field when Vancouver international is fogged in.
Even if CPA would agree to eliminate weekend flights as a gesture of concern, and a show of good faith to the community, feelings might not run so high on this issue. My opinion and that of the residents of the area is that weekends are an especially undesirable time for these training flights, especially on Sundays. For some families Sunday is the only day they have to rest and relax. To be awakened at 7 a.m. on a Sunday morning by

aircraft noise is not only an unpleasant experience; it is an abrogation of the individual's right to peace and quiet in his own home. One lady wrote to me as follows:
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
On Sunday we rarely ask people to visit, because in the last year the weekend air traffic has made normal conversation impossible. The same situation applies to phone conversation, you don't chose to do the phoning at your own convenience, but rather when the fewest jets will be passing over.
However, CPA has rejected any plan to do away with week end flights. I have put this proposal to CPA on a number of occasions, but as the replies have not been positive we have no choice but to seek approval for legislation which will make it possible for an agency of the government to force commercial carriers such as CPA to do what they should already be doing as good corporate citizens. This is the aim of the bill before this House.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, my remarks have concentrated on the conditions at the Vancouver International Airport but the basic issue under discussion, that of noise pollution, is not just regional in nature. Its scope is nation-wide. Therefore, I hope that this bill, as one measure that should become part of a total program to combat this form of pollution which threatens not only our physical health but our mental health as well, will receive wide support from all sides of this House of Commons.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, at the outset may I congratulate the sponsor of this bill for his concern on behalf of his constituents. Indeed, noise is a form of pollution around airports. In Canada and throughout the world, this form of pollution is becoming very serious and methods must be found to control it.
The sponsor of the bill has not introduced a measure dealing with noise, or with noise as a form of pollution. The bill suggests indirectly that noise is a form of pollution. The purpose of the bill as set out in the explanatory note is:
-to restrict pilot training flights by international and regional air carriers at international airports in Canada.
I said the other night that a bill introduced by a colleague of the hon. member from British Columbia was good in intent but wishy-washy, and neither clear nor definitive. The same might be said here. Considerable attention has been given to pollution from noise,
March 10. 1970

and much information is available to those who are interested in finding it. Airlines are constantly striving to reduce the noise of their aircraft's engines, particularly around major airports, but stopping flying training at international airports and moving it to regional airports such as Abbotsford is certainly not the answer to the problem. May I say that if the people in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Calgary or Edmonton object to flying training in their areas, we shall be very happy to accommodate training pilots at Halifax International Airport, because every time an aircraft lands or takes off it means that money is left in our economy; and we welcome that. Perhaps that remark may sound facetious; at any rate, we would welcome flying training activities in the Halifax area.
Although I congratulate the hon. member for his concern about the people living off the end of one of the busy Vancouver runways, I suggest that what he is advocating or suggesting is not really possible. It may be very desirable; by the same token we may all like to drive Cadillacs, but we do not all have Cadillac incomes. Flying training is a very necessary part of transport and communication in Canada today. With the ever-increasing jet traffic at our airports has come the vital need of making absolutely certain the pilots of these aircrafts are competent and completely familiar with changing techniques that may involve new methods of blind approach as well as operations in the air traffic control tower.
Briefly, Mr. Speaker, the basis of my concern is the tragic mid-air collision a short time ago at the airport the hon. member referred to and the reaction of the people who viewed it. There is no indication of what caused the accident and we must be careful not to assess responsibility and blame. The best way to avoid accidents like this is by constantly upgrading the capability of local traffic controllers and the pilots who fly not only private aircraft but the regional, national and international air carriers as well. Air traffic control towers at our international airports report to Ottawa an ever-increasing load factor. Perhaps I might put on record one or two statistics that will support in a general way what the hon. member is attempting to do. I have in my hand a service bulletin of the Aviation Statistics Centre, put out by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. The document is dated October, 1969 and bears the number 8705-501. It reads in part:
In 1967, 7,304 civil aircraft registered in Canada with a valid certificate of airworthiness, flew 2,136,614 hours.
Pilot Training Flights Cessation Act
That is an awful lot of flying in anybody's language. I continue quoting:
Of this total 2,098 commercially operated aircraft flew 1,400,625 hours or 65.6% and 4,722 privately owned aircraft amassed 643,118 hours or 30.1% of total hours flown.
These figures have increased by substantially more than 14 per cent since October, 1969. I, therefore, suggest that the increased air traffic at airports has increased and not diminished the necessity for our constantly upgrading the skills of pilots. Most experienced pilots need to take what are known as check rides every so often. As airports become more congested, senior and advanced pilots must be able to upgrade constantly their flying skills and techniques, and to practise simulated approaches at our airports. Department of Transport statistics indicate that in September, 1969, there were 8,603 simulated approaches in this country, whereas in the previous year there were only 7,170. In other words, simulated approaches are increasing at the rate of 1,500 per year. Many of these approaches were undertaken to upgrade the skills of commercial pilots; some were check rides, and others were undertaken to break in, so to speak, new pilots.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
It is impossible to overstate the necessity to maintain the high level of safety that both Canadian Pacific Air Lines and Air Canada have achieved. These pilots must train in airports where there is total control in terms of the ever-increasing amount of traffic at the airports involved. This can only be done at fully equipped airports. In addition to a tower, it is necessary to have precision approach radar as well as fire and crash crews standing by. These men train in highly sophisticated equipment. Although it is dangerous, it is a procedure that must be followed if the pilots of our national carriers are to maintain the very high standard that the Canadian air traveller enjoys today.
Another point I wish to make is that training in flying aircraft must be done in the safest possible manner. While it may be a bloody nuisance to the people living at the end of a runway to have planes flying overhead at eight-thirty or nine o'clock at night, the fact is that this is probably the safest time of the day to do this training. This training should not be carried out during the peak hours. I refer to early morning, mid-morning, mid-day peaks as well as the rush hour between four o'clock and six o'clock p.m.
4606	COMMONS
Pilot Training Flights Cessation Act These are the times when the airports are congested and when there is a maximum amount of operational activity.
Perhaps the member feels the situation has become a serious problem. Possibly an airport should be established somewhere in Canada, maybe in the Prairies, where this type of training could be carried out with the conditions at our international airports being simulated. All material necessary in the event of an accident or emergency could be available at such an airport. However, such a plan would be very costly. This may be the reason the hon. member did not suggest it in his bill.
The bill has merit, although I frankly do not know where our national or regional air carriers could carry out their flight training if this were not done at our international airports. I do not know what other airports in Canada would have the necessary facilities. For these reasons, I feel I must oppose the bill. We recognize the traffic loads at international airports are ever-increasing. The question of safety is much more important than the question of noise, although noise has a prominent place in connection with airports.
I wish to make a further observation about airports and training activity as it applies to the private sector. The Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, which represent virtually all private fliers in Canada, contends that the public image of private flying and the suggestions of near mid-air collisions, etc., is not very good. Indeed, it has been harmful to what is a very healthy and stable Canadian industry. Official government accident investigation reports originating in the United States on collisions between airliners and private aircraft have shown that, in some cases, the airliner overtook or was on a collision course with the private aircraft. Therefore, we must be careful what we do. We must not do anything that will downgrade or cut back the amount of time available to train pilots of our national air carriers. They must be constantly prepared to cope with private aircraft.
Because of the highly sophisticated manner in which our national air carriers operate, and the very lagging ground support facilities, we must be very careful not to move too quickly on bills that would in any way restrict the amount of supervised and controlled time that even some of our most senior and experienced national and international pilots require. They require this training as much as anyone else.
No matter how serious the hon. member might be about the problem of noise, I sug-

DEBATES	March 10, 1970
gest it would not be in the interest of the Canadian travelling public if this House were to prohibit in this type of flight training at the only airports where it can be carried out.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, it is not often a member introducing a private bill indicates so clearly his reasons for presenting the bill. If this bill is passed, I am sure it will eliminate the problem with which he is faced. However, it will accomplish little other than to meet the objections of the residents who live at the end of runways.
The problem is the lack of urban control around airports. I remember when Malton Airport was considered to be a long way out in the country, yet people have been allowed to build around that airport. It is now like a downtown airport. These people have a legitimate cause for complaining about the noise, but I feel the noise is only beginning. When the new supersonic jumbo jets come into operation later this year, those people living within eight or ten miles of the airport will find the noise totally intolerable. Instead of just finding the noise objectionable, they will be blown right out of their beds at eight o'clock on a Sunday morning.
I agree with the previous speaker that pilots must be trained in the type of aircraft they will be flying. There are only a limited number of airports in Canada which have the sophisticated equipment necessary for training. We have not restricted training flights on this type of aircraft, nor have we restricted training flights on much larger aircraft. I am referring to the initial pilot training that is undertaken.
Hon. members will recall reading a week or so ago about a very unfortunate accident which occurred in British Columbia where a small plane apparently collided with a commercial aircraft. Happily-if I can use that term in connection with a disaster-it did not have a more detrimental effect on commercial aircraft, otherwise the toll might have been considerably higher.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
This is a problem that occurs when training aircraft use an international airport. For this reason I think many members of the House have been pressing on previous occasions for an extension of airport services in order to allow training at other airports. I think most people would agree that an international airport at a busy time of the day is not the place for somebody to practise circuits
March 10. 1970

and bumps, even in a sophisticated aircraft. This should be done at a time when the airport has the least possible traffic; and I presume this is the case.
If the hon. member is sincere about protecting his constituents who live in close proximity to the airport, then is he not concerned about another matter that is progressing very rapidly? A few miles north of the city of Montreal at Ste. Scholastique the government has decided to build a new international airport. In my opinion it is useless to build the airport there because it will not offer any greater advantage than an extension of the airport at Dorval. I can remember when Dorval was some way west of Montreal. I suggest 10 or 15 years from now Ste. Scholastique will be almost downtown Montreal.
People who are buying real estate around our airports are not being given any protection. Certainly this is true at Montreal. If we build a new international airport 20 or 30 miles north of Toronto to handle supersonic jets, we will find houses being built around the perimeter of the airport just as soon as it is put under construction. Similarly, I am sure people now buying lots around Montreal will be only a few minutes drive from this proposed new international airport.
How much more sensible it would be to build an airport 50 miles north of Kingston, in country that has no particular value for anything else. An airport at this location could handle intercontinental, supersonic jets and the government could buy up a 20 or 30 mile area around the airport and enclose it with a fence. In that event there would be no houses within the perimeter of the airport.


Mr. Danforth:: That makes good sense.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member says that makes good sense, and this is probably the greatest objection to its acceptance. There is another objection. Canada does not know how to provide speedy ground transportation facilities. The Japanese would find no difficulty in supplying ground transportation that would get people in one hour either to downtown Montreal or to downtown Toronto. I am sure many members would say that the transportation would have to stop off at all the points along the way, but the Japanese would not see it this way. They would decide to provide a train or some form of ground transportation that would move people at 300 miles an hour with no problems at all. We do not do this sort of thing.
Pilot Training Flights Cessation Act
No one really knows what sort of impact aircraft noise will have on people; no one is aware of what is the noise factor around an international airport in terms of long-range damage done to human beings. How much worse will this be when planes are travelling at 1,500 miles an hour, twice the speed of sound, and making landing approaches at speeds beyond the speed of sound: sonic booms will create a noise tunnel across the whole area. Yet no arrangements are being made to cope with this problem. Although the supersonic jets are not with us today, they will be with us soon.
It seems to me that the hon. member, who is interested in protecting his constituents who live near the international airport, is doing something on their behalf and is to be congratulated to that extent. I suppose people living, say, around Abbotsford airport would have similar objections and that their Member of Parliament would suggest that the airport should be moved to Sea Island, for example. This would be a great place for an airport; if international flights ever landed there, the weather would probably be so bad you would not be able to see the mountains and passengers would have to spend a couple of weeks there.
No matter where an airport is sited, urban growth must be restricted within the airport's proximity. It seems to me that if we built an international airport in eastern Canada to handle intercontinental air traffic, both feeder aicraft and ground transportation could be employed. In my opinion, Ste. Scholastique was chosen as the site of an airport to appease Quebec: it is a big donation to Quebec.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Funny way to appease them.


William Arnold Peters: Sure it is a funny way to appease them, but it will backfire very badly. This is a beautiful part of the country and tourism has developed there better than in any other part of Canada. Although it is a funny way to satisfy some of the aspirations of the people there, I do not hear Quebec politicians kicking about it. All they see is the vast amount of money that will be spent in that region. Things will be different once the airport becomes operative. They will have to listen to the complaints that our friend from Burnaby receives; and I would remind hon. members that noise pollution from supersonic jets far exceeds that from any jet flying today.
4608	COMMONS
Pilot Training Flights Cessation Act
Anyone who has read articles on the level of noise created by these new jets will agree that the only way we can eliminate this kind of noise pollution is to build airports in areas where people do not reside. Moving an airport a few miles north of the city of Montreal will not provide a noise-free environment for the people there. I am positive that the same is true in the case of Toronto. The views of the Toronto members seem to be the same as those of the Quebec members, though they are not quite so vocal. The decision to build a new airport in Quebec has already been made, whereas in Toronto it has not. There is a growing feeling among people in the city of Toronto that they do not want a noisy airport there, and no airport will be built there if some Toronto members can do anything about it.
From his own constituency point of view, the hon. member appreciates the problems that are involved at a modern airport in eliminating noise. If the hon. member has taken the trouble to read about the problems that are developing in the United States because of noise, and has examined some of the estimates that have been made in France and other countries which are in the market for supersonic jets, he will be aware that the problem to which he has referred is nothing compared with the problems that will confront us in a year or two. If the hon. member wants to look ahead and solve the problem of noise pollution at airports, a noise level which has become almost unbearable at busy international airports today, he will have to afford a protection that can only be achieved by moving supersonic jet airports away from any urban congregation of people.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
This is a little bit like the argument that takes place in high school when they ask you: What is sound? If a tree fell in the bush and nobody heard it, would there be any sound? I do not think there would be any sound pollution in the proximity of an airport provided we did not have people living near the airport. The people who work on the airports are not so stupid. You see them going around wearing big earmuffs with headphones inside them. The Compensation Board says they must wear them or they will not receive compensation for damage.
If supersonic jets are to land at airports in areas where people live, there will be damage done to human beings. I suggest that the hon. member consider these additional problems which will plague him and all those con-
DEBATES	March 10, 1970'
cerned with international, supersonic travel. I suggest he should provide protection to the general public by making it impossible for urban development to take place in close proximity to airports. I should like to see this bill pass, not only because of what it contains -it goes some way in the right direction, although I think other arrangements would have to be made for international carriers training their pilots in the use of sophisticated equipment-but because I would like CP Air to be told at least once by Parliament that there is something it cannot do and that it is not a law unto itself. This in itself makes the bill worth while.


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this bill gives me a very good opportunity to register my serious doubts about the method proposed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode) to solve the real problem. We all agree there is a real problem. Nobody likes noise, and for those who are living very close to an airport the noise creates almost a medical problem. No one likes the air pollution that jets are causing.
So we all know where I stand now, rather than thinking I may stand in one place and suddenly be surprised at the end of my speech-as we were a few moments ago-I want to say I could not vote for this bill, if it reached a vote, in its present form. Even though it might be a bit of a thrill to kick an elephant in the rear end, or slap a bear and run away, or whatever it is that the hon. member was proposing to do to CP Air, it would still be too inconsistent an act for me to pervert myself by voting to pass it just for the pleasure and thrill of kicking the giant in the shins.
I was interested in the observations we just heard about the Ste. Scholastique airport. If the people of Quebec honestly do not want an airport at Ste. Scholastique-


An hon. Member:: Who says so?


Edmund Boyd Osler: The NDP spokesman for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters). I suggest perhaps he could make this a party plank or something of that kind and test it in that way. I think if he really feels this way, this is one occasion when I would thoroughly back the NDP and do everything I could to promote the idea. I am quite sure the people of Quebec would be no more happy to have the airport north of Kingston, and would be probably less happy than having it north of Ste. Scholastique. If we are going to move so far away from that
March 10, 1970
area, and also move the Toronto airport to north of Kingston, I will back any movement made in that direction. I would amend this idea slightly by suggesting we should go the whole hog and move out to God's country where we have clear skies and pure air. We could have one international airport for all of Canada and we would not give a damn about all the noise that could be made.


Mr. Joseph Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) would permit me to ask him a question. I must give a preamble by suggesting I did not hear the last few words of his remarks. Perhaps they had something to do with my question. In view of what was said by the previous speaker, and what he has said, that many Canadians are concerned about the noise of aircraft, would he agree with me that we could probably have an international airport in the keystone province, say in Winnipeg? 1 am sure we could solve all the other problems with which we are concerned elsewhere in Canada if that were the case.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) is right, as he usually is. Unfortunately, in this event at least he is right too late, because I have already made that suggestion. I will not fault him in that respect because it is better to be right late than not right at all. I would welcome any movement that would result in such a happy situation. I think we could even have the auxiliary airport built at St. Boniface. The main airport happens to be in Winnipeg South Centre.
Perhaps this will not be considered as a serious suggestion at the moment, but the point is that a tremendous amount of investment has been made on behalf of the people of Canada in major airports in this country. Last year alone there was a net expenditure of $149.6 million in air services by the Department of Transport running airports, air lanes, meteorological services, etc. These services are tremendous. They are always lagging slightly behind the demand, but they are very definitely second to none and we can be proud of them. About 45 per cent of the expenditure by the Department of Transport was on air services and was in the neighbourhood of $149 million. The Department of Transport handles something like 1,048,000 instrument flight rules procedures. Some of these would be in respect of training, but some would not. These airports are superbly equipped for training.
Pilot Training Flights Cessation Act
I have no sympathy at all for the motion of the hon. member, although I have great sympathy for the constituents who have bugged him about the subject. It is not their fault they bought houses near the airport. It would not be their fault if they bought houses near any airport. I think this is the fault of the municipal authorities who allow real estate developers to get away with murder. They should not be allowed to sell good industrial land, or land good for any purpose other than residential areas, to people for the purpose of building houses and raising families.
I remember when the Winnipeg International Airport was opened at Stevenson Field. This was a beautiful pasture at the north end of town. I can remember when Sea Island was a heck of a good farm for seagull eggs. So it is not the fault of the DOT, the government or the people of Canada that land in the area of airports has been used for residential purposes. The real estate developers have come in and persuaded people to live in areas where they should not be living. There is lots of room in Canada and they could have expanded in other areas.
I know of one airport, which I will leave nameless for the moment, in respect of which extreme pressure was put on a politician to see whether he could get the DOT to release some land right next to the end of a runway. This happened quite recently. It was wanted so that a developer could go ahead with a residential development. It was not going to be used for factories or anything else. The Department of Transport would not release the land on the basis that within the foreseeable future it might need it for an extra runway, in which case the development would be on the flight path. I do not fault the Department of Transport for that; I fault the real estate operator who intended to use the land to make some money when he could have used land somewhere else and done just as well.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Once people have pm-chased a home and are involved in a mortgage, there is not much they can do but grin and bear the noise. I suggest it is unfortunate for these people and I sympathize with them, but the way to attack the problem is not to interfere with flight training. Airports are for flying; they are for aircraft and airline use; they are for pilot training, air force overhaul work and anything to do with aircraft. They are not necessarily for sleeping, nor is the environment around them for sleeping. There has not

March 10, 1970

Pilot Training Flights Cessation Act been any jet training in the Winnipeg area. We did have the headquarters for the non-jet training of Air Canada, and the Viscount training is still carried on there. We would be delighted to have anyone come there.
If others do not want CPA, we will take it and even issue earplugs to the people living in the area. We will be delighted when TransAir receives its jets as a result of the service Which it has just been granted. They will have to carry out some training. I hope there is a great deal of training. So far as I am concerned, the more training the better, especially when I am a passenger.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will he arrange that that training be over his constituency, rather than over my constituency?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to do this because with my usual luck, nature will help me. If the hon. member will allow me to arrange it, 80 per cent of the time I shall be glad to do so because the wind rarely blows from his constituency.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Edmund Boyd Osler: It may in the House of Commons, but in the state of nature it very rarely blows from his constituency. Therefore, we have to bear the brunt of it when we have a warm southerly wind, but the people are in a good disposition then. When we have cold north winds, they take off over the Prairies and it is not too bad.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
hot air comes from the south.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Yes; there are quite a few rural constituencies to the south where there is a good deal of hot air. I would be delighted to have pilot training in Winnipeg if the CPA wishes to go there. I would ask the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) to convey this information to CPA the next time he has an argument with them. I do not know whether CPA is being a little intransigent about this matter, but I am told that at the Winnipeg International Airport those who take part in flight training co-operate; they restrict their training hours to between eight o'clock in the morning and nine o'clock at night and therefore are not seriously bothering anybody.


The run-up, on the mechanical end, for engine testing and so on complies with the same regulations. So the only time noise can be really objectionable at our airport is when a test pilot is testing an engine that has just been overhauled. He may do a take-off and throw in his after-burner: then there is a noise. But I suggest airports are for this sort of thing. It is better that he do this and find out whether or not it works, rather than do it later when he has a whole crew of highly trained airforce personnel on board, or many passengers if it should happen to be a commercial aircraft.
I would have been much happier about this bill and would have been able to give it my complete endorsement had the hon. member gone one step further and thought about the situation as a whole rather than the local irritation in his area. If the hon. member were to suggest that the federal government should get seriously behind research into noise and research into pollution to see how these things could be ameliorated in this industry, I think the federal government could do a great service not only to all the constituents but to the area as a whole. But I am against this feeling that it is necessary to pick on pilot training, the airlines or anything else.
I remember being in McLeod, Alberta, which had not seen much prosperity for years, during the war when I was engaged in flight training and was officer in charge of the control tower one night when we received a barrage of telephone calls from people. We had changed to Harvards or some other aircraft and had made a lot of noise. The callers said "You are making a lot of noise and are keeping us awake with the aircraft up there". Our standard answer was, "Whose are they; are they ours or theirs?" They would say, "I guess they are yours". We would say, "Then why don't you get down and thank God and not complain about it?".
There is too much pressure right now, in my opinion, about establishing noise abatement procedures. As an ex-pilot I am not always happy when I see a fully-loaded airplane pulling up short and cutting off power so that people on the ground can feel comfortable; they would feel a lot less comfortable if the procedure were not carried out and the whole load were dumped on them. I think that sometimes we look at the noise abatement procedure a little too intensely. Sometimes I feel it is too bad this bill is not a bill or a motion to get the government behind
March 10. 1970
research into the causes, rather than a bill just to look after a local community.


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I feel very much like I feel in the morning when I wake up early and wait for the alarm clock to ring. I am convinced, as always, that my colleague has prepared a bill with his usual good intentions. However, it would seem to me that the many speeches we have heard from members of the House invalidate the relevancy of the bill. I should like to make a brief statement. There were 10,080 flights at the Vancouver Airport in December, 1969, and only 212 simulated approaches. There would appear to be a lack of education in respect of aviation. People do not realize that only certain airports can be used for training. Of course, the international airports have all the sophisticated equipment and the necessary procedures to handle training flights.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hour reserved for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald, (Rosedale) (for the President of the Treasury Board) 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 read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I commenced my remarks on Bill C-194 by saying that I would make a few general observations and not a lengthy speech. I pointed out, with regard to the first part of the bill
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 which deals with the 2 per cent escalation in the pensions of retired civil servants, RCMP officers, judges and other persons, that there appears to be very little objection to it even though under this bill people who retired in 1952 would receive a 42 per cent increase in their pensions. I think most people realize that over the years these people have suffered as a result of the increase in the cost of living.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) stated that December 19, when the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) made the announcement, was a happy day. The hon. member had a right to be happy because over the years he has persistently set forth the legitimate claims of pensioners across the country, and more particularly those of civil servants.
The hon. member's persistence has paid off: he had the right to be happy on December 19. He pointed out that some retired civil servants may have suffered if their pensions were so low that they had to avail themselves of the war veterans allowance. If this increase will result in a reduction in the war veterans allowance, I think the government should take steps to take care of the situation.
With regard to the second part of the bill, which is the recasting of the pensions of the Members of Parliament, if I understood the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre correctly his main objection to it was that the benefits which would be conferred upon retired Members of Parliament would be too generous. I could point out to the hon. member that a similar plan exists in the Ontario legislature, the members of which receive roughly the same benefits as those proposed for the Members of Parliament on their retirement.
It may be said, however, that two wrongs do not make a right. I follow this up by saying that the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) made a very salient argument this afternoon when he pointed out that surveys have indicated that only 1.5 per cent of the members of the House will have had 25 years of service which would entitle them to a pension of 75 per cent of their salary, and that only 10 per cent will have attained 15 years of seniority. That is quite indicative. I am sure the hon. member for Malpeque knows it is not only political attrition that takes place with regard to Members of Parliament and is a hazard of being a Member of Parliament. Physical attribution also takes place, because Members of Parliament today

March 10, 1970

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 are not to be compared with those of 25 years ago. Some 25 years ago the members of this House sat for three, four or five months of the year. We now find ourselves sitting for eight, nine and ten months of the year and facing a very heavy burden of work.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I noticed in the Toronto Daily Star of last weekend that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) set forth his life for a week in Parliament. He said he was only able to spend approximately eight hours in the House and the rest of his time was taken up with work in his riding taking care of immigration problems, pension problems, unemployment insurance problems, housing problems, and so forth. I am sure all members here tonight would say they do roughly the same.
Not only do we work in the House during the week in regard to legislation, in committees, the study of legislation, reports and so forth, but when we return home on the weekend we are faced with constituents' problems which take many valuable hours in the following week to process. So the hon. member for Greenwood made it on the editorial page of the Toronto Star last week setting forth the hard work of a Member of Parliament, and with that I completely agree.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre used a biblical passage and said that the result of the increase in pension to Members of Parliament is much like the biblical saying, "To him that hath, more shall be given; and from him that hath not, that which he hath will be taken away." I am rather surprised that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would use that scripture because I am sure he realizes that the Galilean carpenter was not speaking about money at that time: he was speaking about faith and spiritual grace. It may be the hon. member got his spiritual figures mixed up. As a young socialist, Mr. Speaker, feeling the difference between the old socialists and the generation gap, I thought he could have used a more appropriate scripture and said, as the Galilean carpenter said, "I come that you may have life and have it more abundantly." Today we young socialists have to think in terms of surpluses, and the distribution of the surpluses is so important in society today.
When you think of what we as Canadians are doing with regard to the surplus of wheat, I think we stand condemned for not distributing the surplus to underdeveloped and under-


privileged countries. One thing about the old socialists is that they came up in times when there were shortages. We are now in times of surpluses and technological change, and it is up to us to distribute these surpluses to the advantage of all people within the community.
There is one further point that my hon. friend raised this afternoon. He said that there appears to be a widening gap between the people who have and the people who have not. He has fought over the years, with a determination and a might which really fits him in with the saints, Mr. Speaker, for the principle of universality of pensions. I have looked at the problem of universality and I have read a little of what has happened in England. Sir Richard Crossman, who is head of the social service program in England, has pointed out that universality in itself has not closed the gap between the rich and the poor and that all our taxation methods just have not been effective. It may be that we will have to get different ways and means of distributing the goods of society so that the gap will be closed. I could not agree with the hon. member more that the gap must be closed, but I say to him that we must look at the universality principle. He may think it is political heresy for me to say so, because he fought so hard over the years to attain it and it would not be fair to him to dismiss it lightly, but I think we Members of Parliament have to look at the problem closely.
I shall close by saying that there is a certain joy in getting: there is also a certain joy in giving. If a member of this House feels he is getting too much in his pension, he can have the joy of directing the surplus to any project or effort that he deems worthy. It is obvious from my remarks, Mr. Speaker, that I support the bill along with other members of my party and I also respect the views of the people who are in disagreement but on balance I am sure when reason takes its full account, it will be seen that what is being done in this bill will benefit many of the members, because basically we must not only have a salary but we must have a pension scheme to attract the talented young men in society today.
It is not enough to have the spirit: you must have the talent. Many people who are talented are making far higher incomes and receiving far greater pensions in the other fields they are pursuing. To benefit society we have to get these men into Parliament to discuss and to solve the problems of society.
March 10. 1970
This measure is a first step in giving a person some security with regard to income and pension, a step that will make the job of legislator far more attractive.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the reason that we are considering this bill this evening results from one fundamental difficulty. It is a matter to which I have referred on previous occasions, and that is that the programs of the pensions for the public service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the armed services, the Members of Parliament and others subject to this bill have never been funded. In other words, while there is such a thing as a public service superannuation account and an armed services superannuation account as book entries, the payments therefrom are a charge against the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
There is no segregation of actual moneys, no fund invested in the hands of trustees, and there is no growth in the fund due to investment. All that there is is the provision of the contributions from members to each of these pension funds, and the contributions of the appropriations by the government. Then in view of the progressive increase in the cost of living over the years and the very natural demand, and the right thereto, by the participants in any of these pension funds to increase their return so as to meet the exigencies of the day and maintain the standard which had been promised them, there is an undertaking that when you give a man a pension scheme, you will give him a standard of living. There is that implication, and it has been denied.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I recall-I believe it was about 1958-that this House gave an increase in pensions to retired public servants and, I believe, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for those who retired prior to 1953 and whose pensions were below a certain level, which I think was $3,000. This was a sort of bandaid operation and I think it was wrong not to tackle the problem properly. Mind you, there were other problems in 1958 which I think would have caused a terrific change. It seems to me that the more we delay, the more difficult will be the change-over.
Doing it this way, with a provision for an automatic cost of living escalator which is fixed, if we continue with the present scale of inflation-and there is no guarantee that we will not-there will be a mounting deficiency each year of something in the nature of 3 per
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 cent or almost 4 per cent. This means we will get the same pressures in a matter of a few years. However, if there had been a funded program for these pensions, there could then have been determined actuarially the increase in the amount of the pensions based upon the increase of the funds through earnings, and therefore through capital appreciation. The funds should not only be in government bonds because they have gone down tremendously, particularly in the past two or three years.
In any event, we would not have this fundamental difficulty of having to come along at this time in order to relieve the very real distress of those thousands and thousands of members of the public service and the armed forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and also, unfortunately, many of our colleagues who have departed from this place, or their widows, who are living in relative penury today. All sorts of ad hoc arrangements have been made to take care of some of the cases to the point that what we had up to a few years ago was scandalous, and it is just short of that now.
We are now asking the public service-ourselves in a different way, but let us say the public service-and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to pay an additional premium into a separate account which I suppose one could call an inflation account. It will put into a separate account an amount which will be then paid to those persons who are the most deserving under the scale proposed in the legislation, where the cases are the hardest. It will also provide that the present members of the public service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who will retire in the years to come will have this automatic 2 per cent escalator, all because of the additional premium that they pay.
There have been many criticisms of this, but the fact that the pension schemes are not funded is, frankly, the nature of the beast. We simply cannot say to the public service, "All right; for those of you who have retired and whose pensions are below a certain level there will be ex gratia payments or there will be subventions, subsidies to your pensions". If that were the case, there is an equally strong case to ask, "What about all the CNR employees who have retired?" Their fund is somewhat different, but in justice if you do it for one class of pensioner you must do it for another.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

4614	COMMONS
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is a subsidy from the public charge but, Mr. Speaker, why only two groups? You must go along to every pension scheme-


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I hear "Oh, no". What greater qualification has a member of the public service or the CNR than a member in a private scheme?


An hon. Member:: It is up to his company.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Was it up
to the CNR, which was a private company to that extent?


An hon. Member:: It is not a private company.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is a private company to that extent; it is a Crown corporation run like a private business and its pension scheme is a funded one-this is the point-and it is one of those that is causing a great deal of difficulty. I do not think you can justify subvention from the public accounts by way of an additional expenditure to increase the pensions of one particular group without giving it to others. They are all citizens of this country; they have all been taxpayers; they were all subject to the same conditions and expectations, whether in the public service or otherwise. So this scheme that has now been devised for the public service will of itself take care of the problem of an additional impost on pensions and pension credits over the next few years. I do not think that is the answer, but I say it is much better than nothing. I hope that before too long we can get around to putting some order into this pension scheme.
Let us look at the other aspect, as to amounts. I think this question can best be discussed in committee. There probably will be representations about whether the provisions as to particular categories of retired public servants and 'the RCMP will qualify. I think that will have to be determined in committee.
The other day, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) whether there had been a memorandum in existence and circulated among departments which indicated there might be a proposal to postpone service pensions until age 65. The minister has not come back with the explanation but merely told us that initially at least it was never proposed to defer service pensions to people now in the service until age

DEBATES	March 10. 1970
65. I know that under unification there were some breaches of contract between the Crown and a lot of the volunteer servicemen but never, I think, would any administration attempt that.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Yearly increments in the increases announced by the President of the Treasury Board (Mir. Drury) shall not apply to the armed services, apparently on the premise that servicemen retire before the age of 65 and are able, because of their training and capability, to obtain positions in the economy to take care of their needs. And even as within the public service, all the pension they are entitled to is not charged to them because of the limitations of these so-called artificial and completely obsolete restrictions that one cannot draw twice from the Crown, once by way of pension and once by way of salary. This restriction is so completely obsolete and wrong that it is stupid.
As a matter of fact, in our own pension plan we deviate from this restriction because we have a provision in our pension act whereby a former prime minister is entitled not only to his pension as a former member but to another one for being a former prime minister of this country. I agree that he is entitled to that, but there are two pensions arising out of two positions. I find it singularly artificial to distinguish between two men, one, say, a former Member of Parliament taking a position as a district court judge and being told that the pension he has earned as a member of this House has been suspended, and another who takes employment with the provincial government as a senior police magistrate at the same or higher salary than that of a district court judge and who may keep his entire pension. What an anachronism, Mr. Speaker! Is the Crown in right of Canada any different from the Crown in right of the province of Ontario? For some unknown reason this silly rule is applicable here. I want to see some changes made in this bill, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I want to see a provision that any pension that arises from service in this House shall not disentitle to the extent of even one penny any pension that an hon. member on retiring from this House shall receive by virtue of taking an appointment with the federal government. Why should a competent lawyer who has been a Member of Parliament for 10 or 15
March 10, 1970
461S

years and is appointed to the bench, where after 15 years he is entitled to a pension-and I point out he need not contribute to it- equivalent to 70 per cent of his retirement salary, not receive both pensions?
The lawyer who has been in this House for 15 years and worked hard has lost his practice, just as any doctor would lose his practice. He has not accumulated any capital. Shall he go to the bench in competition with men straight out from practice? Of course, the compensation and conditions must be equal, and they are equated by the fact that we are provided with some form of retirement scheme. Why should not a member who is a lawyer retire from this House and go, shall we say, to the Canadian Pension Commission-some have gone there-or the Immigration Appeal Board? The former Minister of Justice has just gone to the Immigration Appeal Board.


An hon. Member:: Include the Canadian Transport Commission.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, or the Canadian Transport Commission. I know the former member for Hamilton West is now in the employ of the Canadian Transport Commission.


Mr. Monleith:: In the employ of Jack the Ripper.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Nothing is wrong with that. But for goodness sake, if any men or women who have been members of this House take an appointment under the Crown, they ought to be entitled to be paid their full salary as well as the pension they earned from serving in the House. They earned it. It was one of the conditions of being here, just as there are similar conditions in other types of employment. To negate this in this day and age is so anachronistic that it goes back beyond the horse and buggy age. I hope that in committee appropriate amendments will be introduced so as to remove this disability. I think that would be only fair.
Let us look at the changes in our pension scheme. There are also anachronisms there in the definitions. In one part we see that only $12,000 shall be deemed salary, and in the other part we see $18,000 mentioned; in other words, the expense account in the one case shall not be deemed to be salary but in the other case it shall. There are difficulties here and I trust some way may be found to clean them up. Perhaps the changes in the pension
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 scheme put the cart before the horse because the necessary changes should take place first with regard to members' salary levels, to make them more realistic.
I refer hon. members to the report of Dean Curtis of Queens University dealing with pensions. It was tabled some weeks ago. That report ought to be compulsory reading for members of the press, for those in radio and television and particularly for editorial writers. So many editorial writers seem to think that the pension scheme for members of this House and the other place, and I have read this several times, is the most liberal-with a small "1"-and generous pension scheme in the country. What abysmal ignorance, Mr. Speaker!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What abysmal ignorance, Mr. Speaker, to call our present pension plan the most generous in the country. One ought to examine the tables compiled by Dean Curtis indicating the narrowness of the base and comparing the figures with those applying to our counterparts in the United States. It is almost impossible to compare the two, because their annual salary is terrifically high compared with ours, although I think their responsibilities vis-a-vis their constituencies are not different from ours. I am not saying our salary should be as high as theirs, not at all. After all, $42,500 is so far and away above us that it is almost as far as the moon. One must also remember that members down there employ nine or ten people in their congressional and constituency offices. If we reduced the matter to our scale I think we could perform much better, and I think our work would be much better done in this House.


An hon. Member:: We should also pay much more in taxes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I do not
know if anybody has put on record some of the tables compiled by Dean Curtis. The comparisons made between the pension scheme in this place and those in the provinces, particularly Ontario and Quebec, are interesting. A comparison of tables dealing with the period of service is surprising. I was absolutely astounded to see the tables. Mind you, there were many fine members here in 1957 when I came to this House.


An hon. Member:: That was a bad year.
4616	COMMONS
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, that may be the impression of hon. members, but I consider it a banner year. Some of my colleagues who are very fine people came to this House at the same time. When we consider how many members who were here at that time are still here, and how many were elected that year or in subsequent elections and served only one or two terms, some of them very short, we see that the composition of the membership in this House is a vastly changing one. I commend to hon. members the tables published by Dean Curtis in this regard. They show that at the time of the 1968 election there were only 24 members with more than 11 years' service. This represents 10 per cent of the membership of the House. This causes one to stop and consider the reason.
We expect men to come to Parliament to represent the people in their area. Once they are here, they find they must work the year round. For many of them it is at the cost of their businesses. A personal business will go down the drain because there is no such thing as riding two horses or obeying two masters. Either the job is done here, or in the private business. If they attempt to do both jobs, Mr. Speaker, the job here is not done and the job at home is poorly done. As far as the professional men are concerned-lawyers, doctors and engineers or others-whose business is more personal, because of continued attendance in this House, unless their business is close by and they can keep a finger on things, within less than five years the capital of their profession has gone down the drain.
I am certain there are members from all parties who are raising young families. They have a responsibility to their families. If we want to get a broad cross-section of members, the conditions must be such that we will get younger members who can participate in normal family life as much as possible within this calling. This must not be a club of the wealthy or the aged.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It must not be for those who think this job is something greater than they could anticipate on civvy street. All of the conditions that apply must be involved in the pension scheme. I have made some suggestions with regard to the necessity of cleaning up this anachronistic situation of a non-funded pension scheme.

DEBATES	March 10, 1970
Reference has been made to the difficulties of the personnel of the armed services and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. When they retire before age 65 they are not able to get normal employment with the federal government. This cannot be done in many cases without there being an alteration of their pension. However they can take jobs with any provincial government at the same salary they would receive from the federal government, and their pensions would not be affected. We would like to have some of these men working in the federal service. There should not be a penalty for those retired members accepting appointments with the Crown. Their pensions should not be suspended or merged into the salary attached to that position. I hope these changes will be made to the bill during the committee hearings and that the bill will be improved considerably.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, if other hon. members are like I am, they are always looking for ways to impress their mothers-in-law. When I was first elected to this House I thought that although I had never been able to impress my mother-in-law, this time I had to make an impression. Her daughter and I had grown up in a rather poor neighbourhood of Toronto. I thought she would say, "My son-in-law has gone some distance: he has become a Member of Parliament."
I went to see my mother-in-law to receive the honour which I thought was due me. I had a chat with her. Her first question was, "How is the food?" I said, "The food is fine on Parliament Hill. We have some very good restaurants." When she asked, "Do you have a secretary?" I replied, "Yes, I have a secretary." I went on to suggest that although the $12,000 per year salary and the $6,000 expenses were not the greatest in the country, they were adequate and certainly much better than most people in Canada were earning. I told her a few other things. After listening to what I had to say she asked, "But what good is it? It is not a steady job." As far as my mother-in-law is concerned, if you haven't a steady job, you are a bum.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: Most of us do not have steady jobs; there is no complete certainty that we will be here year after year. But I suggest we are not bums; Members of Parliament are hardworking people. In the time I have been here I have learned to respect members of this House from all parties,
March 10, 1970	COMMONS
whether I agree or disagree with their philosophies. I find them to be hardworking people who are sincere in their beliefs. They probably do not get the kind of respect to which they are entitled. Perhaps not everyone really understands the dimensions of the job of a Member of Parliament.
I can understand those members who are in favour of the increased pension in view of the uncertainty of their lives and considering how hard they work. They may feel they are entitled to some generosity. However, Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect I say that these provisions in respect of pension for Members of Parliament are far too generous and should be changed. They just go too far.


An hon. Member:: Your mother-in-law was right.


Max Saltsman: This is a difficult speech for me to make. It is quite obvious there is a division of opinion between my colleagues and myself. There is a division of opinion in the House on this matter. This is not the type of speech that anyone would find easy. I do not like to take one position when some of my colleagues take a different position. This bill certainly places me in an impossible position. The fact that the government has combined the pensions of civil servants with the pensions of Members of Parliament will not stop me from voting against the bill. I certainly support increasing pensions for civil service superannuates. I think they will understand, however, why I will vote against this bill. If the bill is defeated because of the provisions regarding pensions for Members of Parliament, I am quite sure the government can introduce another measure for civil servants only which will be passed unanimously by this House.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Mr. Tolmie:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Would he accept these general provisions if they were passed by this House?


Max Saltsman: I have been waiting for that question, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I would accept them. I am not going to make any grandstand play about .not accepting these cheques. If this measure is passed and becomes law, I will take the money the same as everybody else. I am not prepared to step aside in that regard.
I know I may be accused of being hypocritical in what I say since I have admitted I will accept the cheques, and I do not know how I can prove that I sincerely mean it when I say
DEBATES	4617
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 I am concerned about what will happen to the image of this House and its Members of Parliament if we vote ourselves such generous provisions. I realize I am wide open, not only to that charge but to other charges, since I have an independent income as well. I have also thought carefully about my position and about participating in this debate.
Nevertheless, I would ask you to listen to what I have to say. I would ask you to reconsider this measure when you have the opportunity to do so in committee. I do not deny that there is a need for improving the position of Members of Parliament, but I am asking you how far you can go. Can you justify giving yourself a pension the like of which nobody in our society has? Can you stand before the country having voted yourself this kind of pension and call for restraint among the working force of this country? Can you ever legislate effectively again, when you vote yourself this kind of bonus?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but I must remind him that he should address the Chair.


Max Saltsman: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; the question from the opposite side of the House carried me away a little. I will address the Chair, as I realize I should. I am asking the hon. gentleman and my hon. friends in this House, through you, Mr. Speaker, to reconsider this matter when it goes to committee.
It seems to me that in comparing our position with the position of others, we should not be compared with lawyers and what a lawyer would make had he not entered Parliament, or with what a doctor or a businessman would have made. We know that most members of this House sustain financial losses by being Members of Parliament. But our decision to come here was a voluntary one. We all claim that we got drafted for the job, and most of us accepted this at some stage of the operation; but we chose this as our career and we came here to do a job because we felt this work was more important than the money we could have made by doing something else.
I suggest our situation is really far more analogous to that of a soldier who chooses to fight for his country. When we talk about compensation for members of Parliament, I think we should look to the way a soldier is compensated when he returns from a war, rather than to what we might have earned had we become the president of a giant corporation or headed up the biggest law firm in the country. When the soldier comes home,
March 10, 1970

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 we recognize the hazards of his occupation and the need for his rehabilitation. We recognize that he has given up a certain amount of opportunity and income in order to serve his country. Therefore we make a lump sum payment and give him a rehabilitation grant.
If we were to say to Members of Parliament who either retire of their own accord or sort of get carried out that they will be entitled to a resettlement grant of some kind, and to a fairly generous one at that, I think that is something people would understand because most people are familiar with this kind of operation. But when we provide that having served six years in this House we become eligible for a pension for life, that is something different.
There are many young members in this House who, say, after serving eight years as an M.P. and leaving at the age of 40 would get a pension, under these provisions, amounting to over $5,000 a year for life. Given a normal life expectancy of another 35 years, we are talking about a quarter of a million dollars for serving six years in the House of Commons. Over that period of time such a member would have contributed roughly $10,000. This is a pretty nice investment, and it will be difficult to say that you were serving your country. Members of Parliament would be looked upon as investors who invest $10,000 and get back a quarter of a million dollars over their lifetime. Such a concept is just indefensible.
The Curtis report, to which reference has been made, was a good document and I would be inclined to accept its recommendations provided that the central provision which was removed from the document is restored. That document did not provide that a member would receive his pension upon retirement from the House of Commons, but that he would get it at age 55. That, I suggest, is understandable, but not the other concept. With that particular provision taken out, you might as well take the Curtis report and its arguments and throw them out of the window, because the arguments were predicated upon that central provision. Therefore, I hope I will not hear any more about the Curtis document unless reference is also made to the pension being payable at age 55.
I have talked about Members of Parliament who leave this House at the age of 64. There is one member here who could leave at the age of 30. I do not think he will; he will probably stay here until he is 110. But if he did leave at age 30, in his case we would be


talking about a pension that would be payable for the rest of his normal life expectancy of 45 years. This would involve more than a quarter of a million dollars. The pension goes up at the rate of 2 per cent a year, and this will continue because I do not think we will fever bring inflation down below its present level. I would not dare try to work out the mathematics involved and claim that they are accurate, but in rough figures I think this is about where it would stand. Therefore I ask: How we can make this kind of provision?
Canadians have a vested interest in this matter. If the electorate wanted to be cynical about it, it could do one of two things: it could make sure that no Member of Parliament served more than four years to be eligible for this kind of remunerative pork-barrel, or if a member did serve more than six years the electorate could make sure that nobody defeated him so that they would not have to pay a pension to two people.


William Arnold Peters: They have it both ways.


Max Saltsman: Yes, they have it both ways. This pretty well concludes my remarks, Mr. Speaker. As I said earlier, it has not been an easy speech for me to make. In reaching my conclusion I probably had as much difficulty as those hon. members who disagree with me had in reaching theirs. This is a sensitive subject. It is the kind of issue that will be misunderstood no matter how it is explained. It will be misunderstood on both sides. I would suggest through you, Mr. Speaker, to hon. members that we need to take a very close look at this provision lest the image of this House and the motivation of members of this House be brought under suspicion.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), and I must say that to some extent I am quite sympathetic to the position he has taken. However, there are a number of items about which I must disagree with him.
First of all, to tackle the central point that he raised and on which his whole argument seemed to rest, namely the question of image, whether we like it or not we in this House of Commons have to accept responsibility for deciding our working conditions, our pay, our expenses and our pension plan. If one were to accept the argument that, by increasing or by improving our pension plan and providing for legitimate expenses and a reasonable salary, we would be hurting our image, we would
March 10, 1970
still be in the position of the members of the old British Parliament where people served in the House of Commons for no pay at all and held office almost by reason of heredity.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
In other words, we have to admit that our intent is to make the House of Commons accessible to all people regardless of income. This requires that a rational rate of pay be established, that legitimate expenses be provided and that the pension plan be drawn up on the basis of a Member of Parliament's existence, which is special and unique.
The hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Salts-man) raised the question of the provision of the pension at the time of retirement of a Member of Parliament after having served for six years. The original suggestion in the Curtis report was that this should be done at age 55. I had some responsibility in this as I had consultations with backbenchers on the other side of the House. It was the unanimous recommendation of the backbenchers I consulted that this provision should be struck out, and two reasons were advanced for this. The first reason was that there is no sever-ence pay in the House of Commons. Members of Parliament who come in, particularly if they are young, are taking a backward step in terms of their professions, are handicapping themselves several years if they go back to their professions after being retired either voluntarily or through the usual procedure, and that therefore there was an element of unemployment insurance involved in providing this pension at the time of retirement.
In addition I would say that the retirement pension does not come cheaply to Members of Parliament. The cost of the pension will be 8 per cent, approximately, on the $18,000, or equivalent to about 11J per cent on the $12,000 salary. So I would not say this is a particularly generous plan in that we are getting something free. It is a special plan to which we are contributing our share. It is drawn up in this way because it takes into consideration the special conditions and the special financial arrangements that surround the life of a Member of Parliament. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if I sympathize to a large extent with the position the hon. member for Waterloo has taken because of his age and his personal finances, I find it, as a young member myself and one who is totally dependent upon his parliamentary indemnity and expenses, a position I cannot support.
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970
In addition I would draw one other fact to Your Honour's attention. The statistics provided in the Curtis report are rather clear on the matter as to what age pensions are taken out by Members of Parliament. Dr. Curtis recommended age 55. In point of fact his statistics demonstrated that the average pension is not taken out until age 57. In other words, the statistical probability is that while some members will be able to take advantage of long years at pension, the over-all statistical average for Members of Parliament is somewhat different.
I would go further and direct the attention of members to the Curtis report at page 21 in which there is a table entitled "Length of period of membership in the House of Commons at certain selected dates". I would like to give the round figures to Members of Parliament for their edification. The figures are taken for the years 1949, 1953, 1957, 1958, 1962, 1963, 1965 and 1968. The total number of Members of Parliament with less than five years service was 886; with less than ten years, 634; with less than 15 years, 311; with less than 20 years, 132; with less than 25 years, 76; with less than 30 years, 21; with less than 35 years, 9; and with over 35 years,
1.	Those are the results as of the elections in the year specified, a total of eight. If one breaks down the percentages, a great deal of interesting information appears. The total number of members with less than 15 years was 1,831, which is 88 per cent; the total with 15 years and over was 227, for 12 per cent. If you break them down a little finer you will find that about three-quarters of all Members of Parliament during that time had under ten years' service.
So it is quite apparent that if you are trying to draw up a pension plan that makes sense for Members of Parliament, you must take into consideration the high risk and low income potential and the high degree of retirement by non-voluntary means. Members of Parliament do not last long, yet in terms of their personal careers and in terms of the income which they might have made, the sacrifices which they are called upon to make are often quite excessive.
It may well be that there are other factors which should be considered. I think we should look at the statistics which Dean Curtis provided at page 20, on the existence of the present plan of Members of Parliament to find out how it works. In point of fact, the classification of allowances being paid as of March 31, 1968, was as follows: there were 177 allowances paid directly to ex-members; 7



March 10, 1970
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 were paid directly to widows; 20 were employed in the public service and their pensions suspended; 13 were appointed to the Senate and their pensions were suspended; and 5 were members of the House of Commons coming back again with their pensions suspended. A total of 41 members died.
Where was all the money going? It may interest hon. members to know that as of the same date there was only one member receiving a pension over $5,000; there was only one member receiving a pension between $4,500 and $5,000; there were two between $4,000 and $4,499; there were three members receiving between $3,500 and $3,999; there were 39 receiving	between	$3,000	and	$3,499;	56receiving	between	$2,500	and	$2,999;	23receiving	between	$2,000	and	$2,499;	41receiving	between $1,500 and $1,999, of which
four were being paid to widows; there were 16 being paid between $1,000 and $1,499; and there were two pensions being paid between $500 and $999, both of which were going to widows, for a total of 184 people receiving pension. On the facts of this table Dean Curtis comments as follows:
In addition, 376 ex-members received withdrawal allowances since the beginning of the plan. It can be seen from the above material that despite the theoretical ceiling the actual payments have been relatively small. Of course the plan has been in existence for only 16 years and therefore the full impact is not yet evident. But it is evident that more have left the House with repayment than became eligible for pensions. So the main conclusion is that the present level of payments cannot be called adequate. As pointed out, one of the fundamental problems with the House of Commons plan is the relatively short tenure of the members.
So the document which Dean Curtis presented to the House of Commons has investigated this matter and provided a plan that takes into consideration the relatively short tenure of most Members of Parliament. I would go so far as to say that with the increasing number of Members of Parliament who are coming from urban areas where there are fewer fixed voting habits, shall we say, the rate of turnover of Members of Parliament is likely to increase, and in fact the number of members with a small amount of time in the House of Commons is liable to be a matter of concern in the future. Dean Curtis goes on to point out:
Of the total number of cases 2,072, 1,831-88 per cent-are under 15 years service and 227-12 per cent-are 15 or over, and are concentrated in the next two intervals. Clearly the attrition of electoral and mortality factors keeps the period of services relatively low.

[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Therefore, the dean reached this conclusion:
Thus it is clear that one of the basic facts causing the inadequacy of the Parliamentary pensions is the relatively short tenure which cannot be compared with the 25-35-40 year period of private and public employment. A straight line system cannot be adequate-a fact which is recognized in the recommendations.
So I would say that the plan presented by the government clearly takes this into account and tries to provide for it in a reasonable way. Dealing with the current House of Commons, Dean Curtis says:
-of the 1968-69 membership, 159 members have been in the House five years or less: and that some 240 entered the House within the last 11 years. This leaves 24 who entered the House over 11 years earlier. At the end of the present Parliament there will be fifteen or so with 20 years or more service. This overstates the length of service because a number of members were not continuously in the House; they were defeated and were later reelected. Also some members entered the House by by-elections in off years but this does not distort the general picture.
I think the report of Dean Curtis is rather conclusive, but there is another matter about which I feel quite sensitive. It has to do with the treatment afforded the income of some Members of Parliament. On page 28 of the report Dean Curtis provides the rationale which has been accepted by the government and which I personally do not think is a proper assumption. Nevertheless, it is worth reading into the record because it is a serious point of contention and one into which I hope the committee will look most seriously. Dean Curtis states:
The use of the full emolument as a base-part of which is now tax free-raises some difficulties but upon examination these do not appear serious. In the first place some arrangement must be devised to increase the pensions base in absolute terms and secondly there seems to be no other group for which this would be a precedent. If the full payment is not used as a base it would require a 10] per cent contribution by the member to get the entitlement set out.
I would point out to hon. members that the figure of 10J per cent is not accurate because the bill provides that it be 7J per cent plus, I understand, another one-half per cent to provide for increases for members. This represents a total of 8 per cent on the amount of $18,000. The dean continues:
Although the matter of taxation is not within the terms of reference of this report, it may be relevant to mention that some taxation problems may arise. Inasmuch as a 10] per cent contribution on the present salary of $12,000 gives the same
March 10, 1970

amount as the 7 per cent on the salary and allowance, it would seem unimportant which technique is used. The amount in fact is less than the maximum deduction under the Income Tax Act. The advantage of using 7 per cent on the $18,000 base is that it automatically adjusts to any change in the proportions of the two categories of payment. With the salary alone the rate of contribution would have to be changed if the proportions were changed. And in view of the fact that the Carter Commission and the Smith Commission (Ontario) were both critical of the existing arrangement, this could be a matter of future importance. Further, if the salary base-$12,000-is used, this figure would have to be the maximum allowance permitted.
However, subject to these considerations, it is true that the base of contribution could be changed to the salary alone and the entitlements still be calculated on the combined return. It is simply a calculation and provided it comes out with the same allowance, the basis of making it has little significance-tax or otherwise.
This was the rationale the government accepted. At the time it was being discussed, I pressed the view that it was an incorrect assumption and one which the government ought not to accept. However, I understand the rationale from the government's point of view was that it was an administratively cleaner situation and one which caused the administration less difficulty. At the same time it has been pointed out by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that it does raise some doubt about the separation of our expense account and salary. Therefore, it is a question which I hope the committee will investigate most seriously.
Those are the comments I wish to make particularly in respect of the points raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Waterloo. I think I have dealt with the two basic objections they raised. I hope hon. members will not hesitate to support the bill, particularly this aspect of it.
I had intended to speak on the question of CNR pensions, especially since this is a fairly important issue in the constituency I represent. I understand that the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner) has been looking into this matter. The question which must be solved is this: it is not necessarily a legislative situation but rather a situation in which the CNR pension plan is run by three appointees from the General Chairman's Association as well as three representatives of the CNR management. It is largely a question of union negotiation and I hope it is one which unions will press with vigour.
4621
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, it takes courage to introduce a bill of this kind in the House of Commons, especially at a time when one branch of government is begging for restraint while another is saying we should try to do something where there is need. The devil can quote scripture to his purpose and hon. members may decide, if they like, whether I am devil or saint because I intend to refer to a little scripture myself by saying that the workman is worthy of his hire, and thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. I hope my friends to the left are listening; They know about the corn. Then I say: Lo unto you scribes and pharisees, hypocrites. You speak one thing and do another. You are willing to take the money but not the political risk of demanding that which you know is just and fair.
When we consider the spending of $15 billion of the Canadian people's money, it represents a tremendous responsibility on the part of those who sit in this chamber. They form the board of directors of a tremendous corporation, the all-powerful state. I am surprised that the criticism comes from that corner of the chamber where they bow down in their hypocrisy and believe that the people of Canada will support it. What utter nonsense! In some countries of the world I suppose we would be called commissars. Do they live at the bottom of the heap, do they have the private yachts on the Sea of Aza and the private villas on the Baltic or do they eat the caviar and drink the vodka while the poor peasants sweep the streets of Moscow. What hypocrisy, indeed! I will give you a little more scripture: I would that ye were either cold or hot.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has stood up once a week for the last ten years begging for a square deal for civil servants. In one form or another I have been a civil servant for many years. This is a time not to be a civil servant. I think perhaps we should have placed the question of our salaries before a private corporation of some kind. A corporation might not have been afraid to take the responsibility of seeing that members get a square deal from the Canadian people.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
You might say, "You were only a policeman once and you walked the beat for 50 cents a day". Yes, I did. You might then ask, "But were you proud of that?" I fought overseas, and it is strange to be told by people who did not fight overseas about my duty to
4622	COMMONS
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 my country. I fought overseas for $1.30 a day. Were the people of Canada proud of that? It is only in the twentieth century that the heroes of the country are denied the rewards of victory.
It is only we who are so mean as to say that those who serve the country well should take the bottom of the heap. When you say that, it is from the depths of hypocrisy because if you are worthy of your salary in the House of Commons, I do not know what your salary should be. We could not pay some men enough money to give up their time and serve here. I could give the House a good example in a man such as the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). He could have made ten times the salary of any civil servant had he wanted to stay in private practice and use his great talents for his own personal gain.
I may be well paid, but I know members of this House who are not well paid. It is a poor trick to divide our salaries into parts and say that one part is for expenses, another part is salary and the third part is indemnity. A workman is worthy of his hire if he is doing a good job. I am quite sure that the people of Canada would not object to paying him a reasonable amount. If we are unable to come to a decision on what is a reasonable amount, let us hand over the responsibility of making that decision to a group of university professors, or let it be done by computer.
There are inequities right now in the House of which we are all aware and which members to my left could well point out. They would be on solid ground if they brought them up and I would go along with them in this regard. I will mention one in particular, about which I know something. How about the expense account of our member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange)? Does anybody within sound of my voice think that everybody should get the same expense account as a member who covers 2| million square miles in an area where there are no roads and no transportation facilities except for the airplane and the kayak? Should he be expected to cover the frozen Arctic on $6,000 a year when it is impossible to hire an aeroplane with a pilot for less than $200 a day, as anyone who has been there would know?
I had the great honour of being the member for Athabasca when I had only 100,000 square miles to cover. I was expected to do it on $6,000 a year. I could not do it then, and I could not do it today. This is very different from having an Ottawa riding and getting the

DEBATES	March 10, 1970
same $6,000. One can say there is an obvious inequity there. However, I would not agree that the man who represents an Ottawa riding is getting too much, because if you got out the score sheet you would probably find that he has expenses about which my friends in the press never talk. How would anyone like three or four school buses full of people driving up to one's door? One is expected to pay for their lunches three or four times a month. This costs money.
My friends to my left talk about the just society just as much as government members. What would they do about this situation? Would it be possible for a poor labouring man to pay for the lunches of 200 school children out of his own pocket? If he were a working man, a soldier or a policeman with a very-inadequate pay like I had all my life, this would be impossible.
This is the best pay I have ever had in my life. But if I am doing my work here in the House as I should, I would not hesitate to say that the people of Canada might well take a good look at what I do and decide whether or not I am overpaid. How much does it cost to be a good Member of Parliament without living in the fleshpots, doing one's work, answering one's mail and fighting an election without taking mean or crooked money? It is not one election; we have had six elections in ten years.
Are you supposed to go begging when you write a letter? Are you supposed to thumb your way through the Arctic and pick on the poor natives in the kayaks to get you around this great, dynamic, young country of ours; or should we sit in committee of the House and thrash out this thing like gentlemen? We have computers today. How much does it cost to travel through the Arctic? Let us find out, and stop this business of saying that some of us make a little more and some of us make a little less.
Everyone knows that the hon. member for Northwest Territories is in the hole very day of his life, and we are doing nothing about it. Are we going to hide behind some cheap political jargon and say, "I would not dare go the western farmers and ask them to raise my pay now, when I cannot sell their wheat ? That is quite a different problem which we should also attack. But when we did sell then-wheat, our pay was not doubled. That is a very poor argument.
We are not paid on commission. If we were on commission we would have a great deal more money. We are spending $15 billion a
March 10, 1970
year. That should satisfy any socialist. If we were on commission, we would be paid a great deal more than we are at present. We should be paid for the reverse; we should be paid whenever we do not spend money on behalf of the Canadian people. Let us get into the blue for a change let us be paid on how much we take off our national debt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Let us be paid in a percentage fashion for the things we do positively.


William Arnold Peters: Let us start with the CNR.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: This might be a good time to speak about it. For 20 years we have been looking for ideas on how to run our railways more efficiently. I do not think this can be done by nationalizing them any more than they are nationalized now. When I went overseas in 1939 in the first contingent, the railroads I saw over there were run very efficiently. Then they were nationalized, and I tried them again. This is your answer. I saw a dramatic change downhill. If I had to go to the Canadian people and say to them, "Reward me for socializing everything," I would not take anything in pay. As a matter of fact, that is one of the reasons I came to Ottawa. I did not know then how much money I was going to get when I came here. I came here because I thought they needed some honest men in this chamber who would devote the rest of their lives to cleaning things up around here. This I have tried to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: A workman is worthy of his hire. I did not sell the last 12 years of my life for cheap money. I defy any member of this House to say that I sold five minutes of it. If he proves it, I will resign tomorrow. Let him prove it. Not five minutes of it have I ever sold for the 30 pieces of silver which a member might want to dig out of the holy book and throw in my teeth. Let us be fair about it. Are we worth what we are getting, or are we not? If we are not, let us go home. If Members of Parliament are going in the hole steadily, and I think some of them are, what is the reason for it? Are they overspending?


William Arnold Peters: We have no time to spend money.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: What is a member's take-home pay? For 10 years I have listened to references about money that I am getting for noth-21774-151
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 ing. People who write these stories do not know how much I am taking home as a public servant, which I consider to be the highest honour one can receive in the country. As Members of Parliament we get a very small percentage of the salary received by some civil servants who are contributing little or nothing to the welfare of this country.
While I was sitting here making notes I made a list of some of the things we should be doing. We are responsible for the defence of Canada. Have we any defence in Canada? If we were being paid for the defence of Canada, perhaps we should take a 30 per cent cut in our pay and go home. We are here for the formation and improvement of our laws. I am not too sure that some of the laws we pass are any great improvement, despite the hard work we may have done in committee.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
We are supposed to be ombudsmen for an average of 75,000 people apiece, yet the government thinks it necessary to have regional desks. If members of the cabinet need regional desks, it is because they are not working us properly, we are not working properly ourselves or we have not sold the idea of why we are here and that we are doing our job. I do not think we need regional desks. I happen to think I am ombudsman for the 77,000 people who sent me here. Maybe that is why they sent me back here five times. I say to hon. members, if you want to qualify for your full pension, be an ombudsman for your 75,000 people and they may send you back here more often than you want to come.
Then there is the question of having two homes to maintain. I have two homes to keep up. We want family men in this chamber. We don't want just bachelors; we don't want just spinsters. We want family men, who represent the greatest cross-section of the people of Canada. If you are a family man and a Member of Parliament, you have two duties to fulfil. You have to think of your family at home, the children going to school, training to be nurses or going to university. In fact your wife has to think of these things a great deal more than you do while you devote your time to the service of the nation. In return she bathes in only a little reflected glory. That little reflected glory gets less and less every time someone gets up in this House and says we are not worth the money, as more than one hon. member has done already. I would like to hear much more from men who are going into debt in the service of our country

March 10, 1970

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 than from men who do not have to rely on inadequate pensions because they have private fortunes, such as most of us do not enjoy.
Then, too, we have a certain amount of entertaining to do, whether we like it or not. Some of us are a long way from our constituencies and we are only too pleased, when people from home come to see Parliament Hill, to take them around. But some hon. members have busloads of people arriving, and this can become a considerable financial burden unless one happens to have a private fortune.
If you do your work as a Member of Parliament, you are responsible for the political education of the public. Any time you are asked-and it is often at your own expense-you have to go and talk to farmers, tradesmen, fishermen or any other group of people who want to hear you, who want to know how you do your work and the difficulties you encounter in doing it. One of your jobs is to keep people abreast of democratic progress in Canada. All this costs money. You cannot travel from here to northern Alberta, a distance of 2,500 miles, and back without a considerable outlay from your private resources.
The Member of Parliament is not expected to be on a salary. Nobody has ever called our pay a salary, yet that is what it is. The Member of Parliament has to put up with a broken business or professional life. But we won't be hypocritical about that. Of course I knew that was going to happen when I came down here. But putting the shoe on the other foot, do the people of Canada want me to suffer unduly, financially, if I do the job? I do not think so. I think this is one area where if you take the public into your confidence, tell them the whole story, tell them how much it *costs you to live, how much it costs you to support two homes, how much it costs you personally to fight elections on their behalf- if you are not fighting elections on their behalf, why are you here?-they will see the merit in the case. After all, this is a democracy.
How many men have become rich by coming here? I know of none, and I think that is a credit to this House and to the people of Canada. Only cynical people think that being a Member of Parliament is a short cut to a fortune. I will tell you how innocent I am in this regard. I do not know any of my friends who have made money by being Members of


Parliament. Such a case has not come to my attention. I am naive enough to believe that this is representative of almost all, if not all members of the House of Commons. So, Mr. Speaker, what are we being so shy about? Unless you are a supporter of the successful government of the day when you retire, you can expect no after-reward. As a matter of fact, by being a Member of Parliament you disqualify yourself from many lucrative jobs, and in fact without loss of pension rights you cannot take a job in the direct pay of the government of Canada once you have been a Member of Parliament. This is not even logical.
I believe that Parliament is a good school for the training of public servants. If a man spends two sessions here, works on the committees, takes part in all the discussions, has the experience of meeting men from all over the country, he would have to be a dull fellow not to have learned to be a better civil servant. Yet from the very terms of our work and the terms of our pension scheme we disqualify ourselves from further service to the country.
I am not whining or complaining. I am just trotting out into the open some of the things that have been behind closed doors for too long. It should be placed on the record that we get $12,000 a year subject to income tax, which in a great many cases means approximately one-third off, resulting in $8,000 take-home pay. I have just outlined some of the expenses which no Member of Parliament can escape. Further, the Member of Parliament is donating his time. I think the people of Canada want to know about these things. Of course, I have received letters saying, "Don't you dare raise your pay. Sell the wheat first, Look after our affairs first." That is a very normal, natural, human reaction. But I do not honestly think the people mean that, particularly if they know how conscientious most of us are, the long hours we work, how hard we work and what our financial condition is.
I consider it a brave move, an unpopular move on the part of the government, to bring this thing out in the open at a time like this. The need is great to update our pay and allowances. I hope that when the measure reaches committee we will have no double talk. If the members there cannot come to a consensus to put this scheme into statutory form, I hope we will hand it over to an independent commission as soon as possible and make an attempt once more to take the whole matter out of the realm of seamy politics where I think it has been for far too long.
March 10, 1970


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I hope this bill passes by ten o'clock, so I will not speak at length.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: You always get applause for that.


William Arnold Peters: It is always a good way to start out, and it makes you feel good. We have heard some very good and interesting contributions, but I may let out a small secret by saying the discussions to date have not been nearly as interesting as they have been in caucus-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: March 10, 1970

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970 replied, "Don't thank me. If you are not elected, I don't know how we are going to collect our $5,000." I had been going in the hole for $1,000 a year for five years, so I thought $10,000 a year was a lot of money. But I was surprised how much I could spend and how many calls there were on it. I was continually going to the bank to sign another note. I think this is relevant to the extent of what one is doing and what your expenses are.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to talk about wages but I can assure you we are going to be very important people in this country-right now we are not-if we decide our salaries should be $100,000 a year. Then we will be the most important people in this country. We may not be the most popular, but we will be the most important.
Over the years we have seen members come and go. This is an odd job; it is the kind of job where a member has to divorce himself from everything. A member who is really serving in this House-some do and some do not-has to be here before nine o'clock in the morning. I do not usually fit into that category because it is very difficult. But he should be here before nine o'clock or the staff will not be doing anything; and he should be here until the late show at 10.30 p.m. This means that he is limited to meeting the general public on the weekend if he can get to his riding for that purpose. It is not a normal job and the fact that there are only 264 members and not too many people trying for positions is an indication that it has some hazards.
Since I came here I have heard many people say that this or that cannot be done, or that the Canada Pension Plan was an impossibility. Everybody laughed at me when I raised it, but only two years later when the government said they were going to implement it, nobody voted against it. I have seen this sort of thing on many occasions. My interest, Mr. Speaker, is to win for everybody the maximum possible pension. There are many unknown quantities in any pension plan. If somebody says, "Pension plans have always gone broke and the Canadian people have to pay more money all the time," there is something wrong with the plan. We have had two calamities to our pension plans: we had the calamity of 1958 when we lost 50 per cent or more of the members, and the calamity of 1962-63 when we again lost 50 per cent or more of our members. But these are not normal circumstances. The hon. member who spoke previously said that we had six elections in ten years and the turnover was con-
siderable in that length of time. I do not think we anticipate that situation in the foreseeable future, so our pension plan has not been a difficulty to the Canadian public, and we are making our contributions.
Some time ago, Mr. Speaker, I was offered the opportunity of participating in the pension plan of the union where I had previously been employed. That plan was five and five-5 per cent paid by the employer and 5 per cent paid by the employee. Being employed outside that plant I would have had to pay 10 per cent of my present salary of $12,000 plus $6,000. When I looked at $1,800 a year, I decided I could not afford it. It seems to me a pension plan hinges on what a person can afford to pay. No matter whether the employer is paying a share or not, it has to be paid from wages. The plan has to be self-supporting. It is not like the unemployment insurance plan where occasionally we get into a situation where we have to add money to it.
Someone asks, and rightly so, whether we should not do something about the actuarial study that regulates the establishment of that kind of fund. So long as the fund is solvent and no one can point to any error in the calculations connected with the plan, I think we ought to be able to contribute to as large a pension as we can afford.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Several factors connected with the pension plan for a Member of Parliament ought to be considered. One of them is, as Dean Curtis pointed out in his report, the difficulties members may face on being re-elected. Some members who served here for relatively short terms have been unable to find suitable employment, the difficulty being psychological more than anything else. It is hard to be at the top, then be thrown out and start at the bottom. It is much easier to work when you are at the top than when you are at the bottom. Some members who have been in this position have had difficulty. Dean Curtis suggests that perhaps we ought to give these people a generous grant for the first year after their defeat. I think the best way of doing this is by providing ourselves with an adequate pension scheme that will not cost the taxpayers additional money.
The qualifying time for a minimum pension has been reduced to six years. I think that is unduly generous because I saw nothing wrong with the three-term provision. I am amused to see people who during five years here have served three terms. When the hon. member
March 10. 1970

for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) first came here, he fought three elections in one year. Immediately after his first election he was forced to fight a by-election, and within eight or nine months he again fought a general election. He really has been elected to Parliament three times.


Stanley Howard Knowles: think he was elected to only two separate Parliaments in those three elections.


William Arnold Peters: If Members of Parliament are willing to make larger contributions, and if the plan can be introduced in such a way that it does not impose an additional financial drain on the treasury, I see nothing wrong with it. I believe every man should be entitled to a retirement pension which will give him a reasonable standard of living. Every man on retirement should be entitled to live in the manner to which he is accustomed. Some people ask: Why should a man making $50,000 a year be paid $25,000 a year on retirement? I don't know why he made $50,000 in the first place; it is none of my business and I do not give a damn. I do not expect ever to be in that category, but the more power to that man. I do not say he is worth it, but that is his income. He must justify it to some people. His wife will be used to maintaining a certain standard of living. When he retires she will want to continue at that standard and ought to be entitled to do so.
I should like to see in this country an adequate retirement plan for every Canadian. I should like to see insurance companies and the annuities branch eliminated from the retirement field, and the Canada Pension Plan extended to the point where every Canadian can pay into it enough money to assure for himself a decent standard of living in keeping with his best income during his life. We have not been able to do that much for all our people, but that does not mean we should not introduce the changes proposed in this bill. Since we are to enjoy the benefits of a reasonable retirement plan, it behooves us all to do the best we can for all our people.
Finally, I should like to see a change in the proposals of this bill which will give those members who do not wish to participate in the plan the right not to participate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: Provisions might be written into our plan similar to those written into the
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion one affecting members of the other place and which they have not taken advantage of. Those who believe that a reasonable pension plan is immoral ought to have the right not to participate in it. I think that is only sensible.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.

John Angus MacLean: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last Thursday when the government House leader announced the business for this week, he did not announce the business for tomorrow. Perhaps he could indicate what business the government proposes to present to the House tomorrow.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We propose as the first item of business, Government Order No. 34, the report stage of Bill C-137 respecting motor vehicle safety; to be followed by Government Order No. 25, the report stage of Bill C-138, to amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

["Mr. Speaker, in the unavoidable absence of the minister I shall be pleased to reply to the question raised by the hon. member on March 6 and his remarks this evening. Neither the minister in charge of housing nor the government have abandoned the proposal of the Hellyer task force that the federal government should make direct loans\nProceedings on Adjournment Motion to municipalities and regional governments to assist them in assembling and servicing land for urban growth.\nThe task force quite properly pointed out that the joint federal-provincial investment in the assembly of land for housing purposes had been a feature of the National Housing Act for nearly 20 years. The task force recommended that provinces be urged to take greater advantage of this facility. The task force also urged that the Housing Act be amended to provide loans to municipalities and regional governments for the assembly and servicing of land.\nHon. members will recall that the National Housing Act was amended in June 1969. One of the amendments authorized CMHC to make loans to municipalities and to regional governments for the acquisition and servicing of land for general residential purposes. The sum of $20 million was provided in the capital budget of the corporation for 1969 for that purpose.\n[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)\nAgain, notwithstanding the government's desire to devote most of its own resources and efforts to the provision of low income housing in 1970, continued support has been given to the land assembly program by including in the capital budget of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation $30 million for land assembly projects in 1970. These funds have already been allocated to the provinces for use in those municipalities in greatest need.\nMotion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.\n4633", 'Wednesday, March 11, 1970']
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the proposition I wish to raise this evening arises from a question asked of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) a few days ago which related to the matter of consultation with the Eskimo people, particularly in Quebec, and what the minister meant exactly by "consultation". At no time has the government or the minister attempted to define what is meant by "consultation". The word has been much misused, abused and distorted by the government. I think it probably originated in the mind of the former minister, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing), who developed the idea of the initial round of consultation conferences with the native people coincidentally with the 1968 election campaign. I realize that is an argument.
Anyone examining even cursorily the so-called white paper on Indian Affairs which
March 10, 1970
4628	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion supposedly resulted from this consultative conference would agree that the word "consultation" is meaningless. In many respects the ideas presented in the paper that evolved as the result of the June 25 meeting last year bear no resemblance to the ideas expressed by the native peoples at the so-called consultative conference. In the minds of Indian and Eskimo peoples of this nation, "consultation" is a word mouthed by government members and is meaningless. They see consultation merely as a process of one-sided conversation, where they listen to people whose minds about the course to be taken are already made up.
We attempted to obtain information from the minister the other day, particularly with respect to the Eskimo people in Quebec who have unequivocally told the government that they do not want jurisdiction over their affairs to be transferred to the province of Quebec. They want to decide for themselves what jurisdiction they will come under. The minister was asked if he would accede to that request of the people. He was asked to listen to grass roots conversation and to pay attention to the needs of the people who would be affected by any such change. The minister refused to budge from his declaration that he would consult with the people. At no time did he indicate he would pay attention or give heed to the intentions and desires of the people.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
This matter was put in perspective today by an answer the Parliamentary Secretary gave to the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Brown) in reply to a question regarding the closing of a Mohawk centre at Brantford. The Parliamentary Secretary made his reply with some emphasis and flair. He said, "The closing of the Mohawk institute"-to which the hon. member for Brant had referred-"was after detailed consultations". He made a previous reference to the consultations and used the phrase, "with the consent of the Indians concerned". The phrase "with the consent of the Indians concerned" was said with such elaboration and emphasis it almost appeared as though the unusual had happened. That consultation did not take into account the views of the people concerned.
If the Parliamentary Secretary was at liberty to say that the views of the Indian people with respect to the Mohawk institute had been listened to and acceded to, by the same token the minister, who has far more power
[Mr. Howard (Skeena).l

and authority, should also take advantage of his privilege and right to say in this House unequivocally and clearly to the Eskimo people in Quebec that the government does not want to impose upon them the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec and objects to it strenuously.
The government should say to those Eskimo people that it is their fundamental right to make that determination. They should be told they are under the jurisdiction of the federal government, will stay there and attention will be paid to their request. The government should say it respects and honours the decision of the Eskimo people and that it will sever any further negotiations and discussions with the province of Quebec in that regard.
Instead of that, the minister talked about the matter of consultation without defining what he meant. He refused to budge from his previous position and tell the Eskimo people who are directly concerned that he would accede to their request, listen to their views and honour their position. In the absence of any such declaration, we can only conclude that these discussions and negotiations with the province of Quebec will continue. The discussions have been carried on for some years; they commenced before this government took office. The purpose of the negotiations is to work out a solution which is contrary to the views of the Eskimo people.
If the Parliamentary Secretary will say, as he said with respect to the Indian people at Brantford and the Mohawk institute, that the views of the people will be listened to and a decision made based upon the request of those people, they will understand clearly where they stand and will respect the government. In the absence of a declaration of that sort, I am afraid the views of the people are going to be overridden.


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member predicated his argument or representations on the word "consultation". I do not know of many words in the English language that in their ordinary meaning and sense are better defined in the minds of the people who use them. While I do not have a dictionary here-


Frank Howard: I can send one over.


Russell Clayton Honey: -I think I have a fair idea of what the word means. It means to talk with, to respect the views of. Of course, representa-
March 10, 1970

tions made by various parties are received, considered and a decision is made. That is what my minister has been saying repeatedly, not only to the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) who has raised the matter tonight but to the leader of his party and to the former Leader of the Official Opposition.
Perhaps the best thing I can do in the one or two minutes that I have is again to put on the record the position as stated on several occasions by my minister. On February 20, as reported at page 3892 of Hansard, in reply to a question from the hon. member's leader, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), the minister said:
Mr. Speaker, I abide by the basic agreement concluded in 1964 between the federal government and the provincial government. We are now negotiating with the provincial government in order to determine whether we could purchase some services from that government for the New Quebec Eskimos, but there will be no transfer of jurisdiction without consultation with the Eskimos.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) then asked a question, to which my minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, that is what we are doing at the present time, and when we have received a report from the officials now engaged in such consultations, we shall be in a position to inform the House on the situation.
I do not have time to refer to the question asked by the hon. member for Skeena on February 25, but it appears at page 4081 of Hansard and my minister gave exactly the same answer. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the federal-provincial team is presently still in the area, as my hon. friend knows, consulting with the native peoples. I am informed that it will be a matter of two or three weeks before the consultations are concluded. They will then, of course, report to the respective governments.
I would emphasize that this is a federal-provincial team which is consulting with the Eskimo people. When a report is received, it will then be the responsibility of the respective governments to consider the recommendations of the report, and if further action or consultation is necessary it will be taken. But at some point a decision will have to be made by those in authority.



Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly glad 21774-16

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) is here this evening because I am quite sure he appreciates the urgency of the question of Canada's role in helping, through the United Nations, to get birth control information and family planning to those countries of the world that need it badly.
I was quite shocked when I read in the paper the other day that the program of the United Nations Fund for Population Activities this year has been jeopardized, so the story goes, by differences within the Canadian cabinet over whether or not we should participate in a program that we had agreed to help. Under this program, the United States, Britain, Sweden, Japan and the Federal Republic of Germany, together with Canada, were expected to contribute a total of $15 million for the budget of the United Nations Fund for Population Activities.
Evidently there is a hold-up, and according to the press this hold-up is in the Canadian cabinet. According to this story, the cabinet has not made up its mind about the program although birth control in this country is legal and although we would not be forcing it on any country that did not want it. The Canadian cabinet at that time had plainly made up its mind that Canada should carry out its agreed part of the program.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
As I say, I know the minister appreciates the desperate urgency of this situation in the kind of world we have where it took several million years to reach the 2 billion mark in population, which we had in the mid-1980s. They tell us that by 1975 the figure will be doubled to 4 billion people, and that if we go on without any other thing intervening there will be 14 billion people in the year 2035. The likelihood is that there will not be all those people because of a number of very tragic things that will happen. For one thing, poverty breeds poverty and we know how it does. The capital growth of the underdeveloped countries will be brought to a standstill long before that time, because poverty will feed on the few resources they have and there be no chance for them to get ahead. Then there will be continued exacerbations in gross inequalities, and the fear that world income will be going to the developed nations, with all the potentialities for racial hatred and war that that situation will bring.
Also, famine will break out and the people will be dwarfed by the prolonged and dread-
4630	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ful famines of the future. In the next place, the low income and prevalence of hunger in the poorer countries can only mean a continuation of political instability. It is the underdeveloped nations that are most often racked with military coups, civil wars and violent revolutions; and if uncontrolled violence occurs, it can only increase instability. Then there will be diseases. Of course, we now know above everything else the dangers that exist in pollution. They are on a terrible scale, and in all forms imaginable.
It is for this reason I ask the minister-as I asked him earlier today, not knowing that I would be having the opportunity this evening-if he can make some statement as to whether or not this conflict is now resolved within the cabinet and when we can expect it will be resolved. I ask the question because I believe that the matter of world population and family planning can no longer be left to the old-fashioned cliches and shibboleths of yesterday. This is too important a matter to be left to old doctrines any longer: it is a matter of world survival.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much I was not here when the hon. lady put forward her question the other day, but I read Hansard with considerable amusement. I recognize, of course, that the hon. lady, in spite of the mirth that was generated, was very serious in what she had to say. She has today had the opportunity of elaborating her views at greater length and in greater quiet than existed at that time.
The government is actively engaged in elaborating policy in respect of family planning both domestically and internationally. Perhaps I might point out to her as evidence of our great interest that CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, has obtained the services of Dr. George F. Brown as special adviser in public health and population. Dr. Brown is well known as a specialist in international family planning programs.
I think this indicates that we are not lacking interest in the matter.
I think she will also agree that our international policy must be related to our domestic policies. It would be quite improper for Canada to apply different standards domestically and internationally. We would quite rightly be the point of criticism, that somehow we felt that Canadians were to be treated differently from other people in respect of this kind of activity and policy. I am sure

DEBATES	March 10, 1970
that my friends in the NDP would be the first to condemn such hyprocrisy.
The first step in elaborating a domestic policy in respect of family planning has already been made, as the hon. lady has said, by an amendment to the Criminal Code regarding the dissemination of information on contraceptives, and the government is presently considering what else it should be doing in this field. When we have reached a conclusion in this matter we will be in a position to elaborate our international policy.
In order to indicate that we are not the only important country that is having difficulty making up our minds in this field, I would point out that the United Nations Fund for Population Activity to which the hon. member has referred has only very recently been re-organized. It is only now in a position to accept expanded contributions. Few countries have made contributions. Some countries including Britain, Japan and the Scandinavian countries have the matter under consideration. In this connection I simply want to repeat that the government recognizes the importance of family planning programs and is actively considering what its policy should be both domestically and internationally.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, on March 6 I posed a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. I asked him whether or not the federal government intends to make direct loans to municipalities and regional governments to assist them in assembling and servicing land for urban growth in line with the proposal of the Hellyer task force. Mr. Speaker did not allow the question at that time, and therefore I pose it again tonight. The report of the task force on housing and urban development points out the following:
On the basis of all the evidence and impressions before it, the task force believes that municipal assembly and servicing of land would produce major reductions in land costs in both the short and long-term while encouraging and assisting effective urban planning. Therefore, in summary, the task force recommends that:
Municipalities or regional governments, as a matter of continuing policy, should acquire, service and sell all or a substantial portion of the land required for urban growth within their boundaries.
The federal government should make direct loans to municipalities or regional governments to assist them in assembling and servicing land for urban growth.
March 10. 1970

It was in line with that recommendation that I asked the question the other day. I am sure the government realizes it is not good enough to go about the country with a task force. Grand words concerning what the government may be doing or thinking are not enough. Philosophy is not good enough. Tours of any description across the country are not good enough unless there is active participation by the government in this field. Possibly the government is considering putting this type of money into land assembly projects, but to date the municipalities have been unable to meet the rising costs with which they are faced and therefore cannot be expected to come up with any project in respect of land assembly for urban growth.
At the same time, I am sure everyone here realizes that municipal taxation cannot rise any more: it is at the highest level it has ever been. It would be impossible for the municipalities to attempt to tax the people in order to pay for the type of land assembly that is necessary. With this view in mind, I pose the question and would appreciate an answer this evening.


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in the unavoidable absence of the minister I shall be pleased to reply to the question raised by the hon. member on March 6 and his remarks this evening. Neither the minister in charge of housing nor the government have abandoned the proposal of the Hellyer task force that the federal government should make direct loans
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion to municipalities and regional governments to assist them in assembling and servicing land for urban growth.
The task force quite properly pointed out that the joint federal-provincial investment in the assembly of land for housing purposes had been a feature of the National Housing Act for nearly 20 years. The task force recommended that provinces be urged to take greater advantage of this facility. The task force also urged that the Housing Act be amended to provide loans to municipalities and regional governments for the assembly and servicing of land.
Hon. members will recall that the National Housing Act was amended in June 1969. One of the amendments authorized CMHC to make loans to municipalities and to regional governments for the acquisition and servicing of land for general residential purposes. The sum of $20 million was provided in the capital budget of the corporation for 1969 for that purpose.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
Again, notwithstanding the government's desire to devote most of its own resources and efforts to the provision of low income housing in 1970, continued support has been given to the land assembly program by including in the capital budget of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation $30 million for land assembly projects in 1970. These funds have already been allocated to the provinces for use in those municipalities in greatest need.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
4633

Wednesday, March 11, 1970