1973-10-30

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Security Council of the United Nations demanded on October 25 by resolution 340 that an immediate and complete Ceasefire be observed in the Middle East and that the parties return to the positions they held on October 22 when an earlier Security Council resolution had first called for a ceasefire. In the resolution of October 25 the Council decided to set up immediately, under its authority, a United Nations emergency force. Canada was asked to participate in this force by a note from the Secretary General dated October 27 and in a further note of October 29 the Secretary General confirmed that this request was acceptable to both sides to the conflict. The government gave this request the most serious and urgent consideration and toward this end a team of officials from the Department of External Affairs and the Department of National Defence joined the Canadian delegation to the United Nations to consult with officials of the United Nations Secretariat about the precise nature of the contribution requested from Canada.
According to the report of the Secretary General, which was adopted by the Security Council on October 26, it is intended that this force be of a temporary nature to assist in facilitating conditions under which negotiations toward a settlement can take place. The force is to supervise the implementation of the ceasefire and the return of the parties to their positions of October 22. It will use its best efforts to prevent a recurrence of the fighting. The force is an impartial peacekeeping force composed of formed military units which will be interposed between the parties: it will thus operate on the assumption that the parties to the conflict are taking all necessary steps to comply with the relevant decisions of the Security Council. The force will be under the command of the United Nations, vested in the Secretary General and under the authority of the Security Council. The command in the field will be exercised by a force commander appointed by the Secretary General and responsible to him. The force is to be of a defensive character only and is not to use force except in self-defence.
The force at full strength will probably number about
7,000	men. Aside from Canada, Austria, Finland, Sweden and Ireland have been requested to provide troops and the
first contingents of Austrians, Finns and Swedes arrived in Cairo from Cyprus on October 26. The only areas of operation contemplated at this time are the east and west banks of the Suez Canal system from Port Said through Ismailia to Suez. In the fulfilment of its tasks the force will have the co-operation of the miltary observers of the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization.
On October 27 Canada was asked by the Secretary General to provide the logistic component of the force including, in particular, air support, transport, communications, ordnance and related logistic facilities. The Secretary General considers it vital to the efficient and effective operation of the force that Canada provide the logistic support.
Canada has consistently stressed a number of conditions for its participation in peacekeeping operations and observer missions. A basic condition is met by the fact that the United Nations will be the continuing political authority to which the force reports. Moreover, the Secretary General will make his reports public. He has listed the following essential conditions for the force. It must (a) have the full confidence and backing of the Security Council; (b) operate with the full co-operation of the parties concerned; (c) function as an integrated and efficient military unit; (d) enjoy freedom of movement and communication and other facilities that are necessary for the performance of its functions, and (e) be granted all relevant privileges and immunities provided for by the United Nations convention on privileges and immunities.
Given these conditions which lead us to hope the force should be an effective one and able to contribute to a climate in which negotiations between the parties can take place, the Canadian government has decided to inform the United Nations Secretary General, in response to his request, that Canada has agreed to participate in the United Nations emergency force for the Middle East for the initial six-month period described in the Secretary General's report. I am further informing the Secretary General that the Canadian contribution will consist of a logistics component in accordance with his request and with the conclusions reached after discussion of details of this contribution between Canadian and UN officials. Finally, I am informing the Secretary General that we intend to conclude with him financial and other arrangements to regulate Canadian participation and that the treatment accorded Canada should be no less favourable than that accorded to other contributing countries.
We shall be placing on the order paper a resolution seeking the approval of parliament for the government's decision to participate in the UNEF.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.

October 30, 1973
Middle East Peacekeeping Force


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


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I can hear shouts of glee from the other side of the House. I would point out that we all rejoice about the fact that the federalist option has prevailed over the separatist option.
However, Mr. Speaker, seeing the smiles of my friends on the other side, I fear that the leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada (Mr. Caouette) does not share the same impression.
Mr. Speaker, it would have been better a few moments ago if the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) had given us his statement in time so that we could consider it. Unfortunately, as usual, we received it two minutes before the House met and we have been unable to read through it. I think that hon. members will end up rising on a question of privilege. If members of all parts of the House wish for dialogue and solidarity, they on the other side of the House will have to extend to us a minimum of courtesy.
Generally speaking we are in agreement with the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Once more, the world nations called upon Canada and once more Canada is prepared to serve. The parties involved must admit Canada's impartiality on the national scene.
On Monday, October 22, my party, through my colleague from Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) welcomed with the Secretary of State for External Affairs the cease-fire requested by the Security Council under the joint auspices of the United States and the Soviet Union. Made again since then, this call for a cease-fire received a positive answer. The cease-fire is really a first step and fruitful negotiations may be expected now.
The application of the cease-fire calls for the co-operation of unbiased countries, of competent and representative countries at the world level.
We are delighted by the fact that Canada meets those sets of criteria and may contribute to the cease-fire and bring peace back to this part of the world.
It will be noted that, this time, important factors should be considered which distinguish the government's position from that we occupied at the time of the Viet Nam crisis, since today first the cease-fire exists, second, the UN, an international organization, is playing a major role in the application of the cease-fire and, third, the parties involved through normal diplomatic channels have clearly stated their position, expectations and reserves.
We approve Canada's participation to the extent of our resources and competence, both in the logistics field and in the communications field, to the peace effort in the Middle East. My colleague for Hillsborough stated as recorded on page 7075 of Hansard for October 22, 1973 and I quote:

I am sure all the people of Canada would want us, their representatives, to indicate that this country is prepared to make some efforts and, indeed, some sacrifices if, under the proper auspices and with reasonable hope for success, the kind of force the minister mentioned should be set up. I believe we should sacrifice
[Mr. Speaker.)
something for peace in the Middle East because in doing that we would be doing much more. We would be sacrificing something for the peace of the whole world.
There is no question that Canadians are desirous of a lasting peace and a lasting settlement in the Middle East. In this regard any participation on the part of our government through which we can assist in bringing that settlement about is worth while. Our previous experience in the Middle East and our experience in Viet Nam surely make any warnings I could offer the minister redundant. The perils of involvement without acceptance from both sides are obvious and clearcut. As my leader has stated, we have a duty to participate in any reasonable effort to bring peace in the Middle East. The government has a duty to satisfy itself that our involvement in the peacekeeping force will represent a meaningful contribution that cannot better be made by some other country. If that is the case, then involvement in the peacekeeping force is more than justified.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to preface my remarks with a brief and mild protest over the fact that we received this important and sensitive statement about two o'clock as we walked into the House.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Francis Andrew Brewin: However, Mr. Speaker, we in this party welcome the decision of the government to bring up for approval in the House this commitment by Canada to contribute to a peacekeeping force in the Middle East. In our view a commitment which involves Canadian personnel, substantial Canadian expenditures and risks outside Canada should be approved by the elected representatives in parliament even though the government may have the responsibility of making the decision in the first instance. This obligation is particularly clear in the situation of a minority government which we have at the present time.
Having said this, I can now say it is our view that the government's decision to participate as requested by the Secretary General of the United Nations is a decision which we will support. We think the government has a right to insist upon any such commitments being made through the United Nations which would have the moral authority of the Security Council and, through it, of the world community as a whole. Second, we think such a commitment should rightly be only undertaken with the consent of the immediate parties involved. We agree with the third condition made by the government, namely, that there should be some prospect that the peacekeeping force can serve a useful purpose. In our view these conditions have been fulfilled and, therefore, the commitment should be made.
The primary reason for saying this is that it is a contribution toward preserving the peace in one of the most explosive areas in the world. It is not simply that we deeply deplore the hostilities between Israel and her neighbours, not simply because we wish Israel in accordance with her creation as an independent state by the United Nations to continue to exist as an independent state and a state whose security is guaranteed by agreed and secured boundaries and the commitments of the world community as well as her neighbours, but also because the
October 30, 1973

continuance of deeply felt differences between Israel and her neighbours is a threat to the peace of the world.
It is only through the maintenance of peace by the interposition of an international force that the process of negotiations between Israel and her neighbours will be made possible, and in turn it is only through such negotiations that a settlement of the deeply divided issues facing Israel and her neighbours can be resolved.
We think it appropriate that it should be the United Nations which acts in this matter. We all know that the United Nations is imperfect and that it can be no better than the decisions of its members. Many people have become disillusioned with the United Nations, but we believe that the present crisis has shown once again that the United Nations is indispensable. Anything that strengthens the United Nations is of vast importance to the very existence of a peaceful world.
We know that previous peacekeeping efforts have sometimes been attended by frustration rather than by the settlement of basic disputes. It is often forgotten that without the intervention of these peacekeeping forces bloody wars might have broken out or would have been continued. One illustration is Cyprus.
The conflict between Israel and her neighbours is so deepseated that we do not believe the mere existence of a peacekeeping force will be an adequate guarantee of peace, although it will aid in the creation of a situation in which peace is at least possible.
For these reasons, and because of Canada's experience, ability and knowledge in respect of the important logistics contribution we are asked to make, we believe Canada can make an effective contribution to such a peacekeeping force and we approve of the Canadian contribution. We do not do so without deep anxiety and a recognition that the existence of such a force cannot by itself guarantee a lasting peace, but we believe it can contribute to it. It would be entirely inconsistent, in our view, with Canada's reputation as a good member of the world community to refuse to accept the invitation of the Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking in this instance on behalf of the world and in the interests of world peace.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, since I represent a constituency in the province of Quebec, I hope you will allow me to comment briefly on yesterday's provincial elections.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope that the hon. member will be able to keep his comments for another time. I believe that at this time his comments and those of all other hon. members should pertain to the statement made by the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. I admit that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe took the liberty of saying a sentence or two in reply to the reactions of others. The hon. member for Abitibi will certainly understand that it would be preferable if we could keep to the statement made by the minister, at least for the moment.
Privilege, Mr. O'Connor


Gérard Laprise: I thank you for your comments, Mr. Speaker. As Quebec is still in Confederation I thought I could make such a comment.
Mr. Speaker, as the two previous speakers opposite, I received the statement of the Secretary of State at 2.10, precisely when he had finished reading it.
However, it was difficult for me to study it thoroughly, but on behalf of my party I approve the decision taken by the Canadian government to support the dispatch of a force to supervise the truce in the Middle East, because we feel that this decision is valid. However, I remain quite pessimistic considering the requirements laid by the Security Council of the UN to the belligerents. In the statements made at the Security Council and during the numerous debates which followed and which I heard at the UN, I felt sorry that no mention was made of the heart of the problem existing in the Middle East since the establishment of the State of Israel, that is the Palestinian refugees. Unfortunately, it seems that this essential point was forgotten over there. In the declaration handed out by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and according to resolution 340, there is mention of the decision taken in the night of October 21 to 22, I believe, and of resolution 338 regarding the ceasefire and the return to the boundaries set on that date.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, the events of 1967 are forgotten. I think that the war of 1967 was the prime cause of the resumption of hostilities in October 1973. Once again the recommendation of resolution 242 is forgotten. Mr. Speaker, I think that even a force of 7,000 fully-armed men, with all possible communications equipment, would find it difficult to maintain peace in this part of the world because the basic cause is still present.
I am nevertheless happy, Mr. Speaker, that the United Nations have stated that Canada is considered as a possible participant in the force and that it is the only country with the military means and experience. So, I think this is something which should not necessarily cause us to brag about: our armed forces have experience not only in the Middle East but also in the international field. They are known everywhere for their efficiency.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion we should go far beyond the Security Council's recommendations if we really want to restore peace in that area and that is what everybody wants.
We approve such a decision and we would like very much to do much more in this line than what is now being done.

[ English]



PRIVILEGE


Mr.   Terry@: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On returning to my office after lunch today I was confronted by a crew of workmen constructing a cinder block wall across the entrance to my office in the Confederation building. The workmen could offer no explanation except that they had tendered the job

October 30,1973
Agriculture
last Friday and were ordered to have it completed by today.
On election to this position exactly one year ago today I assumed it was to last for more than one year. In fact, I assumed that the job would last until I was defeated in a subsequent election, until I resigned, or until I died. So far as I am aware, none of these events has occurred. I would suggest that this action constitutes a breach of my privileges and I ask you Mr. Speaker, to order it stopped.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member has a very valid question of privilege. If I were Caesar I would say: let the wall come down. But I will only say that the matter will be looked into. I am sure there must be a misunderstanding somewhere. The hon. member can count on my cooperation to ensure that the matter will be looked into forthwith and I will report to him within the next few minutes.



AIR CANADA


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the severance of Air Canada's service between Sudbury and Timmins, and also in view of the CTC's refusal to make a decision until December 31, 1973, regarding an alternate carrier, and in view of the hardship and inconvenience this places on residents of Northern Ontario, I ask leave of the House, under the terms of Standing Order 43, to move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport to order Air Canada to maintain passenger service between Sudbury and Timmins until the CTC makes its decision.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under Standing Order 43. Because of the distress, disruption and confusion caused to the grain farmers and cattlemen of Canada by federal government policies devised and implemented by academics with no practical experience on the land, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):

That the government institute an internship program whereby academics who are devising and setting agricultural policy be required to spend at least two years on a farm, ranch, or feed lot every seven years so as not to lose touch with the practical problems of farming and new developments in the agricultural industry.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is proposed under Standing Order 43. As such it requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising out of the announcement of the Prime Minister on September 4 that a voluntary price freeze would be imposed or adopted with regard to petroleum products in Canada except to the extent where, to the satisfaction of the minister, an increase in the cost of imported crude warranted an increase. I would like to ask the minister whether the increase announced yesterday by one Canadian company for prices in Quebec constitutes a breach of the freeze, and whether the freeze now stays in place?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in our view the announcement yesterday by the company does indeed constitute a breach of the freeze. The company had indicated its intention to do so. We specifically requested the company not to do so, and that it should await a government decision in this regard. I anticipate being able to make an announcement to the House in this regard on November 1. I regret that the company has not pursued the request that we have made, which has been honoured by all other companies, not to increase prices either east or west.


EFFECT OF LATEST INCREASE IN PRICE OF VENEZUELAN CRUDE ON PRICE FREEZE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated recently that, within a matter of weeks, the most recent increase in the price of Venezuelan crude imported into Canada would have a substantial impact on retail prices in Quebec and the Maritimes. I would like to ask him whether this indicates that the government is abandoning the freeze altogether
October 30, 1973

as a result of this substantial increase in petroleum prices or whether there is simply a partial thaw, and if it is just a partial thaw does the government intend to determine the amount of increase in retail prices that would be justified?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I said to the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, I intend to make an announcement covering both the eastern market and any other possible changes on November 1.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the announcement to be made by the minister on November 1 indicate what will happen to gasoline and other petroleum product prices in the rest of Canada west of the province of Quebec? Does he intend to indicate, for example, that prices of petroleum products in Ontario and western Canada will increase by an amount corresponding to the increase in the east?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my statement on prices will be quite full.


OIL-PROJECTED INCREASE IN DOMESTIC PRICES IN LIGHT OF LATEST VENEZUELAN INCREASE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On the basis of the minister's statement yesterday that the announcement made by this company yesterday of a one cent per gallon increase was based on the increase announced by Venezuela on September 1, or earlier is he in any position to project what might be the increase in a month's time, say based on the 56 per cent increase in the price of crude announced by Venezuela this past week?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Not at the moment, Sir. I think we will have to keep a close watch on the landed cost of oil at Montreal to make a more precise evaluation of the impact on the domestic price in Canada that this would cause.


SECURITY OF OIL SUPPLIES FROM MIDDLE EAST
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact he has said he has now contacted all of the Arab states that export oil to Canada, can he report to the House whether or not Canada will have security of supplies from all of the exporters in the Middle East?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I hope so.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the very ambiguous answer of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, can he tell us when we will know for sure whether or not Canadians can expect security of supplies?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in this world most things are uncertain. I express once again the hope that Canada will continue to receive the oil which it usually gets from its sources abroad.
Oral Questions


DETERMINATION OF EFFECT ON COST OF LIVING OF INCREASES IN PRICES OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS- ACTION TO OFFSET
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact the increase in the price of Venezuelan crude and the breaking of the voluntary freeze on prices by one oil refinery will contribute substantially to the consumer price index by increasing the cost of fuel, gasoline and so on and also contribute to the increased cost of food production, what steps is the minister taking to determine the effect this will have on the cost of living in Canada, and what steps is the government taking to mitigate this increase?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, along with my colleagues, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I am following the situation closely, and I am co-operating with them closely in their efforts in this matter.


James Aloysius McGrath: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, and in view of the fact that this will contribute substantially to the cost of living in an area of the country where it is now higher than in any other part of the country-I am referring specifically to the Atlantic provinces-does the minister intend to have this matter looked into with a view to providing the government with advice on action to offset this increase in the cost of living in the Atlantic provinces?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: 
PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the high cost of living in the north, and in view of the adverse conditions under which nurses in the Northwest Territories frequently work, is the Treasury Board thinking of substantially increasing its wage offer to these people to bring their pay levels at least to parity with those of nurses under western provincial jurisdiction?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the pay arrangements for nurses have recently been determined by an arbitrator appointed by agreement of the parties. I think the hon. gentleman is aware that with respect to nurses serving in the north there are special allowances that are periodically reviewed to take into account changing cost of living standards.

October 30, 1973
Oral Questions


Walter (Wally) Firth: In view of the much greater responsibility of nurses working north of the 60th parallel than that of other nurses employed by the federal government, such as working without a doctor's supervision and evacuating emergency cases in light aircraft usually under adverse conditions, would the minister give consideration to danger pay for this group of nurses?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at the question of danger pay in respect of all those who are subject to it.


REQUEST BY NURSES IN YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES FOR REOPENING WAGE NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as minister of health for the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Has the minister received a telegram, to which I referred a day or two ago when I asked this question, from the various nursing associations in the Yukon and Northwest Territories requesting the reopening of negotiations to see whether or not a more realistic accommodation can be made with respect to those now coming under his jurisdiction?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, indeed I think I did receive such representations, but as I have already indicated, bargaining for nurses' salaries does not fall within my jurisdiction.


MANPOWER
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
When will local initiatives projects be presented to the constituency advisory groups?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: To answer very shortly, Mr. Speaker, we have received in excess of 14,000 applications totalling an estimated $419 million. We are processing these applications for delivery to the constituency advisory groups and others as quickly as possible.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-HOURS OF SERVICE OF MEMBERS OF CONSTITUENCY ADVISORY COMMITTEES
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: I have a supplementary for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can the minister indicate what action has been taken by his officials on the complaint that constituency advisory committees are being asked to meet during working hours rather than in the evenings as was the impression of many of them when they agreed to their nominations? Will he be advising his officials that these committees are to meet at such

times as are suitable to the committee members rather than to the civil servants as is now the case?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we are grateful to those people who have agreed to serve with these voluntary organizations. To the maximum degree possible we will try to accommodate the hours to their own working conditions, but we will on occasion possibly have to ask them to sacrifice some of that time since we are trying to meet fairly tight deadlines.


DETERMINATION OF PETROLEUM PRODUCT PRICES FOR EASTERN CANADA IN LIGHT OF PRICE FREEZE WEST OF OTTAWA VALLEY
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the minister's answer to me yesterday that the request for an increase in the price of petroleum products would apply only to the eastern section of Canada, are we to assume that the government intends to retain the price freeze for the area west of the Ottawa valley until at least January 30 and that any adjustments in the eastern section will be permitted by order of the National Energy Board in compliance with any increase in the price of imported crude?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition, I would hope to make an announcement on this question on November 1. One of the questions we have to consider with regard to the western section of the market is whether a price differential would be capable of creating a shortage of supply problem in Ontario.


OIL-RESULT OF MEETING BETWEEN MINISTER AND MEMBERS OF ALBERTA GOVERNMENT
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister inform the House of the outcome of the meeting he held yesterday with ministers of the Alberta government in respect of the energy crisis? Were any new federal policy positions placed before the provincial ministers at that time?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there was anything new that had not been discussed with them before. I think I can say there was an exchange on the question of the taxation of the Syncrude project and also with regard to the disposition of the proceeds of the export tax. We were engaged really in discussions anent to negotiations with regard to the disposition of those proceeds.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might be allowed a last supplementary and then I will recognize the hon. member for York East.
October 30, 1973


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I have a supplemenatry question in relation to the disposition of the tax revenue. Can the minister inform the House if any firm offer has been made to Alberta on the disposition of this income?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the matter was discussed on a negotiating basis only in consideration of other arrangements that might be made.


GASOLINE AND FUEL OIL-DETERMINATION OF ACTUAL COST INCREASES RELATED TO RETAIL PRICE INCREASES SINCE SEPTEMBER 4
Mr. Ian Arrol (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister has assured the House that on November 1 there will be a comprehensive statement regarding gasoline and fuel prices. Has he requested the National Energy Board, under the provisions of the National Energy Board Act which grant him such powers, to determine, prior to the formulation of his statement, the actual cost increases related to retail price increases in gasoline or fuel oil that have taken place since September 4?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board has been working with officials of my department in determining the costs in this industry in its very general sense.


Ian MacLachlan Arrol: Can the minister assure the House that he will not allow any such retail price increases to be made until a study of cost increases has been conducted and made public?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that is what we have been studying and my intention is to make it public on Thursday.


GASOLINE PRICE INCREASE IN QUEBEC-VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the statement made by the Prime Minister on September 13 supplementary to his initial statement on September 4 extending the price freeze requested by the Prime Minister to prices of gasoline, diesel oil and home heating fuel, would the right hon. gentleman confirm that the recently announced price increase is a direct violation of his government's guidelines?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Abiti-bi. Order, please. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris rises on a point of order.

I apologize to the hon. member for Abitibi for not recognizing him right now.
Oral Questions


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In the applause, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the Prime Minister's reply. Was it yes or no?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: The
answer was no, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that.
[ Translation]


SUGGESTION THAT PRIME MINISTER DISCUSS WITH PREMIER OF QUEBEC REMOVAL OR REDUCTION OF PROVINCIAL TAX ON GASOLINE AND HEATING OIL
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister.
Since a totalitarian government was swept into power in Quebec last night, could the Prime Minister get in touch with his Quebec counterpart and discuss the possibility of the Quebec government removing or at least reducing the tax on gas and heating fuel in order to prevent the forthcoming price increase?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the smiles which greeted the hon. member's question can be explained in the same way as those which greeted the remarks of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe. We do not smile because of the Liberal victory but rather because of the hon. member's prediction at a press conference that the government elected yesterday would be a minority government.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I should ask a supplementary or return to the first question. I think the right hon. Prime Minister forgot to answer it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to point out that there certainly is a difference between what the hon. member calls a totalitarian government and what the other hon. member calls a minority government.


Gérard Laprise: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Abitibi is rising on a point of order.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I think I asked the Prime Minister a fairly clear question, that is whether he would consider getting in touch with his Quebec counterpart in order to convince him to remove or reduce the tax on gas and heating oil, to avoid the imminent price increase.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe I shall be meeting the Premier of Quebec very soon. First of all, I will want to congratulate him on his brilliant victory. I can assure the hon. member that in our discussions we will bear in mind the respective jurisdictions of Quebec and the federal government. I do not intend to suggest to him a particular course in the taxation field which comes under his jurisdiction.

October 30, 1973
Oral Questions


OIL-SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF MARKETING BOARD TO PURCHASE DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN CRUDE IN ORDER TO AVERAGE PRICE ACROSS CANADA
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that crude oil west of the Ottawa line is now at a lower price and hopefully will continue to be a lower price, while east of that line the price will be higher, is the minister giving consideration to establishing a marketing board that will purchase both domestic and foreign crude with a view to averaging the price so that all Canadians will pay the same price and, hopefully, a lower price?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday four ministers representing the government of Alberta, together with my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and myself, reviewed the arrangements between the companies comprising the consortium called Syncrude and the province of Alberta to see whether they could be made to fit in with the announced guidelines for mining taxation policy. Further to that, officials met yesterday afternoon. I had a further meeting this morning with Gordon Miniely, the Minister of Finance of Alberta, and we will continue these negotiations.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. As a result of the meetings between nurses under federal jurisdiction and ministers of the government, referred to Friday by the minister, can he advise whether the government is taking any action on their representations, and has the minister yet made any, attempt to meet with representatives of the nurses?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, a meeting has been arranged of representatives of the nurses' association and myself for tomorrow.


TAR SANDS OIL-RELATION TO TAXABLE INCOME OF PROVINCIAL ROYALTIES PAYABLE BY SYNCRUDE
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary arising out of a previous question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Does the government accept the position that provincial royalties payable by Syncrude will be calculated as a pre-tax charge on income, and is the minister now satisfied that no federal impediment remains to the development of the Syncrude project?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, a question of taxation of that kind would relate to the responsibilities of my colleague, the Minister of Finance.


Charles Joseph Clark: Then I direct my question to the Minister of Finance.


Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. In light of the placing last August of an embargo on Canadian beef going to the United States, which was considered by the government important enough to call a special cabinet meeting before putting it into force, why is it, considering the disastrous position in which Canadian beef producers now find themselves, a special cabinet meeting was not called last weekend to consider the steps necessary to protect these beef producers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt as to a question asked in those terms. The hon. member is not seeking information. He is presenting an argument in support of his case. Perhaps he would like to ask his question in other terms.


William Charles Frank: Is any special cabinet meeting now being considered as was the case when an embargo was imposed last August?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, cabinet meetings are called at my behest. The matter of time is one of internal administration. I call them as often as I find it necessary.


William Charles Frank: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. In light of the minister's statement yesterday that he has been in constant communication with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association discussing imposition of a further tariff on American overfat cattle and dressed beef coming into Canada and in light of the Statistics Canada report that the farm input price index rose 7.3 per cent in the third quarter of this year, can the minister inform the House of any further results of those meetings?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have been in touch with my colleagues, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. If there is anything to be said changing current policy, it will be said.
October 30, 1973


INQUIRY AS TO SALE OF FEED GRAINS BY WHEAT BOARD TO MANITOBA MILLS AT LOWER PRICES THAN SET BY PROVINCIAL COMMISSION
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Is the Canadian Wheat Board offering feed grains for sale to feed mills in Manitoba at prices lower than those set by the Manitoba Feed Grains Commission? If so, is it violating the regulations of that provincial commission?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the regulations would have any effect. The price at which the Canadian Wheat Board is prepared to offer is based on its selling price out of Thunder Bay, less freight. I am not sure exactly what price is being charged or set in Manitoba by the government because it seems to change that price quite frequently. I will determine the comparative levels and try to get an answer for the hon. member.


William Gordon Ritchie: In view of the fact the Manitoba Feed Grains Commission set the price on barley at $2.24 on Monday, considerably less than the Wheat Board, who has jurisdiction over the price of feed grains in the province?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, obviously that is asking for a legal conclusion.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of the continuing tension at the British Columbia Penitentiary and the fact that a gun was found there last weekend as well as a box of shells, will the minister reconsider his position and set up an independent inquiry into the penitentiary riot?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, as I said in the House on a previous occasion, we do not think the answer to the problem at the British Columbia Penitentiary is another inquiry. I want to say that since last weekend we have transferred out of the B.C. Penitentiary 43 inmates in addition to the 60 already transferred. Also, included in the recent number of transfers were eight of the most difficult inmates. They were transferred to other maximum security institutions across the country.


John Douglas Reynolds: Can the Solicitor General advise to which maximum security institution the eight of the worst offenders were sent?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, four were transferred to the Ontario region, two who were French speaking were transferred to the Laval temporary maximum institution in Quebec and two were transferred to Dorchester, New Brunswick.
Oral Questions


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I pose to the minister the prospect that another inquiry into the penitentiary riot is not required but rather an independent inquiry into the headquarters staff of the penitentiary service here in Ottawa from where most of the problems emanate. Will the minister engage in that kind of inquiry?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, there have been many inquiries of that nature. I repeat that last week we asked for an independent inquiry into the B.C. Penitentiary by the correctional investigator. I am awaiting her report.


Erik Nielsen: In view of the apparent misinformation the minister has been supplying to members of the House, including the hon. member for Burna-by-Richmond-Delta and the fact that apparently this misinformation is funnelled to the minister by his own staff, and in view of the potentially explosive situation requiring urgent attention at the B.C. Penitentiary, will he consider the prospect of an independent inquiry, not only into present conditions there but into the apparent breakdown in the administration of that penitentiary, before something really serious happens and the place becomes a parking lot after the next incident?


William Warren Allmand: I would be interested to know what misinformation the hon. member alleges I am giving to the House. We have been taking action at the B.C. Penitentiary. We have held two inquiries since the summer. We have transferred 100 inmates or more. I might say also that the director of the penitentiary will be retiring shortly, a new director will be appointed. Improvements are being made at the institution.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


LEGISLATION COVERING OIL EXPORT TAX-DATE OF INTRODUCTION
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that notice of a ways and means motion dealing with the oil export tax has been before the House for over a month, and in light of the fact the government has been collecting this tax without the approval of parliament for 30 days, can the minister tell the House whether legislation is being prepared in this regard and when we can expect it to be brought down?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Sir, legislation is being prepared. This is one of the questions now under discussion with the government of Alberta. I would want to clarify the position taken by that government to a somewhat greater extent before we bring the matter forward for debate.

October 30, 1973
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


COMPOSITION OF CANADIAN ELEMENT IN MIDDLE EAST PEACE FORCE-EFFECT ON OTHER COMMITMENTS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esguimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence relating to the statement we heard this afternoon about the sending of a force to the Middle East. I think the House and the country would like to know the composition of this contingent, which units and support services have been selected, what materiel they will be required to take with them by way of aircraft, communications equipment and so on, and where they will be stationed.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: I believe we will be able to give the hon. member and the House this information in great detail during the debate. I can say, however, that the organizational structure of the force being sent overseas will be based on the Canadian Airborne Regiment in Edmonton. Other specialists will be added to that structure. We will be sending trucks, some aircraft and also communications equipment.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: My question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. Can the Minister of National Defence tell the House exactly how many troops this Middle East commitment will involve? Is it 1400, as reported, or is it less or more than that figure? Can he also tell the House whether the provision of such troops engaged in logistics support will in any way comprise our operations in Canada, Europe, Cyprus or anywhere else where they are stationed?


James Armstrong Richardson: The planning is still proceeding. The exact number of troops is not known but it will be at least
1,000	and not more than 1,500, so the figure of 1,400 mentioned by the hon. member is in the range. The equipment and personnel we will be sending will not adversely affect our operations in Canada or our commitments to NATO.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I notice there are perhaps five or six members who are seeking supplementaries on this subject. I wonder whether hon. members ought not to feel they are anticipating an order of the day since it is my understanding there is to be a debate or a statement on motions. It seems to me hon. members are seeking information which normally ought to be given by way of a statement on motions which I hope will be made very soon. Perhaps we should try not to ask too many supplementaries on this subject.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Solicitor General arising from conflicting information concerning the seizure of

pinball machines and other gambling devices. Has this action been ordered by the federal government, and is there any evidence that the Mafia is involved?


William Warren Allmand: I have no information regarding that matter, Mr. Speaker. I will check and give an answer to the hon. member later.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, this question is addressed to the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries. When can we expect a report on the special study into the possible effects of closing east coast Canadian ports to foreign fishing fleets, presently being carried out by Mr. Ernest Weeks, Chairman of the Canadian Saltfish Corporation?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Toward the end of the year, Mr. Speaker.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Communications whether, in view of the fact Bell Canada is currently installing equipment which can only become operational upon the approval of its application B, he is in a position to assure the House that Bell Canada has not received any prior indication that any part of this application will be approved by the CTC?


Mr. Speaker:: While that question is being considered, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Lisgar.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In light of the recent statement by the Manitoba Minister of Industry that the recent air route agreement falls short of meeting Manitoba's regional requirements as discussed at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference, will the minister renegotiate the terms of the agreement which allocated 28 routes to the United States and only 18 to Canada?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: This is something I intend to look into, Mr. Speaker.
October 30, 1973


Jack Burnett Murta: In view of the fact that Transair Limited of Winnipeg has been denied the opportunity to compete with Northwest Airlines Incorporated of St. Paul, Minnesota, on the Winnipeg-Minneapolis route, and in view of the fact this perpetuates Manitoba's dependence on United States carriers, will the minister do more than simply look into this? Will he work on behalf of Manitoba by competing for these economically beneficial routes which would certainly help the province?


Jean Marchand: This is a matter which is related to the bilateral agreement with the United States which has not yet been ratified either by Washington or by Ottawa.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Last Thursday the minister stated that the fertilizer association had told him there was no shortage of fertilizer in Canada. In view of the fact that farmers in the Okanagan Valley are presently short 1,000 tons of fertilizer, with no commitments received from the manufacturers, would the hon. gentleman cause an investigation to be made into the shortage of fertilizer in British Columbia?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: We have already finalized our meetings with the fertilizer manufacturers. I am asking for reports on fertilizer shortages and tracing these shortages down. We had found none up to the time I entered the House.


George H. Whittaker: It is the users and distributors of fertilizers that are short and the manufacturers are not entering into any commitments with them. Would the minister check with the users and the distributors and carry out an investigation of the shortage in British Columbia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assume that is a representation. The hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore might be allowed at this point to return to his earlier question to see whether a reply is forthcoming.


COMMUNICATIONS
Terrence Wyly Grier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question to the Minister of Communications is: In view of the fact that Bell Canada is currently installing equipment which can only become operational upon the approval of Application B which is shortly to go before the CTC, is the hon. gentleman in a position to assure the House that Bell Canada has not in fact received any prior indication that this portion of its application will in fact be approved?
Oral Questions


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Apologizing for my absentmindedness a few moments ago, I think I can give such an assurance to the hon. member.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Elmer MacKay (Central Nova):: I have a supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Lisgar. In light of the statement made by the Minister of Transport yesterday to the effect that Canada will have to make concessions in relation to the air agreement with the United States, can the hon. gentleman briefly indicate the nature of those concessions or tell us when he will be doing so?


Jean Marchand: course not, Mr. Speaker. Negotiations are being carried on right now and I do not intend to say what kind of concessions are going to be made.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Keeping in mind that the air charter routes are more beneficial than direct routes because of present traffic patterns, will the minister assure us he will stick to his guns and commit himself firmly to hard negotiations affecting Canada's charter position?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again, the hon. member has made a representation. We might try to allow two or three quick questions before the end of the question period. The hon. member for Assiniboia has a supplementary, I believe.


BILATERAL AGREEMENT ON ROUTES WITH UNITED STATES-POSSIBLE RENEGOTIATION OF ONE ROUTE FOR SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that in the negotiations regarding air routes with the United States the province of Saskatchewan was entirely left out in terms of any north-south routes, and in view of the fact the Attorney General of the province of Saskatchewan has tabled with the minister a complete economic study showing why these routes would be feasible, would the minister inform the House whether he has taken it upon himself to attempt to renegotiate at least one route for the province of Saskatchewan, either from Saskatoon or Regina?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have been briefed by the government of Saskatchewan on this and it is something we are now studying, but to relate the whole negotiations to that particular aspect is quite difficult at this moment.

October 30,1973
Oral Questions POST OFFICE


RURAL MAIL CARRIERS-ACTION TO INCREASE PAY IN LIGHT OP HIGHER COSTS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. In view of the rapidly increasing price of motor fuels and other costs of rural mail carriers, does the Postmaster General plan to take any action to improve the financial situation of the rural mail contractors to compensate them for the effects of inflation?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to announce measures along this line within a couple of weeks.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that communications and correspondence relating to a sufferance warehouse in the town of Renfrew have been going on since March of 1973 between the minister and me, and for two years prior to that with my predecessor, would the minister indicate whether or not permission for such a warehouse will be granted?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that question could be put on the order paper. If there is urgency, perhaps the hon. member would not mind giving me notice and he would be given priority on the order of business for the adjournment debate.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, I did try to indicate that not only have I written to and communicated with the minister, which is just as good, I think, as putting a question on the order paper, but there has been no response on this question which is vital to this community and has been for two and a half years.


Mr. Speaker:: That is hardly a point of order. I appreciate the hon. member's point, but that is the very purpose of what is referred to by hon. members as the late show. When the Speaker is judged to be wrong, as he very often is, hon. members have an opportunity of giving notice that they wish to have an urgent matter considered a few hours later. If the matter has waited two and a half years, perhaps it could wait a few more hours and I will ensure that the question is given priority.


Mr. Stanbury:: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. I do not suppose Your Honour knows what it is yet so perhaps I can at least state it.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister rises on a point of order.


Richard J. Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the impression should be left that I do not answer the hon. member's inquiries. The answer, unfortunately, has been no.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, may I assk the government House leader whether he can tell us when we should prepare ourselves for the debate on Canada's participation in UNEF.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, it would be my intention, if a debate is required, to put the resolution before the House on Friday so that hon. members would have an opportunity to prepare.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
(No. 2)

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, October 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-224, to amend the Canada Pension Plan, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, last night before the adjournment hour I had pointed out to the House, as had some of my colleagues previously, that the bill does not offer a solution to the problems faced by one or other partner in a family unit who outlives his or her spouse. This is particularly true of the housewife who is denied the privilege of participating in the fund since society has never considered her activities important enough to qualify for recognition as a member of the labour force. I also pointed out that the fund must provide in the future for those people who have not worked up to the age set by the fund but have felt that their savings would carry them for the rest of their days. Those people in our society must also be allowed access to the fund.
I congratulated the minister for his apparent success in dealing with his provincial counterparts, but I would point out to him that some of the concern expressed by my colleagues and myself was also expressed by the provincial ministers. For example, Norman Levi, the minister from British Columbia, had this to say:
In particular we would like to see alterations to the Canada Pension Plan to provide for substantially higher retirement,
October 30,1973

widows, widows with dependent children, and disability pensions. We would also like to see consideration given to the possibilities of extending coverage to spouses of contributors and to a lowering of the age when retirement benefits can be made available.
Other provinces pushed for three basic objectives. First of all, they asked for a substantial increase in benefits and contended that Canada Pension Plan benefits should be increased significantly to bear a realistic relationship to the needs of pensioners as living costs and wage levels increase. Second, they asked for immediate steps to be taken to reorient the CPP to more adequate pension levels. With regard to parallelism, they contended that in order to rebuild national pension harmony the third objective should be to re-establish parallelism between the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan. This objective should be sought in line with, not at the expense of, the first two objectives.
The province of Ontario proposed that the earnings ceiling be raised to $9,500 in 1975 compared with the federal proposal of $7,800. Under the Ontario proposal, the maximum pension would be $192 a month beginning in 1976, compared with $160 a month under the federal proposal. The Ontario proposal also called for the elimination of the earnings test for pensioners between the age of 65 and 69; for CPP retirement pensions to be made available to people between the ages of 60 and 64 on a reduced basis; for increased benefits for widows aged 60 and over; and for equal treatment for men and women with respect to survivors benefits.
The Hon. Bruce L. Stewart from Prince Edward Island said that this plan should provide a one step benefit station, without the need for further resources, to provincial assistance schemes or other benefit plans. This, of course, is in line with what I said last night, as did others before me, namely that some of the OAS and CPP schemes be amalgamated. Numerous other suggestions were advanced by the provinces and, hopefully, the minister will consider them at the time some of the final steps in his total social security program are taken.
Looking very briefly at the performance of the fund over the years from 1965 and 1966 and the present day, we find that many or all of these proposals are possible for the future. At the present time the fund has an excessive amount of money in it. In order to keep my figures correct I shall come back to this later; I cannot find them in my notes at the moment.
The task force on social security said of Canada's pension plan that it had had little effect on poverty in Canada so far, and questioned whether the plan will ever have the effect that the government expected it to have and which the minister said it would have. Even if the plan were to reach maturity in 1973 the combined annual income from the CPP, the QPP and the OAS would only be $2,600 per year, and the $1,400 CPP or QPP pension would preclude anything but a token payment under the guaranteed income supplement program. The combined total of payments under CPP and QPP and OAS do not compare very favourably with the 1973 Senate poverty line for a single individual which is set at $2,650.
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
As an anti-poverty measure the CPP suffers from the same basic defect as unemployment insurance because benefits are related to income. Therefore, if you tend to live in poverty before retirement this pattern will be perpetuated by the pension scheme. It should also be noted that in the calculation of eligibility for the income-tested guaranteed income supplement CPP and QPP benefits must be counted as income and, hence, for every dollar received through these programs there is a 50-cent reduction in the guaranteed income supplement.
The task force also makes a serious analysis of the dilemma in which housewives and divorced mothers find themselves, and points out that CPP and the QPP are designed to complement old age security but displace and improve upon the guaranteed income supplement for the aged who have been in the labour force. However, this raises a serious question as to why housewives are not included in the pension plan. Housewives are now eligible for both old age security and the income supplement. Should a woman, therefore, who has spent the better part of her life raising children and tending to family matters be excluded from the Canada Pension Plan? If a wife is predeceased by her husband who is eligible for CPP or QPP payments, the wife can claim a widow's allowance, but what of women whose husbands have deserted or divorced them? A wife who is divorced by her husband loses all rights to the widow's pension and, under these circumstances, has to fall back on the acknowledged inadequate payments offered by old age security and the guaranteed income supplement.
My distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), paid tribute to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) last evening for the diligence with which he applies himself to his job. He has in this parliament been more productive than any of his colleagues. He has introduced several bills all designed to push up the ceiling on some things. He has dealt twice this year with old age security measures, and has made adjustments to the family allowances program as well on two occasions. This has all been done in order to protect those unfortunate Canadians from the growing cancer in our economic system, inflation.
Maybe this bright new star in the government ranks could be motivated to assist his colleagues in the serious dilemma in which they find themselves, and in finding a solution to the increased cost of living and inflation problems. I give the minister credit for not repeating what his colleague, for instance the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), has done. The Unemployment Insurance Commission had a ceiling of $800 million on its borrowing from the government when parliament commenced this session in January. Rumours have it now that contributors and taxpayers will have to find some $2,400 million to keep some of Canada's work force idle. These are the hard facts, regardless of how the statistics are adjusted, seasonally or otherwise. The minister has pushed up the ceiling so high he has not yet realized that the lid has blown off and the roof has caved in. I just worry about how we will ever face the impossible task of cleaning up the mess after Canadians have had the opportunity of relieving the present government and their

October 30, 1973
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
friends to ray left from their jobs, in which they have displayed a high degree of incompetence.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by repeating briefly what has been said very thoroughly by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). We wish to compliment the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) on this piece of legislation, as far as it goes. Let me say that it does move in a direction very much to our taste. We like the idea of fully escalating the benefits, which I understand will run from the beginning of the plan as though there never had been this 2 per cent ceiling. We also like the new earnings ceilings which have been established for 1974 and 1975. This is a good feature of the new bill.
Let me now say something about the Minister of National Health and Welfare which has not been said during this debate. We worry a good deal about the stresses and strains which tend to pull the provinces apart. When I heard the minister state yesterday that the changes to be made by this bill had been agreed to unanimously by the provinces, I made up my mind to express the feeling that this minister is doing more than any other member on the other side to achieve a measure of unity in this country. He has not tried to browbeat the provinces like recalcitrant children, but has outlined his schemes to the provinces. He has not acted like a father who knows best and suggested they would have to sign on the dotted line, but has asked for their opinions, their suggestions and proposed amendments. Furthermore, he has listened and taken account of their suggestions in drafting his legislation. I believe he has done a great deal for this country, allowing us to realize that no matter what the differences of opinion are, and they are very deep and dividing among the provinces, there is a possibility of making social security measures work in a co-operative way by finding common ground among the provinces.
If a minister of national health and welfare had risen in this House a few years ago and said there was unanimous agreement in respect of a social measure of this type, we would have been inclined to think he was dreaming or that we were dreaming. This minister has proven that this can be done and I compliment him on his method of working with the provinces. I hope this method will be extended to many other fields. Before I complete my remarks I will be pointing out some of his shortcomings, but I wanted to make those remarks today because I firmly believe them.
One thing which seems most regrettable in connection with this piece of legislation is the fact that it is being considered as the type of bill the opposition will not be able to amend. I think it would be a very good thing if it were left open for us to move appropriate amendments, which could be considered in the committee and then later in this House. I know the point of order involved to the effect that this involves the expenditure of money, but anything that is worthwhile in this House does involve such an expenditure. It would be better if members were given leeway in respect of moving amendments instead of having to plead with the minister to introduce certain amendments which he might find it difficult to do.

If we could introduce amendments we might even have some hope of getting them through, but if we should ask the minister to introduce amendments, most of which perhaps he has been pressed to introduce already and has turned down, then I do not think there is a likelihood of having them adopted. However, I should like to mention some of the important amendments we have in mind. I wish to begin by pointing out that the main amendment that is necessary is one to provide equality in the Canada Pension Plan for women along with men. I realize this point has been discussed, but I wish to go into it more thoroughly. I believe it is not only a bad oversight, but is a very definite wrong to the women of this country not to include this amendment in the Canada Pension Plan bill which is before us.
It is three years since the Royal Commission on the Status of Women completed its report which was tabled in this House. At page 81 of this report I find the following:
The most significant sex difference in the Canada Pension Plan lies in the benefits provided for the spouse and children of a contributor. The husband of a female contributor is not entitled to any pension unless he is disabled at the time of her death and was being maintained wholly or substantially by her before her death. Nor are children of a female contributor entitled to any benefits unless 'the child was, in prescribed circumstances, being maintained wholly or substantially' by her. Under section 527 (1) of the Canadian Pension Plan Regulations, being maintained 'wholly or substantially' means that 'the support in cash, kind or services, other than services provided by way of normal household or family duties as a mother or wife, that a deceased female contributor had provided for the necessaries of life, health, welfare, care, education or advancement of her dependent child or her disabled husband was, in the opinion of the Director, equal in amount or value to more than 50% of any such support provided for those purposes by (a) all persons in respect of her dependent child; or (b) all persons except his or her dependent child, in respect of her disabled husband.'
I have read this because it is three years since, in very clear and unmistakable language, the Commission which travelled all over Canada and registered the opinion of the women of Canada laid down the principle that the survivor benefits under the Canada Pension Plan should be made equal in respect of men and women. This, I believe, was a very clear and unmistakable line of operation.
Since that time the ministers in charge of implementing measures concerning women have said they are studying the matter. We know that this proposal to have the survivor benefits equal as between men and women has been discussed, not only at the departmental and ministerial levels but also with the provinces. So far nothing has issued from these discussions. We know that every large womens' organization in the country has been seeking this particular measure. Just yesterday the National Council of Women, probably the largest and best known of any womens organization in this country and certainly I believe the most representative of the various types of women across this country, said this in a precis of its brief: In the matter of fringe benefits and pension plans, Council asks that all references to sex and marital status be eliminated so that women would benefit equally under the provisions of the Canada Labour Code.
The National Council of Women, the Status of Women Organization, the Business and Professional Women and
October 30, 1973

all womens' groups have been pressing for this amendment. What does the government do? The government welcomes these women with open arms and, while it folds them to its heart, it says no so far as giving them this equality. This is not good enough. The women of this country want an amendment to the Canada Pension Plan now to provide that, following the death of one spouse the benefit of the Canada Pension Plan will be paid to the surviving spouse and the dependent children on the same basis, regardless of the sex of the surviving spouse. That is what they want. It is perfectly clear.
Not very long ago the Liberal convention made very clear that this is indeed what it wanted. It was the same thing. I shall quote from some information that was sent me following the meeting. They say, for example, in respect of the Canada Pension Plan a man's dollar buys a pension for his widow if she has dependent children or if she is over 25 or if she is disabled. They say further that a woman's dollar buys a pension for her widower only if he is disabled, was disabled at the time of her death and was dependent on her for support prior to her death. For example, a man's orphans get benefits if they can prove relationship; a woman's orphans get benefits if they can prove relationship and if they can prove that there was major financial dependence on her. So, the resolution of the Liberal Party was that the Canada Pension Plan be modified so that the survivors of all contributors receive equal benefits.
That is the first amendment I would ask the minister now to consider bringing to the Canada Pension Plan. We opposition members are precluded from so doing by the rules of this House. In other words, under the Canada Pension Plan when a woman is on the paying end she is equal, but when she is on the receiving end she is second class. Women wish to receive the same benefit in respect of their payment into the Canada Pension Plan that men receive in respect of their payment. I do not think there is any excuse for this being denied any longer.
The second amendment I would like to see is an amendment to make full benefits under the Canada Pension Plan available to the surviving spouse of a contributor who, by reason of illness, injury or death was prevented from making sufficient payments to qualify for a pension under the Canada Pension Plan. All of us in this House have received many letters of distress from people who point out that the payments made by them or their spouse were not sufficient to qualify for pensions under the Canada Pension Plan. In all justice, I believe this situation should be corrected because many people are in a position where benefits are not received automatically in the face of injury, disablement or death. When a man contributes to the Canada Pension Plan, immediately he dies the full benefits go to the widow and the dependent children, but if a woman contributor dies these benefits are not automatic. They go to the estate, and then all those conditions which I earlier laid out are very carefully looked at. This is not right. We must have equality or the pension plan is not fulfilling its purpose.
The third amendment is the one on which I believe we must place the greatest stress. This is the matter which has been dealt with already by a number of members, although they have not all dealt with it in the same way. It
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
is in respect of the situation where there is a married couple, one of whom is out earning the bread and contributing to the Canada Pension Plan, while the other is doing the work of the home. But it is only the one person who is covered under the existing legislation. There are members of all parties who now say where there is a married couple and where the housewife, mother or partner is at home, he or she should be entitled to share in the Canada Pension Plan as a contributor and as a full recipient.
There is a difference of opinion as to how that should be done. Yesterday, one hon. member said that the housewife should be able to contribute herself, pay the contributions herself. I ask you: how many housewives with small children at home are in a position to pay their share to the CPP? That is the good old question that used to be asked of our party so often; where will they get the money? I suppose they could go through the old man's pockets if he is unwary enough to leave his money lying around where they can have access to it-if there is anything left, which is another matter. However, I do not think that is a fair position in which to put a woman. She has no money of her own, but why should she have to go to her husband and ask him for enough money to allow her to contribute to the CPP? Women are not of that type any more.
Perhaps there used to be women who just adored getting down on their knees and begging their lords and masters for a few cents with which to buy something they really needed. But that type of woman disappeared a long time ago; she no longer exists. The present day woman wants to stand on her own feet, economically and emotionally. I see the minister shaking his head. Oh, yes, she does. If any of you have the other kind of woman, watch out because she will not stay that way long in the modern world. They are changing very quickly. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) put the matter in the correct perspective, in my view, when he said that marriage is a partnership. Any decent kind of marriage is. When one of the partners is out in the community doing work and the other one is doing work at home, they are none the less both carrying a fair measure of the work of that partnership and both of them should be entitled to share fully in the benefits of social security in all its phases.
There are many people in the minister's department who could very well work out ways and means of achieving that. For example, we could take the joint income of the couple. In some cases the woman has a job; perhaps she has part time work. Let the incomes of both husband and wife be put together, and let them together make a contribution from whatever joint income they have. Let this be considered as a partnership in respect of the CPP. If the woman has no other source of income, heaven knows that she is doing her full share with a group of small children at home, looking after the home, her husband and his needs, and that kind of thing. If that is not satisfactory, why not take another look at my proposal from away back, which is to make available to that woman a salary for the work she is doing in bringing up the future citizens of this country? If she is given a salary, she will be able to pay her own way in CPP and she will have her own money with which to do it.

October 30, 1973
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
Let the minister not think that he will get away much longer with having these groups of women coming patiently down here to Ottawa, groups such as the National Council of Women, the Business and Professional Women's Association, and the Status of Women groups from all across the country, being polite and impressed with what they hear. Furthermore, they will not go on believing him because for three years now they have been told: "we will seriously consider the matter. There are many ways in which the matter of pensions can be looked at". That is what the orange paper said, and the white paper said something similar. The women want their recommendations embodied in the Canada Pension Plan now.
Something has occurred to me, Mr. Speaker, and now I must put in a word of criticism. I think that yesterday the minister was very cavalier and offhand in the way he treated the delegation of the National Council of Women when they came to ask that old age security pensions be raised to $150 a month. After all, they are asking for something that has already been requested, something that is popular in many sections of this country. Indeed, in the province from which I come a pension of about $200 is assured to elderly people who have no other means of support. So, these women were not asking for something impractical. Yet, according to the newspapers-perhaps the newspapers are wrong and I hope they are-the minister brushed them off with impatience saying that this would cost a big sum of money and was not practical.
I was around here long before the minister, and I remember the very first time members of the small CCF group here asked that jobs be made available and means be provided to keep the unemployed from starving. They were told by the then minister of labour-who unfortunately met his untimely death in an airplane accident since then, a fine man-that this could not possibly be done, that to put the unemployed to work would cost $25 million and would bankrupt the country. Later, whenever proposals for social security measures were put forward, they were fought on the same grounds, that they were not financially possible.
In this case the minister said that the women had not done their homework. Perhaps they have been doing their homework but the minister has not been in the home long enough to do some of his. The minister must know that $150 is not unreasonable for our senior citizens. Furthermore, unless the minister and his government can find a way of coping with inflation, the demand of these women will be renewed, and I predict that it will not be very long before it is granted, no matter what government is in power. So, I regret that the minister brushed them off in that cavalier way. Had he said that undoubtedly this will come before very long because we are having to consider measures for shoring-up income, that would have been a different story because the minister has been doing that in many fields. I do not like to hear the minister give stereotype answers which go way back to the time of the Ark, when it has been proven time and time again that the demands have been met when they have been strong enough.
There is one thing that I like about the minister's outlook, and that is that he is considering the matter of social

security, not as a group of unrelated measures but as an interrelated concept. That is what we must have. I wish that my colleagues to my right would stop being so schizophrenic. They make me smile because, first, they start pushing a measure forward, such as old age pensions, the Canada Pension Plan, and so on, and half way through they become frightened and say to themselves that they cannot go on with it because of the effect it will have on the tax rate. Later, they forget and go back to it, saying to themselves that we must have more of these things so that people can live.
Let me suggest to my friends to the right, hon. members in the Progressive Conservative party, that if they could only forget the second half of their name and become a little more progressive they would realize that when you impose a tax you are not throwing money down the drain. When you consider the paying of taxes, you must look at the value of what you get for the taxes you pay. If you get peace of mind and physical comfort for the elderly people, you get something worthwhile. If you get a chance for women to stand on their own feet, economically, politically, socially and emotionally, you get something for which it is worth paying money. If you are getting all these things, it is worth while paying money for them. Just consider that before you become frightened at the idea of what these measures will cost the taxpayers, because so long as the large corporations make the kind of money they are making these days there are some taxpayers who are not paying nearly what they should.
These are the things I wanted to say today, Mr. Speaker. I wish the minister would provide us with a large and pleasant surprise, realizing our inability to move these amendments because of the rules. I wish he would take a sober second look at the Canada Pension Plan and, if he cannot make these changes in this bill, at least tell us that he intends to make them when he gets around to introducing the promised second bill. If they will not fit into that second promised bill, let him tell us they will be incorporated in another bill. Anyway, as long he gets these things done before Christmas nobody will worry. That would be a nice Christmas present this year.
Let me urge on the minister that it is not good enough for the government to go around giving lip service to the rights of women. We have not begun to touch most of the major recommendations in the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. The government may not have too long to do this before it plays the death bed scene. It is not a moment too soon for it to begin going through this bible of women's rights and seeing which recommendations can be implemented now. The Canada Pension Plan is an excellent place to start.
[ Translation]


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity that is given to us to consider all steps taken by the House of Commons in the field of pensions since the opening of the present session last January.
This form of security has been considered as very important, first in the Speech from the Throne and then in details on January 11 by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), whe even dealt in with family
October 30, 1973

allowances and all welfare measures for disadvantaged families and adult citizens continuously unemployed.
The speech of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, delivered on January 11, 1973, gives a summary of the results of many studies that have been carried out over 40 years in the whole field of public social security.
I think we must be grateful to the minister and his close assistants for the real effort that was made this year in this House to clear up this complex area of both personal and family social security, which is the main subject of our parliamentary work.
Looking at it from the point of view of ordinary citizens, those who most need these pensions, grants and allowances of all kinds, I note three main expressions of everyday's language: all these plans are much too sophisticated, we do not understand anything in them; despite all the increases, we are not better off; notwhthstanding increasing misery, companies are expanding.
That is what the people say, this is their everyday way of speaking. Here now is how the Minister of National Health and Welfare put it, as recorded on page 197 of Hansard for January 11 in his maiden speech as member of Parliament of Canada, and I quote:
. . . that the Canadian people have clearly indicated to the House of Commons .. . that the social security system which the federal and provincial authorities built over the years as a patch work job no longer meets their wishes. ... They also see in it contradictions and even some confusion and, moreover, weak spots unequal to the needs the system is supposed to meet.
Mr. Speaker, we see that the minister is well aware of the disorderly situation concerning the administration of social security measures in Canada. If there is general confusion in the pension plan, subsidies and allowances, can we say that things are clearing or clouding up furthermore?
In the amendments now before us, for instance, is the escalation of pensions based on the cost of living increase a process likely to satisfy the people who need this legislation?
I draw to the attention of the House the one following point. Even though, in the past, pensions were increased by 2 per cent where the increase in the cost of living was 6 or 7 per cent, we see here a slight improvement in that the increase will be proportionate to the cost of living increase without a 2 per cent ceiling. But after thinking about the fact that this piece of legislation is aimed at helping those on low income we noticed that here again they will least benefit from higher pensions and the rich will get more out of it. With that 7 per cent raise those with an annual income of $7,400 will get an increase of $500 a year whereas those receiving allowances of $12 a month will be richer by only 84 cents a month.
All that is part of the same government policy which is felt at all levels. For example, they never fail to increase big salaries from $40,000 to over $50,000 or $60,000 for departmental officials. Interest rates range between 5 per cent and per cent on government bonds which means that a millionnaire will receive an interest of $75,000 a year on his million instead of $50,000, an increase of 50 per cent.
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
I also point out those two striking examples to save time but I could quote a host of other items which show that it has been the policy of this government for many years always to help the rich and large corporations to the detriment of human beings, families, and small or middle companies or co-operatives.
All this shows quite well that the time has come to make a more thorough investigation not only of our whole system of social security as it affects underprivileged individuals and families living on a single man's salary but the whole system as revenues, expenditures, surpluses, reserves and privileges granted to national or multinational, millionnaire or multimillionnaire companies. That is the essential point on which I felt I had to bring the attention of this House if the national economy is to be really straightened out for the benefit of all Canadians. If during the last 30 years the government of Canada agreed to administer old age security pensions and family allowances according to simple and very understandable formulas for the citizens who needed it most, why not go on administering in the same way instead of submitting these pensions and allowances to a very complicated and incomprehensible system of comparisons, indexes and algebraic ratios which ordinary citizens cannot fathom?
I quite agree that the superior knowledge of the government is useful to great specialists who launch satellites towards the moon. They can use their mechanical or electronic brains to figure out the millions and billions of dollars but when it comes to cents and dollars to ensure or to complete the personal guaranteed income of Canadian citizens without work or capital, I think the people would be more appreciative of the government if it used clear figures and fixed amounts within the grasp of the intellectual faculties of interested citizens.
Everybody knows that pensions in 1944 stood at $20 a month and today they amount to $100, with a supplement of about $70, which makes $170. But now the pension amounts to $179.16; we do not know how or why and Canadians are beginning to grumble precisely because we no longer know where we are going. I think these remarks have some weight because they are the expression of the people's language which we should try to understand, even when one becomes Minister of National Health and Welfare. I mean no harm to the minister or to his close officials who certainly have all the university degrees recommending them to the qualified authorities.
Let us leave great complicated works to high science and keep simple and accurate figures for the essential needs of the people who give their naive confidence to university graduates who control governments and big national and multinational, private or public companies which have millions and billions of dollars. All this would be possible by being simple with simple people, even if we like complicating reasonings and laws with the help of learned and complicated citizens. The greatest causes of misunderstanding do not lie between languages, but between various levels of communication within the same language. The second remark of the people concerning pensions, grants or allowances is as follows: In spite of all increases granted, we are not better off.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, when aged people received their pension cheques last month and when people on welfare

October 30, 1973
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
got their allowances, it was thought appropriate to eliminate the monthly increase of $9.46 that the federal government had granted them. They could therefore claim that they are never better off at any rate. What is given by one hand is taken away by the other.
Mr. Speaker, the people are right. It is up to us to realize it and to act accordingly. We are here to represent the people. If the people understand the millionaires and the large corporation presidents and directors, they also understand the citizens without job or capital and that segment of the population deserves all our attention.
I congratulate the present Liberal government which was the sponsor of the main legislation regarding pensions and family allowances at the request, of course, of the Social Credit Party which has been recommending the payment of these allowances for many years as well as their increase in various instances.
Today the question is whether or not we go far enough in those areas particularly if we intend to be fair by raising pensions, allowances and all kind of subsidies. Let us not forget-it is not my opinion but that of the population-despite all the increases we stay at the same point. The more we receive the more prices rise and we do not progress and only regress from one year to another.
Since 1958, Mr. Speaker, we have been talking about inflation. All university graduates are racking their brains to find formulas likely to satisfy the people, to control inflation, check unemployment and eliminate poverty. But despite all the sincerity and goodwill of those experts who manage the country and the large corporations we go backward instead of forward in every field related to poverty, unemployment and inflation.
Even if this is a universal problem it is one more reason to try to find a remedy. Because if it is a problem, we must correct it. For that we have to start somewhere, then why not here in Canada?
It was in 1934 during the international crisis of the 30's that the Bank of Canada was created with the support of American and European financial experts following many royal enquiries. We are living through another international crisis in 1973, forty years later, after World War II, and the prosperous years from 1945 to 1958, and we are still facing inflation, unemployment and poverty. Do we have to wait for another world war to recover our balance in Canada?
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government will find the solution to the present national crisis, before we come to the last solution, unwished for by the population.
Instead of being influenced by the international situation, let us see what can be done here for the population in order to achieve an atmosphere of peace, goodwill and economic balance between big and small, between individuals, families, and companies, big, medium, and small. While keeping everyone in his present position, even the Ministers of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray), of Finance (Mr. Turner) and of National Health and Welfare, it would be possible to restore the national economic equilibrium for individuals, by a close study of the following four points which are the popular expression of everyday needs:

1.	Family heads and single persons earn today equal salary for equal work.
2.	Mothers today earn no salary for their housework.
3.	Children and students are costly today and have no regular income.
4.	Companies today make the highest profits and are taxed less than individuals.
Mr. Speaker, here is what could be used as a basis by the greatest scientists and university graduates in all their calculations to put some order at last between incomes, expenses and profits, between taxes-and reserves, between citizens, families and companies, between employers, employees and dependent citizens without work or capital, in order to provide them with a basic income, to provide them with at least economic, individual and family security, according to their particular case, in the center of our national economy which should respect life and the quality of life for any citizen, having regard to his language, race, religion, nationality, education, health or profession, and especially his age if he is too young or too old to look after himself.
Mr. Speaker, considering that situation, in spite of all the efforts of this government to iron out the difficulties in that field, I believe it is necessary at this stage of negotiations and of the drafting of legislation to come to a stop, to avail ourselves of the royal boards of inquiry, to analyze openly the particular goals that are to be reached in order to initiate the real national economic policy that will improve the quality of life for every Canadian.
Considering our outstanding national production, it should be possible to do much better than guaranteeing more than $20 a month to children from birth to majority, at 18 when everyone can earn his living, unless he would rather keep on studying so as to become a more informed and better educated citizen within society.
And even as a student providing services to society, does he not deserve a quality of life corresponding to his vital obligations and this strictly from a financial and monetary point of view, that is as far as a guaranteed personal income is concerned?
This is, Mr. Speaker, what should be established during our consideration of the amendments to Bill C-190 and Bill C-224 advocating increases in pensions, grants and allowances and their escalation based on the cost of living, especially if we want those who are asking for it to be satisfied.
Despite increased poverty, companies are developing. This is another word currently heard. I have to quote once again from a statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare during the speech he delivered on January 11, in the early days of this session. On page 201 of Hansard, we find this very wise comment and I quote:
It is obvious that desirable goals whatever they may be, whether in the public or private sector, cannot be reached without the necessary resources. We have not discovered yet a magic wand or an alchemical formula allowing us to reach economical or social objectives effortlessly.
The government is forever torn between the natural reluctance of Canadians when faced with a tax increase,
October 30,1973

and its concern for improving assistance to the underprivileged. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I think that we should reconsider the government's position with respect to our national economy and with regard to those who take advantage of any economic distortions such as inflation, unemployment and poverty, and those who suffer because of these economic disturbances and would like to see them corrected.
It is essential to consider seriously where the money needed for the welfare of citizens should come from.
Although I have been elected as a Social Credit member by the citizens of the Rimouski riding, who put their trust in me by giving me a clear majority over candidates of the other political parties, I studied all the existing laws and their amendments and I can assure this House that I do everything possible to think out and express my opinions as a citizen really present and living in the present monetary, economic and political systems.
I apply myself to look at things as they really are and not as if we were already in a system that we wish to see in the future, and if Canadians are really fed up because they are paying too many taxes, it is on account of the present system. I also know that even in the present system it could be possible for everyone to pay fewer taxes and even to participate more generously in the welfare of those citizens without a suitable or adequate income, in spite of a more than plentiful national production. Thanks to the knowledge we have acquired through the Social Credit doctrine, we are probably in a better position to see the shortcomings of the current capitalist system, shortcomings that as we know may be corrected even under the capitalist system without it being necessary to turn everything upside down, to fall into socialism, communism, separatism or narrow nationalism.
The earth belongs to all human beings. The sun shines for everyone. This is the ideal which our current capitalist system can fulfill immediately as soon as we agree to take a few specific measures or make certain provisions regarding the present distribution of income and taxes, of the amounts intended for capitalization over the next few years on the 1973 production achieved through the work and capital of the 9 million citizens making up the labour force out of 22 million Canadians. However, do the 13 million dependent citizens without work or capital deserve to be considered as full citizens in our capitalist society? Why are there poor and needy people among wealthy people and millionaires in an affluent country?
To reach a decent balance between rich and poor in Canada there is no need at all to take money from the income derived from the work or capital of producing citizens to pay a guaranteed income to dependent citizens without work or capital as is too easily suggested by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
It is not necessary either to look for a magic wand, the philosophers' stone or an alchimic formula. No, we simply have to draw, year after year, from our plentiful national production the amounts needed to pay a guaranteed income to all dependent citizens, as we have found in this very same national production of the current year the salaries to pay for the work of citizens in the active labour force and to pay the interest or the dividends on the
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
investments of capitalist interests also actively contributing to national production in the current year.
I do not perform miracles nor do I make exceptional discoveries, Mr. Speaker. I simply look at all the things that the Creator made available to us, the raw materials, the natural resources as well as the human intelligence which can be put to work not only in this government but also in each of our big or small businesses, in each of our houses, where Canadians would like nothing better than to produce to full capacity for the welfare of their countrymen and all the people in the world.
It is difficult to give further details, but it is the key to national economic equilibrium between individuals, families and companies. This is no mystery, or miraculous discovery, or alchemical formula, or magic trick. You have simply to go to the secret reserves of the large millionaire, multi-millionaire, national and multi-national companies and you will find all the money required to give a guaranteed annual income to everyone of the 13 million citizens dependent on welfare, who are also entitled to live a good life in a society to which they belong fully even though they cannot earn a sufficient income by working or by gathering the interests on their capital.
I can give you all the necessary figures to support this statement, but it would be useless to do so without a sufficient explanation. You have the basic solution, you only have to use it.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I had written down my comments last Thursday, well before the opposition critics and some other hon. members took the floor yesterday and today.
So, any similarity with their remarks is sheer coincidence or, in fact, purely accidental. I do intend to reflect in my speech ideas, opinions and representations, or even requests made to me by many of my electors. I am pleased, of course, to take the floor once more during this session to support a bill which will benefit hundreds or even thousands of Canadian men and women when comes the day of retirement which is so much longed for and deserved. However, people who are already retired will see in this initiative of the government of Canada the will to provide adequately for the needs of the people as a whole.
In fact, we cannot help noticing the giants steps taken since the previous Parliament which had also been productive in the social field. Suffice to recall for example the major amendments to the Income Tax Act whose advantages we will certainly be able to see when we fill in the income tax returns for the current year and for subsequent years.
I am pleased to recognize the energy and the determination shown by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) in the pursuit and accomplishment of the main objectives of the government, whatever the yellow press from New Brunswick may say about it. The current series of discussions between the minister and his provincial counterparts are going well and it is normal that he be attributed a large part of the credit for the progress realized up to date.
7362

October 30, 1973
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
Of course, some people can make sly comments; other people will want to claim all the credit for these measures, others will say we are not going far enough. One thing is certain: the government under direction of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) deserves credit for piloting all these good legislative measures which we are examining and which Parliament agrees to pass.
The bill we are studying aims at amending the Canada Pension Plan in order to remove the 2 per cent ceiling on the yearly increase in the pension index. It also tries to set at $6,600 the amount of year's maximum pensionable earnings for 1974; for 1975, the maximum will be $7,400. Now it amounts to $5,600. When the pension plan came into force in 1967, the maximum of allowable gains was $5,000. Until this year, the maximum has been increased to $5,600, which, according to the government, is not enough. In 1974 and 1975, the maximum pensionable yearly earnings will have increased by $1,800.
This bill will ensure that from now on the benefits will truly reflect consumer price index increases; 500,000 Canadians, some of whom receive a retirement pension and others who receive death or disability benefits, will gain from it.
The purchasing power of retired consumers will therefore be gradually restored. The setback suffered since 1967 following the fixing of a 2 per cent ceiling on increases will be corrected so that the people who received benefits between 1967 and 1973 and still receive them on December 31 will get increases ranging from 8 to 20 per cent according to individual cases. There is no doubt that most of my constituents, if not all of them, will be very happy about this government legislation. Of course, the maximum contributions will go up from $90 to $106.30 a year, and the employer will have to pay an equivalent amount. This means that the contribution of the self-employed worker will go up from $180 to $212.40
Unchanged in this regard, the act provides indeed that the employer and the employee each pay 1.8 per cent of pensionable earnings, and the self-employed 3.6 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, one can hardly find fault with the proposals contained in this bill. At the most, this debate allows those of us that wish to take this opportunity to discuss in general terms some aspects of the living conditions of our fellow citizens, the aged and the retired, and to indicate to the minister trends to follow in the future.
Which brings me to say that because of the rising cost of living and the reduced purchasing power, the government had to amend the Canada Pension Plan. The minister has seen the need and the government, as a good manager of the public welfare, has done its duty.
Even during the so-called normal years of economic activity, the purchasing power of the dollar is constantly being eroded by inflation, and I find it ridiculous that some politicians, in the hope of making some political capital, become unduly fidgety and easily shocked by that phenomenon.
I am almost 40, Mr. Speaker. I thank God for it and ask Him to grant me a long life. However, one does not need a doctor's degree to realize that the price of all goods and services tends to go up at any time throughout the world,

and that Canada is more successful generally in fighting back inflation.
I find the charges of the opposition too easy, too partisan and too childish, because they blame only the government for inflation for the increased cost of living and the erosion of the purchasing power of older citizens with regard to their present income.
I do not deceive myself, and I don't believe that a life insurance policy of $5,000 bought at 25 will help me to deal with inflation when I am 65. In this connection, I read in Le Droit last night an article by a financial columnist of the Canadian Press. I should like to quote it in full, because it gives us a lesson in respect of financial arrangements for our retirement years.
Whether we like it or not, we have to grow old, but generally, we don't know how to plan our future income.
It would be better to start planning a retirement fund as early as 40, since it is the most productive period of one's life. Of course, it has always been necessary to plan one's retirement, but it is even more important at a time of high inflation, in order to provide for a suitable income during the unproductive years.
At first sight, this seems complicated: however, a solution is possible if one works systematically towards a well defined obj ective.
According to the Canadian National Bank, sound financial planning must include:
-A deposit for current expenses;
-a reserve fund for contingencies;
-a life insurance policy to protect the family;
-a long term investment fund.
The trouble mostly is the difficulty of knowing exactly what one wants for the future.
In its monthly newsletter, the CNB states that the wisest thing to do is to plan early and to follow one's plans as closely as possible.
Actually, any person is inclined to raise his standard of living when his income increases: 65 seems so far away.
Take, for instance, a married man, aged 40, who earns $10,000 a year and intends to retire at 65. He thinks that he will then be able to live on $8,000 and maintain the same style of living because of fewer expenses.
But due to inflation, he will need in 1998 a $16,750 income to live as well as he is living now with $8,000. His pension will therefore have to be adjusted accordingly, which is not as difficult as one would think at first.
By that time, the old age security pension will probably amount to $5,000 a year. If our man earns more because of inflation or promotions, his firm will probably pay him a $5,000 pension.
Furthermore, if he has managed to invest $1,000 a year in a registered pension plan-which is not impossible-he should then have a capital of $80,000 which, converted into a life annuity, would yield about $9,500 a year. He would then have an annual income of $19,500, which would be more than enough to maintain his usual standard of living.
Of course, the government is aware of this situation, Mr. Speaker, and that is why it has taken a major step today through this bill, in order to ensure a greater income security to retired Canadians.
And to use the words of the press release issued by the federal-provincial conference held recently: The retirement benefits will no longer be subject to the eroding effects of the rising cost of living. This is a major breakthrough, as I said, almost as important, I think, because of its scope, as the setting up of the Canada Pension Plan in
October 30, 1973

1967, and as the minister said on pages 5 and 6 of his statement:
. . . these changes will (...) have a profound and long term effect.. .
. . . proposals that will have a fundamental and long-term effect on the Canada Pension Plan.
Since I referred to the press release of the recent Federal-Provincial conference of the ministers of Social Affairs, I should also like to make one or two remarks on the last two paragraphs of that press release. I was particularly happy that the ministers should have expressed their concern for the equality of contributions and benefits between persons of both sexes and especially with regard to spouses who did not contribute and who, therefore, do not now qualify for benefits.
When we touch upon this matter, we evidently do not speak about anomymous persons, that are merely considered as statistics. In fact we think in real terms, of people we come into contact every day and especially about our mother, wife, sisters and fellow workers. It sometimes happens that some bureaucrats find it difficult not to think in abstract terms about human facts. Politicians who have become fully aware of those realities of our daily life in view of the fact that they receive many telephone calls, letters, and personnal representations, understand better the need to further improve the present plan.
My wife, Mr. Speaker, like all good mothers, runs a house, a home, a training school, most of the time without the help of the father who is busy discharging his legislative, parliamentarian and electoral responsibilities. Many men are not only chauvinist but they are prejudiced against the woman who stays at home. Women's lib sometimes goes too far, even in the opinion of many women, and I remember some remarks made recently by the hon. Therese Casgrain. But on the other hand, this so-called Women's Lib has the advantage of making us aware of the social status of women, and in that respect, it is worthwhile.
The inquiry on the status of women in Canada found out a great many facts on the inferior situation of women as compared to men, on the labour force, their working conditions as social partners of men; above all it was demonstrated that we still have laws openly discriminating against them in addition to the fact that they are the constant object of the lowest prejudices mainly on the part of men.
This government has obviously undertaken to correct abuses, to eliminate discrimination and very substantial progress has already been observed, especially where matters coming under federal jurisdiction are concerned. I will not recite all those measures today, Mr. Speaker, because I wish to concentrate my remarks on the subject before us and, besides, I already had the opportunity to deal with that question during the election campaign last year and I believe that a great majority of my constituents appreciated the government's intention in that regard.
Surely I am in favour of a serious study designed to bring about major changes in the Canada Pension Plan so that our wives and mothers may become eligible to the same extent as the main family support, where contributions and benefits are concerned. I may also add at this
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
point that during its recent political convention, the Liberal Party readily recognized such a need and asked that women, housewives, be admitted to the Canada Pension Plan on a contributory basis. But the law says that two thirds of the provinces have to be in agreement. It will be interesting to see how the provinces will respond to that suggestion.
I suggest that the Ministers of Social Affairs should tackle that problem which in my opinion amounts to social inequity, and that they should do so as soon as possible. I am happy to see that such is the intention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and I am happy about it.
To sum up my remarks, and that is not the least of my concerns, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with what the minister in his official statement has described as the need to enact certain provisions concerning advanced retirement under both plans. I was quoting from the French text. The English text is still clearer and I quote:
The suggestion that early retirement provisions should be built into the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans.
If I translate this technical language in brayon, the language spoken in the Republic of Madawaska that I have the honour to represent in this House, this simply means, for all practical purposes, lowering the eligibility age for retirement benefits down to 60. This is the suggestion that is often put forward by an increasing number of my constituents. I have dealt with it recently in a speech on family allowances and I also referred to it in this House on October 19, 1971,1 think.
Of course, some people will say that a few arguments support this matter, which I am most concerned about as others work against such a proposal. But I suggest that experience is the important factor in this regard. All I ask is that this matter be carefully considered and that we be given once and for all the reasons, if any, that prevent us from including these advantages in the Canada Pension Plan or, as the case may be, from taking immediate steps to amend the Canada Pension Plan in order to satisfy the public's request.
Workmen of my region who work in the forest, who perform farming or manufacturing chores, who work for railways during very hot summers and very cold winters, in pulp and paper plants, in sawmills and who often have been working since they were 20 years old and sometimes less, are physically worn-out, tired out unable most of the time to do a job that becomes increasingly difficult for them when they reach the age of 55 or 60.
I feel that these people who have worked so hard for so long to build up a country would deserve that more consideration be given to their wish for early retirement without being obliged to undergo a series of exams that I consider as red tape.
I have found most advisable the minister's intention to eliminate for the contributors to the Canada Pension Plan aged from 65 to 69 the obligation of undergoing this series of examinations.
I am therefore glad that the government of Canada is studying this proposal with the provinces and I am looking forward to the findings of this study. But I think it would be a good thing for a parliamentary committee to ponder over this proposal some day, either before the
7364

October 30, 1973
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
examination of this matter with the provinces, or immediately after, before reaching a binding conclusion.
Mr. Speaker, this is what I have to say for the time being about the Canada Pension Plan. I will keep my remarks for a later debate and I wish to conclude by again congratulating the minister and assure him of the best sentiments of all my electors and constituents who are quite in favour of this measure.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my young friend from Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) and his suggestion about retiring every member at 60. We will soon have to get rid of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and a few others. I would have gone long since.


Eymard G. Corbin: No, that was not my suggestion.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Then I apologize. I thought the hon. member was saying he would retire people from here at 60 and suggested this should be done. I suggest to him that as long as we are able to work it would be a lot better if we kept on working, because we would continue to pay money to the government which would provide the very pensions that we are talking about. The one thing he should not forget when he brings up that argument is that there is a lower birth rate in Canada today, which will mean less people working and less revenue for the government. Some people would like to retire at 50. I agree with the suggestion that, unfortunately, there are some people who should not be working even at 30 years of age. When you are talking about geriatric aid, I should like to remind you that this can apply as early as age 18 rather than the age of 50 to which you referred, and I just want to put that on the record.
Perhaps I should compliment the minister for bringing this bill forward, although it seems to take him a while before he sees that justice is done. I think he is attempting to do something that should have been done quite a while ago, but I do compliment him because it is better late than never. I do not blame this government for all the inflationary problems we are now facing because, as the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria said, inflation is a worldwide problem. However, I think inflation is worse in Canada than in many other countries, and I want to straighten the record in that regard. We must continue to adjust our social security programs if we want to deal fairly with the people.
Recently I attended a meeting of people from the Canada Pension Plan, people from the Unemployment Insurance Commission and people from the manpower program. It was very interesting to hear the remarks of certain accountants in attendance at that meeting. They suggested that only about 5 per cent of the people understand this legislation or can properly interpret the Canada Pension Plan. I should like to know what the government is doing to remedy this situation.
I was interested to learn that offices are being opened in various cities to deal with Canada Pension Plan applica-

tions and problems, but I understand that the men who are sent to operate these offices spend only two days a week in the office and it is very difficult to make appointments with them. Apparently there is no one answering the telephone for the other three days a week. It is amazing that the biggest corporation in Canada with the largest payroll cannot afford to locate all these offices in one building in order that the people can get the service they require. There should be someone in attendance five days a week to at least answer the telephone so that people do not drive 20 or 25 miles only to find that they must wait in line or cannot see the individual on that day. I feel that these government offices should be located in one building in any given city. In this way we would have manpower officers, unemployment insurance officers and those associated with the Canada Pension Plan all available at the one location.
As the minister suggested yesterday, as of January there will be 500,000 people benefiting from the Canada Pension Plan. He also referred to the 20 per cent increase in inflation we have witnessed since 1967. This has had a marked effect by depreciating the value of our dollar. The main things required by an individual who retires at age 65 are food and shelter. These are basic necessities, but I draw the minister's attention to the fact that the cost of food has increased by about 14 per cent and the cost of housing has increased by about 12 per cent. The proposed changes in the Canada Pension Plan will by no means meet those specific needs of the retired individual.
The minister has also indicated that something is to be done in respect of Canada Pension Plan benefits for those from age 65 to age 70. If a man is able to work after his retirement why should he be penalized? After all, he is adding to the coffers of the government, and he is reducing the amount the government would have to pay in guaranteed supplement payments. I suggest that he should be given his Canada Pension benefits because this is something to which he has contributed and has a right to receive.
It seems to me that we are also treating women differently than we treat men in respect of Canada Pension Plan benefits. This is a matter which was raised at the meeting to which I earlier referred. Many people felt this was an injustice. When a working woman dies, her husband receives the full pension, but when you reverse the situation the woman only receives about 70 per cent. I think the survivors should be treated the same.
Another thing I should like to refer to is the $650 death benefit under the Canada Pension Plan. If a man dies and his brother collects this death benefit I understand he must pay taxes on that amount, but if the government takes over and buries the man no taxes are collected. This is another situation I draw to the minister's attention.
Let me speak for a moment about the medical aspects of this situation, particularly in respect of disabled persons. The fact was brought out at this meeting that an individual must be helpless and almost confined to a wheelchair before he can get a pension. Perhaps that is not exactly true, but there is enough truth to warrant a closer look at the situation. This situation has been referred to on numerous occasions by myself and other hon. members, such as the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). The
October 30, 1973

minister will recall that on a previous occasion he said he would look into the situation to see what could be done.
Often a physician will send in a report indicating that an individual is disabled. When that report reaches Ottawa it is considered and often sent back with an indication that the man is not disabled for the purposes of the Canada Pension Plan. The minister will recall that in the case of appeals from such decisions, about 40 per cent are allowed and pensions are granted, particularly following examination and confirmation of the general practitioner's findings by a specialist. This fact by itself would indicate that something is seriously wrong with the system of communication between the examining doctor and the people here in Ottawa. I suggest that these people should make more use of the telephone when there is a point in question. I have asked doctors on many occasions why they did not telephone Ottawa to straighten out the differences and have been informed that they did not know to whom to telephone.
One is amazed how far it is from the city of Toronto or the city of Orillia to Ottawa when it comes to straightening out these matters of opinion. Many of these people who are academics and well educated do not know where to phone. This is something that might be passed on to the medical staff here in Ottawa. When there is a matter of doubt, instead of going through all this redtape, writing letters back and forth, these people should pick up the telephone and get a little action.
Let us take the example of a disabled person. He does not receive an examination immediately. I do not know whether the minister has ever checked to find out how long these people wait before they are examined. They might wait a month. The report is then made. It remains in Ottawa for a while and the application is either rejected or approved. If it should be rejected, the person immediately sees his doctor and perhaps his federal member of parliament. He points out that he should not have been turned down. He asks why he was turned down. The doctor states that he should not have been turned down because he is a sick man and unable to work. Then, the doctor writes to the department and the decision is made to have a specialist see this person. That is fine, but let us consider the length of time that elapses between the time it is decided a specialist must see him and the time when the people here agree and he receives the examination.
The point I am making is that months and months of bitter frustration are involved. Such a person is not treated fairly and squarely. Many of these people are helpless. They may not have had a good education and depend on their family doctor who is busy and often cannot see them. They also sometimes depend on their member of parliament or on someone else. Perhaps the matter might be resolved in this way. The family doctor and the Canada Manpower office in the area could certify that the person is unemployable. Why should such a person not receive the Canada Pension? Why do we have this difficulty in respect of the term "totally and permanent disabled"? Is a person not totally and permanently disabled if he is unable to earn a living?
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
I recall seeing a person one night who had been turned down for a disability pension. The grounds are about the same. He came in the door to meet me and I did not think he would make it to his seat. His feet were swollen up and he was short of breath. It had been decided that this person was able to get around and look after himself. In a fashion he could do this, but one might wonder who bought the food, clothing and other things that were needed at home. I was concerned about his case and immediately called Ottawa. When I advised what shape this person was in his application was approved, but this situation had gone on for two years.
I bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that there must be easier ground rules in respect of determining whether or not a person is eligible for the Canada Pension. I know the minister will agree that if a man is unemployable and cannot earn a cent, he is entitled to the Canada Pension on the grounds of disability. We should cut out the tremendous amount of red tape and a great deal of the bureaucracy.
The other point I wish to bring up is that I believe the Canada Pension should be available to people, probably at age 60 if they are disabled. I believe that a person who is beyond age 65 should work if he is physically able to do so. This is especially true of professional people because a great deal of money is tied up in their brains and their ability. It is difficult to replace these people. Replacements may be available now, but the minister will realize that, as a result of the falling birth rate, we will soon have a situation in Canada where there will be four million people over age 65. How many of these people will there be in the work force? This is a problem which puzzles me.
I believe the minister should be giving some leadership in the field of geriatrics and health. I hope the minister will give leadership in the development of a geriatric department in every hospital in the same way there are paediatric departments. The other day I was astounded to notice a statistic published by a very honoured person from the province of Quebec, Dr. Gingras, who was president of the CMA a year ago. He made the statement that there are some 800 paediatricians in Canada and about five million or six million persons under the age of 16. He said also that there are 1,700,000 people over age 65 and that we have only 24 geriatricians. I think we should consider allowing these people to draw the pension after age 60 or age 65, and those who are disabled should be allowed to do so at a younger age. Unfortunately, people do become disabled at much younger ages than 60. The greatest disabler today is the accident. Many of the people involved in accidents need attention.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the

October 30, 1973
Abortion Plebiscite Act
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-Supply and Services-Possible contract to American Chain and Cable Company for mail sorting equipment-Suggested postponement of decision; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Air transport-Date of announcement of allocation of route to Milan and new routes to United States; the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain)-Fisheries-Action to ensure continuing supply of vegetable oils from United States for processing products.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I think there is agreement to pass over the first five orders and consider item No. 6, Bill C-40. There may be a slight delay. I believe the hon. member is on his way to the chamber.


Mr. McKinley:: Mr. Speaker, it seems there was a misunderstanding. However, the member is on his way to the chamber now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is agreed that the first five items be stood, but retain their priority on the order paper, and that we will proceed to the sixth order, Bill C-40, in the name of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Del-ta (Mr. Reynolds) as soon as he reaches the chamber.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


John Douglas Reynolds: that Bill C-40, to provide for a national plebiscite on the removal of the abortion provisions from the Criminal Code of Canada be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for being a little late but I had some constituents in my office and time escaped me.
Bill C-40 is very similar to Bill C-117 which is on the order paper now under my name. They both call for plebiscites. Bill C-40 deals with abortion and Bill C-117 deals with capital punishment. I wonder if it would be possible, since both bills ask for the same thing but deal with two different issues, to deal with both of these bills at the same time? I regret that I did not have time to bring this matter to your attention, Sir, but I did ask the people in our party and they suggested I might raise this matter at this time in order to avoid debating Bill C-117 on another occasion because, as I said, both bills seek plebiscites on two different issues but I think the theme of both bills is the same.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that the other bill deals with the abolition of capital punishment. I think it would be farfetched to suggest we should have a debate on abortion and on capital punishment at the same time. Although both bills seek the same remedy and suggest the same conclusion, I doubt that it would be good practice to have two motions dealing with different matters before the House at the same time.


John Douglas Reynolds: The main reason for introducing this bill is the letters and comments from my constituents in which they say that this government, as well as past governments, have often introduced legislation which does not reflect the will of the people. I told my constituents in the last election that I would present private members bills on this and on other issues so that plebiscites could be held to give the people of Canada an opportunity to express themselves, but not on every issue. I do not believe parliament is elected to conduct plebiscites on every issue, but they should be held on certain issues that are presented to parliament, such as abortion and capital punishment, on which the will of the people is not always being followed in the House.
I think that the people of this country have the right to determine some of these moral issues themselves, and this is why I presented this bill. I will not argue it too long because I would like to hear some of the arguments that I am sure members on the government side will advance against it. All I will say now is the reason for presenting this bill is that the people of Canada should be allowed to settle this issue of abortion, as well as the issue of capital punishment.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to inflict myself upon you again on one of these very controversial subjects. I seem to have been dragged into this debate at the last minute, and having spent the last two hours on the telephone, my thoughts cannot be called very orderly. My speech, therefore, cannot be construed as an attempt to impress people with oratory. I simply want to give my views as to why I do not agree that this bill should be passed.
Bill C-40 states that the word "abortion" should be deleted from the Criminal Code, and that the division to delete it should be made by a plebiscite which should take place at the next general election following the passage of the bill. In other words, there would be the possibility of an election being fought on the issue of abortion. I think that is fairly evident. Also, the bill underlines the fact that this measure would have to be brought to parliament after the election and passed. I think these are three rather important considerations.
However, before going into the matter of the desirability of a plebiscite to settle a question such as this, or the technicalities of when it should be held, I would just like to say that this matter has been brought to the minds of all members of the House of Commons by their constituents. We are flooded with telegrams and letters expressing both points of view. The letters are not just from those who are for abortion or those who are against abortion. We get shades of opinion, thank goodness, and I do not think there is a preponderence of one opinion over the other. The matter of abortion is approached with a great many mis-
October 30, 1973

conceptions and has a long history. As you know, abortion is nothing new. It has been performed ever since homo sapiens walked the earth and woman found herself in an undesirable state, in her opinion. Being ingenious, the old wives soon found ways to start an abortion, anything from aknitting needle to a twig, and then finally bits of bark and things which would swell after insertion. There are all sorts of ways of doing it, and of course in many cases these caused infections and a great deal of danger to the pregnant woman.
Abortion was carried out in back rooms and dark corridors. We all know those stories. However, people today do not worry too much about ethics, moral values and that sort of thing. I would say half the population has that outlook, whether it is about abortion or anything else. We have to admit that everybody is mildly dishonest. Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, for always alluding to my early years in practice, but they were interesting years. I remember that in my first year of practice I was out on one occasion looking after some confinements, travelling by horse and cutter. A woman came to my house and asked if the doctor was in. My wife replied, no. The woman then said, "I guess you will do. How do I get rid of a baby?" That was just straight talk, and it was common among a certain group of people. They never felt badly about it. This woman wanted to get rid of a baby, and she thought my wife knew everything about it. In those days abortion was practised, but in dark rooms and in a clandestine manner.
Now, in our modern times-I do not say they are any better than the old times in some ways-abortion can be performed in a very slick manner. It can be performed in illegal clinics or whatever. As everybody knows, the big argument is that the wealthy can get abortions when they want, and the poor cannot. This is an argument we cannot play with; we have to decide what we are doing. We all know the changes that have occurred in hospitals, and in attitudes toward abortions and sterilizations. I rather deplore the easy approach to sterilization. It has almost become available on demand. I do not think it should; I do not think abortion should done on demand either, by any means.
At present the question of abortion goes to a committee, and I hope this approach will continue. A committee has to consider the danger to the mother, and the desirability from the standpoint of society. Perhaps doctors should not have the right to decide these things, but so far nobody else wants to get into these discussions. I think that possibly the types of people on the committees should be broadened. I believe that, for the good of society, some control over abortion should be retained. We have gotten into this question of abortion, of abortion on demand, because of changes that have taken place in society in the last number of years. There is no doubt that we are living in a permissive society. As I say, Mr. Speaker, abortions were known, if not condoned, since the dawn of history, and the same holds true with respect to contraception.
Contraception has never been accepted in certain circles, although it is more or less accepted now even by religious denominations. Contraception has been condoned really because the question of a newly formed life, or a so-called life, is not involved. Contraception itself is,
Abortion Plebiscite Act
of course, questionable if we really feel that anything once begun should be immutable and unchanged, and that we should never modify what nature starts. But of course none of us really believe that, completely. Now that medical science is able to produce a contraceptive pill which can be taken by mouth, every woman of child bearing age would be rather foolish, if she believes in this progressive society, not to take the pill. However, I think all these things are making the question of abortion easier for people to accept.
I think you have to realize that there are many things in the world today which have to be settled by common consent before certain practices are adopted. Long ago world population began to increase by geometric progression. We are right now in danger of over population, not just in countries such as China and India but also in Canada. However, we do not have to accept abortion on demand to deal with that problem. Contraception is good enough. The birth rate has gone down in most western countries and, surprisingly enough, we had a good debate about that on the bill on family allowances. It was interesting to see how the provinces had changed their attitudes. It was very interesting to me to see how the birth rate in Quebec, which up to 20 years ago was noted for its large families, has declined to the point of being among the lowest, if not the lowest in Canada. This certainly reveals a change in attitude, and has nothing to do with the baby bonus.
But I must say that the world, through the United Nations and other world agencies, will have to introduce programs to reinforce family counselling, medical family planning, and all that sort of thing in every country so that we won't have overcrowding, so that we won't have so much difficulty in feeding the vast numbers of human beings that populate this planet. There is a great danger there. It is as great as the shortage of oil in the world today. We can look after the shortage of oil, but the other problem has not really been tackled yet.
When it comes to the question of why we should or should not condone abortion, I think we have to realize that even the religious and ethical views and "mores" of the world are changing. There are more and more people who are really quite conversant with the origin of life, the origin of, shall we say, the solar system, the origin of the universe, than ever before. We know that the sort of things we look at here, such as the wooden desks in front of us, are made up of atoms and electrons, and that one atom probably will have electrons going around it which are just as far away from the nucleus as the earth and the planets are from the sun, in a relative way. Therefore, what we think of as being solid, such as the desks, are really not solid. There are great spaces in this piece of wood in front of me that are completely invisible, even under the microscope.
Going right back to the ultimate there is nothing in this physical world but positive-negative charges of electricity, and these small bits of energy. What is energy? What is light? What is matter? And what are living people, living beings? What of the whole evolution of life which began a billion or 2 billion years ago? I refer of course to some very simple forms like bacteria, although it is not too simple, to the synthesis of proteins, and all these things which

October 30, 1973
Abortion Plebiscite Act
appear inanimate. We are just as much akin to them as we are to each other. When we die, our positive and negative charges of electricity go back to a great reservoir of matter which in turn goes to make up all living things and the whole universe. So where does life begin? Life does not begin with the act of conception or the very instant that the sperm unites with the ovum. It started a few billion years ago. To try to make some artificial definition of when life begins is really quite ridiculous.
I think that all the planning that goes into laws about abortion, sterilization, world population and all those other things should not be based upon simple emotional ideas about whether we believe people were created in an instant by a word from the Great Being or whether life began 6,000 years ago by God breathing into a lump of clay the breath of life, when man became a living soul. These things are really beyond us and we do not know the answers. I do not think that questions like "when life begins for an individual" can be settled. I think the only basis on which we should try to settle the question of the taking of life or destroying a fetus should be what is best for society so far as we can tell. This takes a great deal of thought, and I do not think it should be settled by an emotional outburst. About an equal number of people are for or against this question and I do not see any need for a plesbiscite. This matter should not be taken out of the hands of parliament. People have sent us here to use our heads and all the knowledge we have to settle problems. If we cannot do that, then I think we are avoiding our duties as members of parliament.
I do not know why this question of a plebiscite should be brought up at all. As Clementine Churchill said, the first thing that a member of parliament must remember is his duty to his country; the second thing is his duty to his constituents and the third thing is his duty to his party. That can be taken further. If anybody were to tell me that I had to vote in a certain way because the majority of my constituents felt that way, and if it were against my best judgment I would say "Sorry, I am not your delegate, I am your representative". I think this is the first concept that a member of parliament must get into his head. All this time we have spent since last January 1, starting with the capital punishment debate, really has not settled the question of the role of the member of parliament in the minds of our members. This has bothered me a great deal.
I have heard members say "My constituents all want such and such or 80 per cent of them want such and such". Mr. Speaker, I think the people of my constituency elected me because they felt I had half decent judgment; they thought I had some integrity and they wanted me to represent them. Of course, this may change. However, it does not worry me if the change is made democratically, but if it is made on an emotional basis, and with some kind of hoopla, I would say that would be too bad but I certainly would accept the will of the majority.
Coming back to the very well-intentioned bill that the hon. member moved today, I must say I do not think the matter of abortion can be settled very easily. It can only be settled after a very genuine attempt by each member of parliament to settle it in his own mind after a great deal of thought. The very idea of settling this question by plebi-

scite appalls me. Members of parliament should stand up and be counted. Do they always have to feel that they are mere delegates of a constituency? In my opinion, a lot of the confusion in our society today is the result not only of permissiveness but of lack of thought. As Marshall McLu-han has indicated, the trouble with society today is television. Half of our worries and our ills and the silly arguments we get into are due to the fact that television has made this society of instant participation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member who has the floor but I believe his time has expired. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert).


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-40 would provide for a national plebiscite on the removal of the abortion provisions of the Criminal Code. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) gave us his reasons for introducing the bill. His commitment to his constituents during the election campaign was that he would bring some of these contentious issues forward to see if they could be determined by way of plebiscite.
Let me hasten to say, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a bill with regard to abortion; this is a bill with regard to a national plebiscite on abortion. The hon. member who introduced it also wanted to bring in the question of capital punishment, so I imagine he thinks that both capital punishment and abortion should be determined on a plebiscite basis.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall the bill in 1970 or 1971 to amend the Criminal Code with regard to abortion. The government at that time acted on a report which had been submitted by the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs which had gone into the problem of abortion in depth and had made certain recommendations. If I remember correctly, there was an extension made to the law to include therapeutic abortion where the life or the safety of the woman was in jeopardy. We still have that legislation and I have not heard any great furore about it.
In 1967, we had amendments to the Criminal Code with regard to capital punishment and there was a full debate at that time. We did not have a plebiscite, but the changes were enacted to abolish capital punishment for a five-year period except in the case of murder of policemen or prison guards. We had that authority for five years. It expired in 1972 and we had a debate in 1973 which took considerable time in this House. It was resolved last week and will be the law when it is finally completed in the other place and proclaimed.
I was pleased to hear the previous speaker say that he is a representative of his constituency. We are all representatives of our constituencies, but our first duty is to the country. We were not sent here as mere automatons to reflect the feelings and wishes of all the constituents in our communities. We were sent here to exercise our good judgment with regard to the problems that face Canada whether they be economic problems or social issues.
We have a responsibility to come to this place and inform ourselves with regard to the various issues, espe-
October 30, 1973

cially with regard to capital punishment and, if need be, the problem of abortion. After hearing the arguments and gathering all the information we have a duty to this country, to ourselves and to our constituents to exercise in all honesty our best judgment. There is no duty upon us to reflect the wishes of the various constituents. As Your Honour knows, the wishes of the constituents change from day to day.
Many people whom I met in the past few months spoke to me about their feelings concerning capital punishment. Those feelings were possibly changed as a result of discussions not only with myself but with other people. This is the democratic process, a process we must maintain. To come here and just be a rubber-stamp with regard to the wishes of the people does not reflect well on we as members or on the parliamentary process.
We had one example of a plebiscite in Canada. That was in 1942. The plebiscite was on the question of conscription. What did it prove? It proved, first, that Mackenzie King and his cabinet colleagues did not have the moral courage to make that decision. Second, the conscription issue created a great deal of ill-feeling across the country. I imagine a national plebiscite on abortion or capital punishment would obtain the same result. This is not why we are here.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has given me a copy of his "bible", which is called Beauchesne's. I quote as follows from section 17 on page 14 of the fourth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms:
Every member as soon as he is chosen becomes a representative of the whole body of the commons, without any distinction of the place from whence he is sent to Parliament. . . that every member is equally a representative of the whole has been the constant notion and language of Parliament. Every member, though chosen by one particular district, when elected and returned, serves for the whole realm. For the end of his coming thither is not particular, but general, not barely to advantage his constituents, but the commonwealth.
In November, 1774, Edmund Burke was invited, on short notice, to stand for one of the two vacant seats at Bristol. He was a stranger to the place, but his colleague was a local gentleman of accommodating nature, who expressed his willingness to carry out any instructions which he might receive from his constituents.
If I remember correctly, this is one of the reasons the hon. member brought forward his bill.
Burke was duly elected, and in his subsequent address to the electors he touched on the topic of instructions to members. This is what he said:
"Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But, his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
"My worthy colleague says his will ought to be subservient to yours. If that be all, the thing is innocent: if government were a matter of will upon my side, yours, without question, ought to be
Abortion Plebiscite Act
superior. But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not to inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments?
"To deliver an opinion is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions, mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience-these are things utterly unknown to the laws of the land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.
"Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent, and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed: but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of Parliament.''
That was Sir Edmund Burke in 1774, and what he said then applies with equal force today, or perhaps with even greater force because of the social issues which we must face. We must face them in good conscience and with the exercise of good judgment, and to abrogate our responsibility by demanding legislation determined by a plebiscite with regard to these issues is not worthy of us as members of the House of Commons. Sir Edmund Burke said we have a duty not merely to our constituencies but to the whole country. We have a duty to exercise our judgment and our conscience after hearing all the arguments relating to a particular issue.
It is for this reason I oppose very strongly the idea of a national plebiscite, whether on abortion, capital punishment or any other issue. We must not become mere rubber-stamps, and it is for this reason I totally oppose the bill.


Mrs. Albanie Morin (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is my duty today to say a few words for or against abortion.
[ English]
I rise to speak in opposition to the bill which has been presented by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds). I congratulate him on his desire to raise the matter in the House of Commons and on his initiative in presenting the measure. I cannot support him however, because I do not believe the solution he proposes is the correct one.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had suggested for instance helping the unwed mother either by improving her conditions of life or by providing some assistance for her in society, or by creating day care centres to help her with her child, I would have supported him wholeheartedly. But what he suggests will not solve these problems.
He speaks of referendum. First of all, how would you explain the problem to the Canadian people? He would
7370

October 30, 1973
Abortion Plebiscite Act
want a referendum on abortion, and he would like the following question to be asked:

Are you in favour of deleting from the Criminal Code of Canada the provisions relating to abortion: yes or no?

It is not as simple as that. We must first ask ourselves what abortion is. Is it a murder or not? The question of whether the foetus is a human life or not has not been settled. Some theologians say there is life from the moment of conception, others deny it. There is no agreement on this matter. Moreover, jurists say there is no life as long as the child has not been born viable.
So until the whole problem is solved, how could there be such a referendum? The people would have to be extremely well informed before they could decide. Should the Criminal Code be amended or remain as it is? What the hon. member suggests seems to be an impossible thing to do.

What he wants is this: he wants to hold a national plebiscite at the next convenient opportunity, and then attempt to tie the hands of the government to bring in legislation to enact the result of the poll. I think such an approach is entirely inappropriate both from a traditional, constitutional and parliamentary point of view, and having regard to the nature of the issue involved. It is on this latter point I should like to dwell for a moment or two.
Should Canada decide upon the kind of abortion laws it ought, or ought not to enact, on the basis of a national poll? First, the bill proposes to hold the poll in conjunction with the next federal election, whenever that might be. To link such a vote to a general election could exercise a serious distortion of influence on that election in terms of the turnout, the focusing of issues, and so on. It would be surrounded by all the election politicking which normally attends a general election campaign. This could seriously distort the issue. The two votes should be kept entirely separate if an accurate expression of public opinion is desired.
Yet how can a plebiscite be taken on such a question? I should like to refer now to two surveys which were made some time ago. In March, 1971, in that month's edition of Chatelaine a report was made of a survey conducted by the magazine involving 6,000 respondents. The author of the report came out, apparently, in favour of abortion on demand. The results of the survey, according to the author, "overwhelmingly bore out opinions we have expressed that abortion should be permitted on demand up to the twelfth week of pregnancy." The report went on to say there was increasingly strong support for abortion on demand as the age of the respondents decreased.
The CBC made another survey. The CBC discovered many subtle modifications and shades of meaning in views expressed by the public on this issue, one which could not be settled with a quick yes or no answer. The CBC reported:
Older people tended to be more inclined than younger people to feel that the law was already too permissive. Younger people were

more inclined than their elders to feel that greater permissiveness was required.
So nothing at all was proved.

Mr. Speaker, had the hon. member emphasized instead the prevention of pregnancies among teenagers, students, or still, more extensive sex education in high schools, I could have supported his bill. But, at the present time, before suggesting a referendum on abortion or even the advisability of deleting from the Criminal Code the relevant provisions, the public would have to be informed, which is practically impossible at present. That is why I could not support the bill introduced by the hon. member.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, apparently, it would seem that I have the honour today of aborting the discussion on Bill C-40. Of course, there are many things that I should like to see go wrong in the world in which we live today, but I am not prepared to agree that there is a need to go so far as to eliminate human life in a mother's womb. For example, I could talk about the necessity of aborting a proposed political union of the maritime provinces or the necessity of aborting a proposed corridor in the state of Maine, but that is not the case in point.
I found the bill rather interesting and I feel that it takes a lot of guts to bring such bills before the House. The issue of abortion should be considered more seriously than has been the case. It was often described at first as an issue which should not remain at a strictly emotional level. We live in an ever changing society and I know by experience that the ideas of some of my colleagues on this subject change from day to day, so to speak.
We live in an essentially dynamic society, dynamic in its concepts of welfare programs, dynamic also in its way of considering public morality. The legislator cannot indifferently consider abortion merely from an emotional or moral point of view. There is more than that to it, something specific to the very integrity of a person. I do not intend to engage in a theological or moral debate. I might do so under other circumstances. Above all, I would like to consider at some length the objective sought by the sponsor of the bill today. But before making any comments on the object of the bill, I would like to consider immediately section 5 which states that according to the result of a referendum during the first session of the House of Commons, next following such plebiscite, the Minister of Justice shall introduce a measure to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to provide for enacting into law the result of such plebiscite. What I do not like about this clause 5, Mr. Speaker, is that the sponsor seems to have taken for granted that the results will be favourable and in accordance with the objective that he is seeking.
And I know by experience that there could be some surprises. Is it really necessary to try to find out what Canadians think about this matter, as proposed in the bill?
In clause 4 of the bill, the sponsor has drafted the question he would like the electors to be asked and which reads as follows:
October 30, 1973

"Are you in favour of deleting from the Criminal Code of Canada the provisions relating to abortion?
1)	Yes
2)	No
It seems to me that this is really not the proper way to put such a question. I think I am right in saying, and this probably applies throughout the country, that less than 10 per cent of the electors would understand the meaning of the question and, in all likelihood, wrong conclusions would be reached.
This type of question is obviously difficult to draft so that it is legally acceptable and clear and that it shows unequivocally the will of the people on the subject.
But I disagree entirely with the way it is presented and I think it should be put in more direct terms: "Are you for or against abortion?" Personally, I am against; I want this to be well understood by the hon. members and also by my constituents who sent me many letters expressing their feelings, their desires, their wishes as to the position which they thought I should take on this matter.
When issues as sensitive as this one are discussed, it must first be asked who has the responsibility to decide whether something has to be done or not.
The government is not there to lead the citizens of a country. They can do it in some cases and it is obvious that it has been done in the realm of regional economic expansion. The present government gives a very strong leadership in this area.
They are right to do so because they have the necessary financial resources to reach their predetermined aims. But on the individual level-and I want my wife to agree with me on this subject-, when we have to discuss such a serious matter as abortion, we want to discuss it and to take a decision together. This matter depends on the most intimate right of the family to protect itself and consequently also on the right of society to protect itself.
I regret that our children are submitted to a publicity which is really too noisy and which, in my opinion, is openly advocating free abortion, abortion in all circumstances, without any control and very often without any worry about the individual's health.
This kind of publicity is very often done in a sly way by leading people, for instance, who in the accomplishment of their job, do not openly favour abortion but who, in their private lives, make it known through the use of newspapers that they are for it.
When we see their faces on TV .. . Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hour appointed for consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the Chair.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

[Stage Direction]
(No. 2)

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-224, to amend the Canada Pension Plan, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in the debate on Bill C-224 to amend the Canada Pension Plan. Let me add my words of congratulation to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to those he has received from both sides of the House on the introduction of this measure. There can be little question about this being a most significant bill to the benefit of a good portion of our Canadian population. I'understand that in fact some 500,000 Canadians will receive increased benefits when the bill is passed, commencing January 1, 1974. These increased benefits are quite significant, ranging from 5 per cent to 20 per cent.
In addition to the immediate effect, there are significant changes proposed to the Canada Pension Plan which will have an impact on all generations of retired individuals who receive the benefits of this legislation. The minister is also to be congratulated in that he received full support from the provincial ministers of welfare during meetings held earlier this fall. This area of funded pension plans is shared by the federal government, and the provincial governments; it is an area of provincial as well as of federal responsibility. Indeed, the existing act requires the federal government to give the provincial governments two years' notice of changes, and that the provinces must support those proposed changes.
In this regard, I read an article in the Ottawa Citizen last night written by Don McGillivray under the heading "Pension changes could be illegal". Mr. McGillivray proposed that changes to the act may in fact be illegal. This is simply nonsense. All the provinces have agreed to the changes taking place as a result of amendments to the act which parliament previously passed. What parliament can do, it can undo. In this case, clause 8 of the bill before us sets aside the two years' notice which must be given to the provincial governments. This is simply changing or setting aside by legislation that provision for the purposes of this bill. Surely there is no foundation whatsoever, in a legal or parliamentary sense, for the type of suggestion made by Mr. McGillivray.
The minister is to be commended, as well, for the response he has received from members of this chamber, especially those on the other side of the House. I detected a note of support for the legislation he has brought forward in this bill.
The provisions of the Canada Pension Plan have many ramifications in that it involves retirement pensions, survivors pensions, disability pensions and provisions for
7372

October 30, 1973
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
orphans pensions. Compounded with federal-provincial jurisdictional aspects is the fact that the Canada Pension Plan is interlocked with the Quebec Pension Plan in order that we have a plan which is portable across the country. The bill before us, in conjunction with amendments to be made to the Quebec Pension Plan, will bring the benefits close to a parallel position and will facilitate the movement of Canadians from one part of the country to another.
Our system of pensions in Canada is based upon the universal old age pension and is tied to the cost of living. Benefits increase whenever there is a cost of living increase. In addition to the Canada Pension Plan, many groups of workers have their own private plans. The bill before us implements many of the agreements made at the welfare ministers conference of October 11 and 12 of this year. Many aspects of the agreements of those dates await another bill to be brought before the House very soon, as indicated by the minister last evening.
I was interested in the communique from the conference of welfare ministers, especially the part about other areas on which they did not reach agreement, but which need further discussion before action can be taken. I read a short section of this communique as follows:
The federal and provincial governments noted in the course of the conference that there remain a number of additional concerns about the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans including, for example, the equality between men and women with regards to contributions and benefits; non-contributing spouses; the suggestion that early retirement provisions should be built into the Canada and Quebec Plans; the level of survivors and disability benefits; and other matters. These will receive priority attention.
This is most encouraging as I believe there is great support in the country for equality between men and women in respect of the Canada Pension Plan. I certainly support this and feel there is need for change so that housewives are eligible to contribute. I have in mind various small businesses which are not incorporated and where the wife is very active; perhaps it is a small family business or farm. I think we should look into this aspect. If an individual does not have a private plan, these benefits, although they are good, would not provide a complete source of income on retirement.
I should like to refer to another matter that should be considered, although it does not specifically relate to the Minister of National Health and Welfare but to government activities so far as the Canada Pension Plan is concerned. I refer to the person receiving the disability pension. In order to receive a disability pension under the Canada Pension Plan a person must be, so far as medical evidence can indicate, permanently disabled. It seems to me that in the amendment made to the Income Tax Act a year or so ago, provision was made for an additional personal deduction of $1,000 for a disabled person. However, this is a rather restrictive type of deduction: it requires a person to be bedridden or severely handicapped.
If a person is disabled to the point he will receive a permanent disability pension under the provisions of the Canada Pension Plan, I think he should be entitled to the additional deduction under the Income Tax Act. I have written the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) on this point

and he has assured me, and a constituent who inquired about this matter, that it would be considered in the future. I hope this suggestion will receive the support of the government.
I believe that to place this bill in complete perspective we must consider the overview that it is part of the government's complete review of its social security program which was outlined in the booklet entitled "A working paper on social security" which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) introduced last April 18. I certainly like this approach of setting out definite objectives in the social security field. I believe we should do this in other fields as well.
I am not suggesting that we should bring down positive solutions but, rather, that we should define the problems, set out possible ways to correct them and then go to work in an orderly and constructive way to solve them. This is what has been happening since last April when a time limit of five years was placed upon the phasing-in of the program and two years to adopt it.
The field of social security is a complicated one because there is shared jurisdiction between the federal and provincial governments. Certainly much progress has been made. We realize that 1973 perhaps will be a year in which a long step forward will be made in the field of social security in Canada. Some people may be interested in the economic development of our country and the 7 per cent or 8 per cent increase in our rate of growth; but many people also will be concerned with the progress which has been made in respect of social security.
When we look at the old age pension we see that it was increased from $82 to $100, and subsequently to $105. Hon. members will recall that in 1972 this pension became subject to escalation tied to the cost of living. This fall, again, that provision was tied to a quarterly rather than an annual increase. In the field of family allowances, likewise, there was an increase this fall from an average of $7.21 per month to $12 a month. There is now a bill before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to increase it to $20 effective January 1 next. As well, there is provision in that bill for escalations to be made to family allowances in future years. Of course, this is subject to a debate in the House of Commons.
Likewise, the guaranteed income supplement, which really is part of the old age security, has been increased. This guaranteed income supplement was designed to fill the gap which would occur between 1965 and 1975 while the Canada Pension Plan is reaching full maturity as a funded program, at which time full pensions would become available to the beneficiaries. It seems to me the next item we should be dealing with in our review is the guaranteed income supplement, especially as it relates to the situation where the spouse of the retired person is under age 65. I believe there is some urgency in this regard.
I often receive letters from constituents to the effect that the husband-it could be the reverse; it could be the wife-has retired and the wife is five or ten years younger. In such case only one benefit is received under the guaranteed income supplement. I believe there are many occasions on which there are very serious, almost tragic circumstances because in most of these cases there is little
October 30, 1973

other benefit available to these people. In the near future I should like to see a move to provide that in the case of a dependent spouse of a person retiring, the couple will be in a position to receive the full guaranteed income supplement.
I am not aware of the total cost of such a program, but anyone receiving the guaranteed income supplement receives it on the basis of a means test or because there is real need. It would seem that many people would not qualify for this, and often in a case where the husband and wife differ in age by only a year or two it would be payable only for a couple of years. Perhaps we could consider moving the age to 60 or even 55 in the near future.
There would seem to be a real need that this bill pass and become effective on January 1 because of the benefit it will provide to recipients under the Canada Pension Plan due to the impact of inflation and rising costs. The bill will raise the yearly maximum pensionable earnings to $6,600 in 1974 and to $7,400 in 1975. As the minister indicated in his speech last night, in the near future another bill will be brought forward which will increase this figure at an annual rate of 12 V2 per cent per year until it reaches the average earnings of Canadian industrial workers.
The bill removes the 2 per cent ceiling on escalation of benefits to compensate for the rise in the cost of living. This is tied to the consumer price index. It is likewise proposed that the purchasing power which has been lost due to inflation since 1967, when the benefits first started being received, would be restored by having a catch-up clause in the bill so that a person who started receiving benefits in 1967 will receive a 20 per cent increase as of January 1, 1974. Those who started receiving benefits in 1973 will only have an 8 per cent increase. There will also be an increase in exempted earnings from $600 to $700 a year.
I understand that in the future the minister will be introducing a bill to reduce the present 12 per cent increase in this regard to 10 per cent. It seems to me this provision is very important because this amount should reflect escalating costs in the country, and the casual worker who works for a week or two in a year does not want to have to contribute to a fund if he will not be eligible to receive benefits from it.
It is my understanding that the earnings test, likewise, which was agreed to between the provincial governments and the federal government will be removed for persons between the age of 65 and 69. However, that provision is not incorporated in this bill but will be contained in the next bill which the minister indicated will be brought forward in the near future. I know a person in this age group who is 67 or 68 years of age and who was working at a job. He was receiving a rather low income and would have been better off receiving the guaranteed income supplement. However, he wanted the feeling of dignity, of being able to pay his own way, that working at this part-time job gave him. Yet he was penalized because he could not receive the benefit.
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
So that feature, when it is brought forward in the next bill, will be most important. I think the present measure is a disincentive for people in this age group. We want to see those of our senior citizens who are well enough, able to go out to work and be active. They have a great deal of experience and knowledge and should be contributing in a way in which they want to contribute. Therefore I welcome that change.
It is interesting to note that the changes in the bill before us will increase the maximum benefit from $90 a month this December to $134 a month by 1975, a period of only two years but a 50 per cent increase in benefit. It is projected that by the end of this decade the benefit will reach $250 a month. Likewise, there are increases in the benefits for orphans of some 20 per cent, in widows' pensions, disability pensions and disabled widowers benefits.
Therefore it seems to me we do have before us tonight an important bill that will bring a great deal of benefit as of January 1, 1974, to 500,000 Canadians receiving benefit, and to all of us when we retire.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity tonight of making a few comments on the bill that is presently before us, for we realize that a number of fundamental issues are dealt with in the bill under discussion. The minister has indicated that this bill will be followed by another measure designed to take care of several other matters, perhaps of lesser urgency than these. We are looking forward to seeing that bill as well because, putting them all together, we trust they will result in improvements in the operation of benefits of the Canada Pension Plan that will be shared by Canadians across the country.
May I say at the outset that I appreciate the problems that are faced by the government in its attempt to negotiate satisfactory solutions to income security problems with the ten provinces in view of the fact that such a high degree of accord is necessary before any premiums can be introduced. We are given to understand that the bill now before us is the result of a long period of negotiation between the federal government and the ten provincial ministers of health and welfare across the nation.
The two measures which we are asked to approve are, to say the least, long overdue. I would refer hon. members to Hansard for March 23, 1972, when my colleague, the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Rynard), moved a motion of non-confidence in the government over its failure to do the following:
contribute to pensions allowances and other benefits ... a yearly percentage increase corresponding to the percentage increase in the consumer price index for Canada.
Of course, the government voted against that motion. Perhaps this is understandable; nevertheless, they did refuse to accept the suggestion that the measure they are now bringing forth and the provisions they are now introducing were in order at that time. However, since that time

especially since October 30, 1972-the government, for some not so strange reason, has become somewhat more sympathetic to the needs of pensioners in general across Canada.

October 30, 1973
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
I would like to join other members in congratulating the minister for adopting in this bill one more of the many constructive proposals made by the party to which I belong.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alexander Bell Patterson: We have been pushing for this action for some time and again, as in other instances, the government has seen the light. Because of this, we commend them. It is interesting to note in this respect that in the document "Review of issues in amending the Canada Pension Plan" a number of tables are used to illustrate various aspects of the plan. These tables were taken from the Canada Pension Plan actuarial report published in Ottawa on December 31, 1969, and are based on what appears to be, in retrospect at least, a rather ludicrous assumption about the rate of inflation in this country.
We can hardly blame the authors of the "Review of issues amending the Canada Pension Plan." They were probably using the only figures available to them at that time. However, I do feel that the government department which prepared this report was somewhat misinformed, or at least ill-prepared in basing its statistics on what is termed moderate inflation of 3.4 per cent a year. If this matter were not so serious, I am sure it would cause some mirth in the House. Not many Canadians can remember when inflation in this country was only 3.4 per cent. In 1968 it averaged 4.8 per cent, in February, 1971, it was 8.1 per cent, and over the last year I believe the rate has been in the vicinity of 8.7 per cent, with the very important categories of food and shelter at a much higher rate than that. So it can hardly be classed as moderate inflation. Now, at least, under the provisions of Bill C-224 Canadians will not be victimized by runaway inflation in respect of their Canada Pension Plan benefits, for provision is made to tie the benefits payable under the plan to the cost of living index.
On the subject of the escalation of maximum pensionable earnings from $5,600 this year to $6,600 in 1974 and $7,400 in 1975, I can only say that this is an improvement, although I feel that consideration should be given, when the bill reaches committee stage, to raising the maximum pensionable earnings even more. From the information that is at hand, I do not think the government would have any difficulty in going to the provinces and saying that parliament wants the earnings level set at $7,800, $8,000 or some higher figure.
I note that in the statement made by Mr. Rene Brunelle, of the province of Ontario, at the meeting of ministers of social services and rehabilitation held on October 11, 1973, he said, "Ontario would favour that the earnings ceiling be raised to $9,500 in 1975." I also wonder why the federal government has abandoned its proposal of $7,800 in 1975. Here I would like to quote from a document entitled "Working paper on social security in Canada," commonly known as the orange paper, distributed under the signature of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). The following appears at page 21:
For its part, the Government of Canada would favour full escala-

tion of the pension benefits, and the increase of the year's maximum pensionable earnings to $7,800 by 1975.
Perhaps when he speaks again in this debate the minister can tell us what has happened to that proposal. In so far as the bill would restore parallelism between the Canada and the Quebec Pension Plans in the area of contributions, the escalation of current benefits and future retirement pensions, I can state categorically that I agree that this parallelism must exist so that individuals who move from Quebec to other parts of Canada, or vice versa, will not be penalized in relation to their pension plan contributions or benefits. However, there are other matters with respect to the Canada Pension Plan that I feel need examination and change.
I am not one who cares to use the word "discrimination" indiscriminately, for I believe it is largely overused and overworked; but there is one element of the Canada Pension Plan which leaves the government and parliament open to the charge of discrimination. There is a general oversight in the Canada Pension Plan as it relates to housewives. I know that I am not the first member to bring this matter to the attention of the House; others who have preceded me have done so. But I think it is a matter of real concern which should be taken under advisement and dealt with favourably.
It would probably be more correct to say that the Canada Pension Plan does not relate to housewives, and that is why I say it is an oversight. I feel, and I am sure many in my party feel, that the government should devise some mechanism whereby housewives could contribute to the Canada Pension Plan and benefit upon retirement or upon reaching retirement age. Of course, there is some question as to whether a housewife ever retires. In the event of the death of her husband, a housewife could then receive a more adequate income.
I am sure many hon. members, if not all, could relate many instances of this kind that have been brought to their attention. Personally, in my records I have many instances of widows who now find themselves with inadequate income. They are not able to go out to earn supplementary wages and are in serious straits. If they were brought under the provisions of the Canada Pension Plan, this at least would give some assistance to them in their efforts to make ends meet.
I could mention other categories. I do not know if they would fit under the provisions of this measure, but I would like to state that there are many, even in the age bracket below 60, who because of physical disabilities are unable to enter the labour market and cannot make ends meet. Yet they have been completely unable to obtain any form of assistance, either from provincial or federal agencies, and have reached the point of desperation. This is a category that should be given immediate consideration, because while we recognize the importance of providing a better income for those who are receiving at least some income, there are others who find it practically impossible to cope with the increased cost of living and, as I say, some are reaching the point of desperation.
I have just received a communication from a lady for whom I have been making representations for some time. She tells me she has received word that one of her sisters took her own life, and she writes that perhaps she should
October 30, 1973

have been the one to do that. This just shows that there are categories of citizens in Canada who are sorely in need; yet no matter which way they turn, the doors are closed. The authorities should see to it that such situations do not materialize in this country, a country which we consider to be so affluent.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I would favour the complete elimination of the earnings test for pensioners aged 65 and over. As it stands now, individuals between the ages of 65 and 69 cannot earn extra income over $960 a year. Consideration should be given to raising the total permissible earnings. I realize we want to make sure that a person is retired before he starts to receive the Canada Pension, but at the same time we should be aware that many of our older people are having a difficult time. If they do try to supplement their income through part-time work bringing in over $960 a year, we should not penalize them by taking away part of their contributory pension.
I am not going to read all the letters that I have before me; I will make reference to only one or two. I have a letter from a man who was superannuated and found he had to go out and supplement his income. Now he finds that if he continues to work he will lose some of the benefits available under the Canada Pension Plan. He believes that people in that position should receive some relief and the ceiling should be raised possibly to $2,000.
I have another letter from a gentleman aged 68 years who is retired and receives a small amount under the Canada Pension Plan. Because of physical needs he had to secure a part-time job. Now he finds that if he continues with his job he will lose part of the little pension he currently receives. I could mention other instances of people in the same position. These individuals should not be penalized because they go out and make a little extra money in order to meet unforeseen expenses caused by illness and other circumstances over which they have no control.
Thirdly, I would like to see the government lower the age of retirement for guaranteed income supplement, old age security and Canada Pension Plan purposes to age 60 beginning with an immediate reduction to age 64 and a yearly reduction thereafter. I have made this point before, as have other members of this party, and I feel action should be taken immediately in this connection. My position then, is that the retirement age should be progressively lowered to age 60.
If there must be an earnings test for those aged 60 to 65 for Canada Pension Plan purposes, consideration should be given to raising the amount of permissible earnings to in excess of $960 per year as it is today.
I understand from the communique which was issued by the conference of ministers of health and welfare on October 11, 1973, that a degree of accord has been reached on this point. The communique reads in part as follows:
It was also agreed where the Canada Pension Plan operates that, effective in 1974, retirement pensions will become payable at age 65 to any person who has ceased to contribute to the plan, regardless of his or her earnings. Thus the earnings test which has been applied to people between 65 and 69 will be eliminated. The government of Quebec has already liberalized the earnings test under the Quebec Pension Plan.
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
I would urge the government to bring forth legislation to that effect quickly so that parliament can act on it in time for it to take effect in the new year. The bill before us is basically a good one, but it is long overdue especially as it relates to the cost of living index.
I do not know whether the government will be prepared to receive amendments to the bill at the committee stage. Although I was not in the House at the time, I understand there was some argument about whether this would be permissible because of its effect on the financial prerogative of the Crown. Nevertheless, I think some amendments should be introduced.
We find ourselves in a very difficult position in view of the minister's statement that these measures have been approved by the provinces. We agree that there must be consultation with the provinces, but it seems strange that when a measure is brought before us we are almost rubber-stamping something that has been agreed upon and approved by other levels of government in consultation with the federal government. I think there is room for amendment on that score.
It seems to me, however, since the Canada Pension Plan is financed, not by public funds but by employee-employer contributions, that this bill should be amendable at the committee stage and some thought should be given to raising the maximum pensionable earnings and/or the inclusion of other items which I and colleagues of mine have mentioned today. I realize it is important to pass this bill quickly, that any amendments would require the consent of the provinces, and that conceivably could delay implementation of the bill. However, from the reports that we have heard and read, and the report that emanated from the conference, it would not appear there would be much difficulty in obtaining agreement on some of the items to which reference has been made.
In conclusion, I would strongly urge the government, whether by amendment to this bill or by new, immediate legislation, to act upon the suggestions it has heard from this party and thereby make the Canada Pension Plan more effective and responsive to the needs of the Canadian people.
[ Translation]


Mr.   Fernand-E. Leblanc@Laurier: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to participate in the debate on second reading of Bill C-224, another one of the important measures introduced by the Liberal party to control the sometimes nefarious effects of inflation especially if one considers those people who are least able to defend themselves, namely the pensioners in this country.
Before getting to the thick of the matter, I think it would be in order to speak about the speech made by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) this afternoon. He stated, like several members had done before him, that the Liberal party was responsible for inflation and that it is more serious in Canada than in other countries. I was just reading tonight in La Presse an article under the heading: World inflation persists when consumers rule. I quote:
The rapid inflation witnessed in North America is a worldwide and contagious disease which comes from an imbalance between demand and production capacity.

October 30, 1973
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
The present inflation is the acceleration of a movement which began around 1940 and has now resulted in an overall yearly increase in prices of 8 to 15 per cent in the United States, in Europe and in Japan; food prices increase even more.
Inflation is greater in the twentieth century than in any previous century. Prices have nearly tripled since 1900!
This proves that inflation is not Canada's prerogative. It is a world wide problem, as shown by the above article.
Moreover, during the debate on inflation brought about by Conservative members on September 10, 1973, the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) delivered a speech on the problems of inflation, unemployment and economy in general, and he quoted some statistics relating to the level of inflation in different countries. I want to quote an excerpt from his speech:
In spite of the threatening pressures, Canada's performance record, both over the long and short terms, compares favourably with that of other nations. Throughout the 1960's Canada, together with Germany, experienced the lowest rate of increase in consumer prices of all the western industrial nations. Between 1970 and the middle of this year, the increase in the cost of living in this country was the second lowest among the eight leading industrial nations, namely Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Germany, Italy and Holland.
In the 12 months period ending in June, the rise in the Canadian consumer price index ranked third lowest among the eight nations.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it was important to make the House aware of those facts. Throughout the debate on the Canada Pension Plan bill, there have been several references to inflation, obviously a related problem since this bill is a further measure aiming at offsetting its often disastrous effects.
Another member raised the matter this afternoon, that is the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Macln-nis) who eloquently denounced the discrimination that seems to exist against women. She made a very good speech as she does every time she rises in this House. However, I will refer her to the press release issued on October 11 and 12 by the conference of welfare ministers where the following can be read in part and I quote:
The federal and provincial governments have noted during this conference that still other questions concerning the CPP and the QPP will require their attention, especially those relating to the equality of sexes, the contributions to be paid and the benefits for spouses who are not contributors.
And it goes on listing other existing problems which will be put right through the eventual introduction of a bill as announced by the minister himself.
In my opinion, Bill C-224 originated on January 4, 1973 when the throne speech contained this very explicit paragraph which resulted in the introduction of this bill:
Subject to the appropriate agreement being reached with the Provinces, changes to improve the Canada Pension Plan will be introduced to provide higher pensions for widows, widows with dependent children and the disabled and to make other needed amendments.
To emphasize this objective set forth in the Speech from the Throne, on September 4, 1973, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made a speech in the House of Commons on the food, cost of living and inflation problem. He said:

Second, legislation will be introduced to remove the 2 per cent ceiling on the annual escalation of pensions paid under the Canada Pension Plan. The provinces will be asked for their support of this change, as required by law. Parallelling this change in the CPP, legislation has been introduced today to remove the 2 per cent ceiling on cost of living increases of pensions paid to retired employees of the Government of Canada.
As we all know, that last measure has already been passed by Parliament. We are now dealing with the first measure announced by the Prime Minister in the Speech from the Throne and the statement he made on September 4. Surely members of the opposition should not take the credit for that bill as did two members when we discussed the bill on family allowances. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) took the credit for the increased amounts of family allowances. I think it would be rather difficult at this time to try and take the credit for this bill on the Canada Pension Plan introduced by the minister.
I think that the tremendous work done by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) since January 4 should also be noted. Indeed, I have been sitting in the House of Commons for 10 years and I have yet to see a minister introduce over a period of 10 months six bills one after the other, pilot them himself and always be present in the House. That means that the minister took the time not only to pilot the bills he introduced, but also to supervise their drafting. He also had, as we all do, to look after his constituents.
The following bills were introduced since January 4: Bill C-147, and Act to amend the Old Age Security Act; Bill C-190, an Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan; Bill C-211, an Act to provide for the payment of family allowances; Bill C-219, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act; Bill C-223, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act and the Youth Allowances Act.
And today we have Bill C-224, and the minister assures us that there is another bill under preparation.
Once again, I think the opposition members should be applauding the minister for the enormous amount of work he has accomplished.
When you consider that the minister's budget stands for more than a quarter of the total budget of the federal government and that because of the adoption of many pieces of legislation the supplementary estimates will have to be increased, it must also be considered that the minister's budget is more significant than that of any province. Indeed, if you compare his budget with that of Quebec, you will find that the minister alone is doing the work of 110 members of the Quebec National Assembly since he is administering by himself a budget in excess of $6 billion.
I think one point must be emphasized. The whole of the Quebec population did realize yesterday how the federal government was helping Quebecers since they have massively voted for the Liberal party while the other parties have been flatly beaten and this thanks only to the good federal-provincial relations maintained by our minister with his ten provincial counterparts.
October 30, 1973

Last spring, in preparation for the conclusion of the federal-provincial agreement, the minister tabled an orange booklet entitled "Working Paper on Social Security in Canada". On September 25 and 26, a conference of provincial ministers was held in Charlottetown to discuss the problem of social assistance throughout the country. Finally, on October 11 and 12 a conference was held in Ottawa which resolved the current problems connected with the Quebec Pension Plan.
The agreement concluded featured five points, including the following:
First, escalation of benefit reflecting the cost of living; second, higher maximum earnings used for the calculation of benefit and contribution rates, two items that are contained in Bill C-224; third, maximum pension benefits under the Canada Pension Plan; fourth, change in employee residence; fifth, suppression of earnings and employment income evaluation for contributors aged from 65 to 69 under the Canada Pension Plan.
Since then, the minister in co-operation with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) explained in detail Bill C-224 in his press release No. 118 dated October 22 that mentions also, as you can read on page 3 in the French version of the release:
Both ministers have pointed out. . .
-of course the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stan-bury) is involved as he is responsible for collecting the contributions-
Both ministers have pointed out that passage of the bill would ensure higher benefits for the 500,000 Canada Pension Plan contributors; furthermore it would provide an increase in future pension, death or disability benefits. This legislation would also restore the parallelism between the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan concerning contribution rates, escalation of present benefits and future pension benefits. This implies that the Quebec government will amend its pension plan to mesh with the Canada Pension Plan as they agreed at the last meeting of federal and provincial welfare ministers.
It is not the only field in which Federal-provincial agreements were successful, particularly those entered to with the province of Quebec. It might be good at this stage to set the record straight, because some candidate in the Quebec election tried to make the people believe that Ottawa and Quebec were always wrangling. Some claimed that those clashes were becoming more frequent at the expense of the taxpayer. There was even talk of squandering, duplication and mess.
Obviously, if those accusations were founded, there would be cause for concern, because in fact, under a federal system, the citizens elect governments, pay taxes to both levels of government and on the other hand they get services from the federal and provincial governments. They want to get their money's worth and who can blame them. They then have the right to require that the governments they elect and finance co-operate. The Ottawa and Quebec administrations are aware of that right and try to respect it.
Here are some examples of a common commitment in the interest of Quebecers that was made a short time ago: firstly, the federal-provincial agreement on family allowances. As of January 1", 1974, every Quebec family will receive $15 a month for the first child, $20 for the second,
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
$33 for the third and $37 for every other child, thanks to the influx of federal moneys; the ventilation of which was prepared by the provincial government.
Here is another example of federal-provincial agreements: along with other governments of Canada, the province of Quebec participates in the review of the Canadian social security system which originated, as the minister said, with the Castonguay-Nepveu report. Also, what about what was done concerning manpower centres: the federal and provincial offices already cooperate in training Canadians through manpower centres. Also, in the field of economic development, the province of Quebec and the federal government are developing a general agreement which, as the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) has announced, will allow both governments to jointly identify opportunities for economic progress and apply resources to these opportunities.
There is another area, I suggest, that must be underlined, that of environment: Quebec shares with the federal government and the Ontario government in the preparation of studies on the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence River and the Ottawa River. The federal government and the province of Quebec succeeded in cleaning the St. Charles River.
Moreover, agreements were reached on the development of national parks like Forillon, Cartier-Brebeuf in the Quebec City area and another in the St. Maurice Valley; the federal government is making arrangements with the province of Quebec for staging the Jeux de la francopho-nie to be held in 1974.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, I might go on quoting other matters on which agreements have been reached between the federal and the provincial governments but, in my opinion, in order to bring supporting evidence for what I said earlier, namely that federal-provincial relations are very good, even with the province of Quebec, I suggest that the examples I quoted are sufficient to show up to what extent this is true, and to contradict some memorable statements that were made during the election campaign that came to an end yesterday in the province of Quebec.
There is a point on which I would like to draw the minister's attention and about which I made a speech in this House on February 22, 1973, namely private pension plans. I suggest that the federal government might intervene, although, from the constitutional point of view, private pension plans fall within provincial jurisdiction; I suggest that this very important matter which was influenced to a certain extent by the amendments to the Canada Pension Plan might be put on the agenda of meetings to be held between interested parties from various provinces and the federal minister. Besides, I think that the minister himself has mentioned the influence these amendments will have on private pension plans. If I am not mistaken, this has been reported at page 7326 of Hansard for October 29, and I quote:
The changes to the Canada Pension Plan which the federal government has developed in conjunction with the provinces, and which I am committed to place before Parliament, present the government with a difficult dilemma.
As I mentioned a few moments ago, these changes will, if enacted, have a profound and long term effect on the Canada Pension Plan. Many Canadians, organizations, and Parliament

October 30, 1973
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
will naturally wish to examine these proposed reforms thoroughly, and with a great deal of care. This is as it should be and as I would wish it to be.
I agree with the minister that the amendments to the Canada Pension Plan will surely have an impact on private pension plans. In my speech of February 22, I made some suggestions in terms of creating, or at least of considering with provincial ministers the advisability of creating a mechanism to make pension credits universally portable.
In other words, Canadians 45 years of age or over are now experiencing difficulties finding employment when, for one reason or another, they lose their job, especially because of the pension fund but quite often also for some other motives. If we had a universally transferable plan, companies would not have to pay extra money when they hire a new employee because he would bring his retirement fund with him as is the case under the Canada Pension Plan.
Obviously, this is not an easy problem. I also suggested the establishment of a central agency. Some unions have done so and all employee retirement funds are brought there. When a worker takes another job but remains in the same union, his fund follows him since it is in this central agency. Maybe it would also be possible for this country to establish a central fund that would hold the credit on behalf of all concerns. At this stage, I suggest the federal minister should perhaps urge provincial governments to standardize their laws in that field as is the case now with the Canada Pension Plan. We would thus avoid what happens whenever an employer dips into funds already contributed by employees to build up a pension fund for themselves. Besides, in his very eloquent speech of October 29, the minister himself said as recorded on page 7326 of Hansard:
... the differences which had developed early this year between the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan with respect to contributions, retirement pensions, and the escalation of benefits will be removed for 1974 and future years. In other words, employers and employees in all provinces will, once again, be subject to identical CPP-QPP contributions, and citizens in Quebec and the rest of Canada will receive virtually the same retirement pensions, which in turn will be escalated in a common manner to take account of changes in the cost of living.
Clearly, this will contribute to the mobility of workers between all parts of Canada.
And I think such standardization should also be reflected in private pension plans across this country, which is very important since those private pension plans represent just the same an economic value of $12 billion, which is a very significant amount when it comes to making investments and, if I remember rightly, it is the third most important source of investment funds in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I obviously do not want this debate to go on any longer, and I hope that hon. members will hurry and finish the debate on second reading of this bill so that it may be passed as soon as possible in the best interests of the Canadian people and especially the 500,000 recipients who are in dire need of their money.


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of participating in this debate. May I say at the outset that I concur in what the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) said when he indicated our support for Bill C-224 presently before the House. I should like to add my hope that the bill is given quick passage.
During the past few months it has become apparent that there is consensus among the provinces regarding the present amendments to the Canada Pension Plan. I think typical of the provincial response was that enunciated by the minister of social services of Ontario, the Hon. Rene Brunelle, on October 11, 1973. He described three basic objectives which he felt were important to the social services program in the province of Ontario. The first of these three objectives was the need for a substantial increase in benefits. He suggested the Canada Pension Plan benefits should be increased substantially and significantly to bear a relationship that would be realistic to the needs of pensioners as living costs and wage levels increase.
The second objective was the need for immediate action in this entire area, and he indicated that steps should be taken immediately to reorient the Canada Pension Plan to more adequate pension levels. The third objective was that of parallelism. He stated that in order to rebuild national pension harmony, the third objective should be to reestablish parallelism between the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan. This objective, of course, should be sought in line with, and not at the expense of, the first two objectives.
The present amendments are in keeping, in part, with these specific objectives, although of course Ontario proposed a higher earnings ceiling as has been indicated by other hon. members. I should like to note in passing that the Ontario proposals call for the elimination of the earnings test for pensioners aged 65 to 70. In addition, the Canada Pension Plan retirement pension should be made available to people aged between 60 and 64 on a reduced basis; there should be increased benefits for widows aged 60 and over; and there should be equal treatment for men and women with respect to survivor benefits.
This is but one example of provincial consent to amend the Canada Pension Plan, and I must congratulate the minister for responding with this initial legislation. He has also indicated that further amendments will be presented to this House delineating the priorities as established by the minister and his provincial colleagues.
At the outset of the debate yesterday, the minister made reference to the working paper ' on social security in Canada and to his consultations with the provincial ministers of welfare, members of the Canada Pension Plan advisory committee and representatives of labour and business organizations. If I may quote from Hansard, as reported at page 7318 the minister said:
Six months ago last Thursday, the government tabled its working paper on social security in Canada. This signalled the start of the joint federal-provincial review of Canada's total social security system that has been suggested by the government of Canada and the provinces.
October 30, 1973

Then further on the next page the minister said:
Shortly after I tabled the working paper of the federal government, I met with provincial ministers of welfare, and I conferred with them again two weeks ago on the reforms that should be made in the Canada Pension Plan. In the intervening period, federal and provincial welfare officials met on numerous occasions, and had jointly prepared a number of detailed studies to assist the ministers of welfare at their October meeting.
In addition, during this interval, I consulted with members of the Canada Pension Plan advisory committee, and representatives of labour and business organizations. The results of these extensive studies and consultations with the provinces and private organizations can be found in the communique which the provincial ministers of welfare and I issued on October 11, 1973, with respect to the agreements we had reached on the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan.
The minister is to be congratulated for this kind of consultation with the provinces and other interested bodies. However, there is one fundamental question I should like to pursue which I cannot find answered by the minister. This is a question I feel must be answered if we are to debate intelligently the present and subsequent amendments to the Canada Pension Plan; and this question must be answered no only as it relates to the Canada Pension Plan, which had its inception in January of 1967, but also as it relates to the working paper on social security in Canada introduced earlier this year by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde).
In the model social security system which was outlined by the minister in his orange paper he made reference to a social insurance strategy in which the Canada Pension Plan received top priority. I think the question that should be asked at this time, and that has to be answered is, will the Canada Pension Plan retain the features of a social insurance plan similar to workmen's compensation plans, or will it take on additional features more in keeping with a welfare plan or income supplementation plan?
If I may review for a moment the provisions of Bill C-224, which has been adequately described and outlined by the minister, I would reiterate that this proposal to amend the Canada Pension Plan will remove the 2 per cent limit that is presently imposed on annual pension increases, these increases being based on the consumer price index. This, of course, has been complemented by a retroactive clause which will allow for cost of living adjustments dating back to the year 1967 when recipients first started receiving benefits.
It is also my understanding that this catch-up clause will mean increases of at least 8 per cent for people receiving benefits since 1972, and a maximum increase of 20 per cent for those who have been receiving benefits since 1967. We agree with these proposals. The second provision in the bill is the escalation of pensionable earnings to $6,600 in 1974, and $7,400 in 1975.
To adequately assess the proposed legislation as it relates to the Canada Pension Plan and the orange paper on social security, I would like to place in perspective some of the background as I understand it. The act establishing the Canada Pension Plan was proclaimed into force on May 5, 1965, with collection of contributions commencing in January, 1966. In January, 1967, the first
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
retirement pensions were paid, with disability pensions commencing in February, 1970.
Of course, the plan is universally applicable and portable throughout Canada, with benefits payable to beneficiaries whether or not they live in Canada. Participation requires a person to be between the ages of 18 and 70 and earning more than $600 a year, with employees contributing at a rate of 1.8 per cent of the contributory earnings and with a matching contribution by their employers, while self-employed persons contribute at the rate of 3.6 per cent.
Benefits from the plan are of three types: first, retirement pensions; secondly, survivors' benefits consisting of a widow's pension, a disabled widower's pension and orphan benefits; and, thirdly, disability benefits consisting of pensions for disabled contributors and benefits for their dependent children.
It is important to recall, in summarizing, that the Canada Pension Plan was introduced as a contributory social insurance program for members of the Canadian labour force with three basic objectives: first, to guarantee an income-related pension to every member of the labour force; to provide basic social insurance to each labour force member and direct dependents in the event of death or total disability; and to provide a source of capital to the provinces.
Whether by design or accident, the Canadian people have interpreted the Canada Pension Plan as a pure social insurance program, when in reality it contains important provisions such as non-earnings related benefits, giving it many of the characteristics of a welfare plan. This fundamental problem is poorly understood by the Canadian people, and the problem is compounded by the complexity of the plan and the restraint on the part of the government to clearly define the role of the Canada Pension Plan within the context of over-all income security policy.
Let me illustrate this if I may. When the guaranteed income supplement payments began in 1967, the same year in which the Canada Pension Plan commenced, the guaranteed income supplement was initially intended as a temporary program to be phased out when the Canada Pension Plan matured in 1976. With the 1970 white paper on income security, the government proposed to establish the guaranteed income supplement as a permanent program, to continue universal old age security payments and to amend the Canada Pension Plan. The proposed Canada Pension Plan amendments at that time were to eliminate two problems as defined by the white paper: first of all, gaps remaining in the income security system, particularly for widows and disabled people; and, secondly, the problem in relation to the fact that Canada Pension Plan contributions and benefits had not kept pace with the growth in average Canadian wages.
Without giving illustrations or figures, the suggested changes to the Canada Pension Plan were intended to substantially increase widows' and disability benefits and to increase retirement benefits through selective increases in the earnings ceilings. Clearly, these changes placed emphasis on the welfare aspect of the plan. It is perfectly true that the minister in presenting the orange paper on social security indicated it was a working paper. Perhaps I

October 30, 1973
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
may quote from page 2 of the preface to that paper on social security, the so-called orange paper, as follows:
This working paper has been prepared as the Government of Canada's contribution to the launching of this review. It is not designed to present a prescription or a panacea for every weakness in Canada's welfare system. Nor is it meant as a set of fixed proposals put forward by the Government of Canada to parliament and the provinces, for early legislative implementation. Rather it is designed to outline the broad directions of policy which would, in the view of the government, lead to a more effective and better co-ordinated system of social security for Canadians.
On the same page the minister makes reference to two specific proposals, the second being a proposal to amend the Canada Pension Plan. Perhaps I may quote again from this page as follows:
Two specific proposals are contained in this paper and the Government of Canada would like to see them implemented as soon as possible. The first would involve a very substantial increase in family and youth allowances. This is a priority which seems generally to be accepted by the provinces, and ought therefore to be capable of early implementation. The second is a proposal to amend the Canada Pension Plan so as to remove, or at least raise, the present ceiling on the escalation of pension benefits (in relation to changes in the consumer price index) and to increase the year's maximum pensionable earnings (and thus increase, over time, the maximum pensions payable). Under the Canada Pension Plan, it will be necessary to gain the support of two-thirds of the provinces representing two-thirds of the Canadian people in order to implement these proposals. We hope that this support will be forthcoming.
Again in the working paper on social security in Canada, the so-called orange paper, at page 20 the minister has outlined very specifically the social insurance strategy. In this paper he makes reference specifically to the Canada Pension Plan, the workmen's compensation Plan, the unemployment insurance plan, the Quebec Pension Plan, and more specifically proposition No. 4 which perhaps I might quote:
That government should continue to encourage people to save to meet the contingencies of life, and to provide for retirement, through social insurance plans. The benefits from these plans, like income from employment, should be supplemented where required from an income supplementation plan.
What is readily apparent is that at this time we once again have a discussion of a social insurance strategy in which the Canada Pension Plan has received top priority. Once again we have the impression, as we read the orange paper, that in effect we are talking about a pure form of social insurance and that once again the government has failed to define the role of the Canada Pension Plan in its over-all social security system.
We are, therefore, once again confronted with a plan that has features of social insurance not requiring internal subsidies, and in addition has features consistent with welfare including subsidies similar to other income support programs. Since it is apparent that the Canada Pension Plan can emphasize either the welfare or insurance aspects of the plan, since the minister has asked for a reasoned and sympathetic debate concerning how best to provide for the security of income for all Canadians, and since he has indicated the vital importance of the Canada Pension Plan in the total picture of income security, surely it is absolutely essential that the minister outline

the specific role the Canada Pension Plan is to play in our social security system.
One additional point which concerns me is the accuracy of the actuarial data one sees associated with the Canada Pension Plan. I am no expert in this regard, but it is my impression that the experts not infrequently have differing opinions in analysing the actuarial data associated with a normal insurance program. Surely where the problem is compounded by an insurance welfare scheme, the validity of actuarial data is doubly suspect to interpretation. I think it is important, and I hope that at an appropriate time the minister will outline the philosophy regarding this fundamental and very important issue in respect of the Canada Pension Plan with relation to the whole social insurance structure.
In conclusion, may I say I have indicated my support for this bill but I would also ask the minister to pursue those matters which have been referred to by other members of this House. The hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) this afternoon spoke about specific matters. He referred to the delay in having pensions approved. I would concur in that observation.
In addition, there was reference to survivors' and disability benefits and to the fact that the spouses and children of male or female contributors should receive benefits on the same basis. At the present time, husbands of deceased female contributors are not eligible for a pension unless the wife contributed more than 50 per cent of the family income.
Again, I congratulate the minister for the significant amendments but I would ask him at an appropriate time to see whether it is possible to answer some of the questions I have raised.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, as I always am, I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc). Perhaps he did so whimsically, I do not know, but certainly he heaped a multitude of praise upon a rather embarrassed minister. The minister was once known as the grey eminence; but as I looked over at him as the hon. member for Laurier was speaking, he could have been described as the red eminence. I feel that the minister is really quite self-effacing; perhaps that is why he was embarrassed by this praise. He is not accustomed to it. I feel, also, the minister is deserving of some praise but I do not intend to prostrate myself before the font of "St. Marc."
The hon. member for Laurier made some suggestions. Naturally, he was pleased about the results of last evening in the province of Quebec. I would remind him that a year ago tonight perhaps members of his party were not quite so pleased about the results all across Canada. The hon. member for Laurier gave his litany of the accomplishments of the minister and other ministers in obtaining federal-provincial agreements. Naturally, we all take credit for everything we can, but I have a feeling that had the result of one year ago been a little different and we had a majority rather than a minority government, some of the many and very valuable reforms about which the hon. member spoke this evening might never have seen the light of day.
October 30, 1973

I have listened all afternoon and this evening and have read the debates of yesterday in respect of this bill. It seems to me that there are a number of recurring themes, with variations, which seem to enjoy the support of members from all parties. I certainly hope because of the widespread support for three points I will make that the minister will become convinced there is a substantial sentiment for these reforms on all benches of the House.
Perhaps in summary I might mention the three things we should be thinking about in terms of improvement to the Canada Pension Plan, and then I will try to elaborate as fully as time will allow on each item. The first item which seems to keep recurring is that we should be broadening the base of publicly-funded pensions, specifically the Canada Pension Plan, so that much larger benefits will result to the public from this broadened base. I shall go into some details about this later, but it seems to be one of the things which keeps recurring.
A number of members have touched on the second point. We should be moving toward a voluntary earlier retirement option for Canadian workers. A number of members have spoken very eloquently on the fact that we have been lowering the demand in terms of the number of years necessary to qualify for such things as the old age pension, and have asked whether we should be thinking about lowering the age in terms of the Canada Pension Plan perhaps year by year down to age 60 depending upon the resources of the country, our economic situation and the priorities of the government in respect of welfare benefits.
We know there has been much argument concerning whether this is a welfare scheme, or an insurance scheme, or some bastard mixture of both. I think perhaps the third definition might be more suitable. The third point which I think keeps coming up is that we should be adopting legislation that would permit reciprocal survivor benefits for spouses regardless whether the spouse is male or female. I know there is some interest in this particular topic, certainly by the minister because he has indicated that this is an area in which he would like to have a certain indication of support in order that he may proceed with a broadened or more important piece of legislation than presently exists.
In dealing with the first point having to do with broadening the base of all publicly-funded pension plans, I should like to congratulate the minister, as other members of the House have done, for the improvements he has made. There is no doubt about it, he has exhibited great leadership in this area. The fact that the pension will reflect the cost of living rather than having a 2 per cent ceiling is certainly a recognition of the justice of that move. I think it is in keeping with the other amendments we have made to such measures as old age security and the guaranteed income supplement in recent weeks.
The fact that these benefits will be made retroactive to 1967, bringing retroactive catch-up benefits of 8 per cent to 20 per cent is a step in the right direction. No one can quarrel with that. After all, you cannot shoot Santa Claus. Certainly, the raising of the yearly maximum pensionable earnings from the current $5,600 to ultimately $7,400 is also a step in the right direction. But here is a point I
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
should like to make, because the minister has indicated that this $5,600, or $5,900, if you talk about the Quebec Pension Plan, to $6,600 is roughly 1214 per cent and the increase from $6,600 to $7,400 is again roughly 12 'A per cent. I believe the minister indicated that he is considering increases at the rate of 1214 per cent in the future.
My question-and I think it is crucial in terms of my own motivation, my own value system and judgment-is: how long does the minister intend to continue doing this, because if this is to be a yearly move, the Canada Pension Plan, instead of being a supplementary plan to a plan that will pay much larger benefits, perhaps even up to 75 per cent rather than 25 per cent, moving up to 50 per cent, will be the basic plan; and then I think it is a step in the right direction and I urge the minister to take that step. But the minister has not given us a clear indication. Perhaps he will be able to do so when he consults the provinces. Perhaps he will be able to tell us how long he intends to keep pumping this plan by 12 !4 per cent a year. If he intends to do this for the next few years, I will certainly give him my support. I am certain that this will be explained in more detail in the next bill which will form part of this package of CPP amending bills which we have before us, have had before and will have before us.
I hope this 1214 per cent will apply for a number of years to come, because it will help to bring about the first point that I made in terms of larger benefits. The CPP, as I have said earlier, has always been considered as a supplementary plan. Now, even under the minister's old amendments, we can expect that the benefits will be raised only to a maximum of 50 per cent of whatever the average earnings were for the last three years. What I am concerned about is why we as legislators should always be content to consider the CPP as a supplementary pension plan. Why are we doing this?
The hon. member for Laurier made some excellent suggestions in terms of making private pension plans more responsive and more helpful, making them portable-a central clearing house. I think his suggestions are worth while if what we are interested in is improving private plans. I happen to be of the conviction or, if you like, have the philosophical prejudice that a goodly number of private plans are used by companies for their own ends. I have made references to this before in the House, but there are a number of disadvantages in certain private plans. Often the funds from the private pension plans are used as a cheap form of loan capital by the companies to lend, in turn, to themselves at a rate set by the companies, which is not always a competitive rate in the outside world.
Let us consider for a moment the CN pension funds. There are many millions of dollars in the CN pension plan. They are lent to investors, frequently at competitive rates of roughly 8 per cent to 11 per cent, depending on the month. But the CN's only obligation is 3 per cent in terms of earnings. Therefore, anything extra earned by that pension fund goes to the benefit of CNR. Further, frequently in these private pension plans, in spite of the fact that the bulk of the money in those plans is put forward as contributions by the employees, there are no employee representatives on the board of management.

October 30, 1973
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
So if you consider the fact that the major contributors have no say in how their money is to be invested, you can see that is a major flaw in the private pension plan. In many cases in Canada, unless the company wishes to reveal the trust agreement of its pension plan, there is no legislation in Canadian books, in contrast to American law, that requires them to do so. For instance, if you consider pension plans as deferred wages, it seems to me that only the employees, and not the company, should have the control of both the company's and the employees' contributions.
What I am really trying to illustrate is the fact that the $12 billion in private pension plans does not, by and large, return benefits to the workers. This means that the Canada Pension Plan must be a supplementary plan because one of the major cultural shocks, which is an economic shock, that faces anyone on retirement is the dramatic decrease in his standard of living, occasioned by the fact that he suddenly moves from his peak earnings to what is a supplementary, marginal or poverty level income because we have not ensured that the money he has invested in the private plan will pay off to his benefit in the way it should. So we come along with the Canada Pension Plan. The CPP is really doing the same thing: it is just supplementing what the private plan does inadequately. The whole thing adds up to an inadequate package; that is my major criticism.
I would like to see the CPP broadened to include a provision for greater input in terms of employee-employer contributions, if necessary, to pay larger benefits earlier. We are now providing 1.8 per cent. We could quite easily go up perhaps to 2 per cent or 3 per cent. I do not think that if a person is concerned about his retirement security he should mind contributing to a portable plan under the CPP which will provide him with benefits adjusted in relation to the cost of living, so that he can have a decent standard of living when he retires.
What happened in 1967 was that the CPP and most private plans were integrated. Here was a perfect chance for them to be stacked-but most employer and employee groups, I am sorry to say, opted for the integration of those plans. I think that in terms of the benefits they produce and the inflation factor that we have seen over the last ten years, this was a rotten decision. I think that the average person would welcome a portable contributory plan so that he would not be put in a position, if he has to retire early and has no other income, of having to face this kind of change in his standard of living at an age when he is least prepared to do so. I think we should do all we can to avoid that kind of trauma.
The other point on the broadening of the base-in spite of the clock I am still on point one of my remarks-is that I said perhaps 3 per cent would do it in terms of contributions. But maybe raising the maximum pensionable earnings beyond the $5,900, $6,700 and $7,400 up to perhaps $20,000 would provide for an earnings-related pension plans which would be quite acceptable to many people as an alternative to company plans. At least the provinces would have the benefit of that loan capital. At least the people who are recipients under such a pension plan
(Mr. Hose.j
would not have a supplementary plan as they would have one adequate plan for their needs.
Let us take the example of our own pension plan, as members of parliament, based on $18,000. It is stacked; it is not integrated. If it is possible to have a plan for a certain segment of society like members of parliament, which after six years can pay certain benefits, probably better benefits than any public benefit and certainly better than the Canada Pension Plan can after maybe 30 years, then surely for the average person a portable contributory pension plan that would come into force after a matter of 30 years is not actuarially impossible.
All we have to do is set our minds to do it, and ignore the lobbies of the financial institutions that are out attempting to sell supplementary plans themselves simply because the plans we have, in terms of old age security, the Canada Pension Plan, the guaranteed income supplement and the private pension plans of the companies are inadequate. So what we have is a huge market with all kinds of sales gimmicks, all based on people's fears of insecurity.
The second point I made in my introduction was that I feel we should be working toward provision of voluntary early retirement under the Canada Pension Plan. I touched on this earlier. I know the minister has considered it. I know that when he was speaking previously on amendments to the old age security plan he gave us the figures in terms of the cost of lowering the eligible age to 60 years. I know he has faced this fact and I know he has considered it. Nevertheless, the answer we always get when we ask about pension benefits in terms of the public is, "Where are we going to get the money?"
I point out that we have kept on raising benefits. True, we have scarcely kept up with the cost of living, but we have always found the money. It depends on the value system in terms of our own priorities as a government, as a parliament or as a people, in terms of how we wish to treat our older people. I get a great deal of mail in support of early retirement. There are very many people who are looking forward to retiring early, perhaps not to do nothing but to do something else with their lives because they are locked into rather boring, unrewarding and not meaningful-I do not like that word, Mr. Speaker; there must be a better word-jobs and they would like to do something else.
About a third of the people who are on our six months' unemployed list are people who are 24 years of age or under, and this has been the case for the last two or three years. It seems to me that there might be a relationship between voluntary early retirement and employment for the young. The minister might dispute this and say that it is not the problem, that the problem with the young people who are unemployed is that they lack skills; and possibly if you let people off their jobs to retire early, they would take other people's jobs, like the RCMP retirees working as benefit control officers, or retired servicemen who take jobs that other people could fill. I suggest that if pension benefits were adequate in terms of family obligations at that time in their lives, in their forties of fifties, they would be less inclined to do so. I suggest that it is possible in certain countries to do this. In Germany, railway work-
October 30, 1973

ers can retire on 75 per cent of their best five year's income after 25 years on the job.
I see it is ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and I think this is a good point to stop.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has a third point to make, so perhaps it could be agreed that it is ten o'clock. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) in the House tonight, because I asked him a question on October 19 and at that time the hon. gentleman replied that he was aware of the subject I was raising in the question period and he would be pleased to review the particulars and inform me as soon as possible. Tonight we are going to give the hon. gentleman that opportunity.
I am concerned about the progress of mechanization that is going forward with some extreme speed in the Post Office Department. The responsibility for supplying the equipment has been placed in the hands of the Department of Supply and Services, and judging from statements of the Post Office Department they are speeding up the operation toward mechanization in an attempt to sort out the growing confusion in the Post Office Department and the rapid deterioration in the quality of service.
As the official spokesman for the opposition on this matter, I am inundated daily with complaints by hon. members from all parts of Canada that the postal service is far from satisfactory. When these matters are brought to his attention, the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) invariably says, "Wait until we mechanize." Apparently that will be the dawning of the age of Aquarius.
The question I asked had to do with an important contract which will be vital in the success of the mechanization program. I do not think I have to give the details because I believe the minister is fully aware of them, but it is a contract for provision of bulk sorters in the major centres across Canada. The delivery date of this new equipment is vitally important. In order to meet the requirements of the delivery date it will be necessary for the manufacturer handling the task to be technically qualified, and also to have had some experience in the production of this mechanical sorting equipment. My investigations reveal that very few companies have had any experience in this field, largely because it is new; and
Adjournment Debate
countries that are already mechanized, primarily the United States, have only recently become so. Of the companies submitting tenders for this contract, only one has really had the necessary experience and has demonstrated the competence required. They are now into three generations of production equipment. Huge expenditures are involved and the total cost will be around $100 million. Of that amount, $80 million will be for the coders and sorters.
The day I asked the minister the question he indicated that the contract had already been awarded to a company that did not meet the specifications for a performance-type contract. However, I do not think that information is correct. One of the major deficiencies was the failure to provide a mechanically-assisted sorter. The Canadian Post Office project officers on the project objected, so too did the consultant, Cole Sherman and Associates Limited of Toronto, who had been hired by the Post Office Department. These objections were overruled by the Department of Supply and Services' officials and the project officer for this specific contract was withdrawn from the evaluation process at the request of that department.
As a result of the negotiations that are going on behind the scenes there will be a delay in delivery from the proposed date of October, 1974, to January, 1975. The cost of the time slippage is approximately $100,000 a day, because if the machinery is not in place it is necessary to have two parallel staffs, those who will operate the equipment and those who will carry on in the normal sorting manual process in the event of failure of the mechanical process to go into operation at the prescribed time.
It will be readily seen, Mr. Speaker, that if there is a foul-up in the mechanization process, the confusion that currently reigns supreme in the Post Office Department will be compounded to a state of chaos. The other companies which have submitted tenders are competitive in their bids. I raise this question now because I think all hon. members are aware that one of the difficulties which arose in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Commission was the failure of its computerization program. I am still getting complaints daily because this problem has not been entirely corrected.
I am sure the minister will agree that the most precise care will be necessary to ensure that the most qualified bidder is considered for this contract.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to apologize to the hon. member if I gave the impression that the contract had already been awarded. As a matter of fact, the contract is not yet awarded; it is still under active consideration. I am sure the hon. member will understand that it would be improper for me to disclose the negotiations which are presently taking place.
I should like to assure the hon. member, however, that I spent a lot of time reviewing this question with my officials, and the fact that the hon. member is still attracting my attention to the question is appreciated. The hon. member placed the question on the order paper on October

October 30, 1973
Adjournment Debate
25. It was a very long question, with many points raised of much interest. I should like to assure him that in a very short time I will be in a position to give an answer. In the meantime, however, I cannot, of course, accept the premises of his question.
With a little hope and a little help from my officials in the Post Office, we will come to a conclusion on this very important question which has been raised.


AIR TRANSPORT-DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF ALLOCATION OF ROUTE TO MILAN AND NEW ROUTES TO UNITED STATES
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the question period on September 17 I raised two questions, neither of which was answered in a satisfactory way by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand). The first question I asked was, when would the government announce which Canadian carrier would be given the right to fly from Canada to Milan? Over the years, it seems to have been the policy of governments to chip away at the ability of Air Canada, a publicly-owned airline which was organized under a Liberal government administration. Over the years, Air Canada has given excellent service to the Canadian people. It seems to have been the desire of recent governments to make it impossible for Air Canada to provide the kind of service which it should provide to the Canadian people. In past years, regional routes have been taken away from Air Canada.
In more recent years, many of the most profitable international runs have been given to Canadian Pacific Airlines. For many years, CPA was given the right to fly to Hawaii and the Asian countries. Europe was reserved for Air Canada. For reasons which have never been satisfactorily explained, CPA was given the right to fly to Amsterdam, a most profitable and lucrative run.
Canada now has an opportunity to establish a service to Milan. It is obvious that Air Canada should be given that run, particularly in view of the recent rights given to CPA in various parts of the world. I cannot understand why the minister and the government have taken so long to make the announcement that Air Canada will have the right to fly to Milan. One cannot help but wonder what political clout CPA and its friends have with members of the cabinet.
There is another question I want to deal with very briefly. On September 17 I asked about the failure of the government in its negotiations with the United States to get for Canada a fair share of the new air routes between Canada and the United States. For every route which Canada gets, the United States will get two. As most of the traffic between Canada and the United States is Canadian, Canada should have done much better in these negotiations.
I know I speak for all the people of Manitoba when I say that Manitobans are incensed by the fact that the proposed agreement does not give Manitoba a Canadian carrier for passenger service between Winnipeg, Minneapolis and Chicago until 1978. Until then we must continue to depend upon an American carrier. I say to the minister and his parliamentary secretary, who comes from my city, that that agreement on the part of the government has

been met with universal disapproval. I would be ruled out of order if I used the kind of language I have heard in Winnipeg to describe the agreement reached by the government. I urge the minister to reconsider and then to renegotiate the agreement he has made with the United States and to provide Winnipeg with the Canadian carriers to which it is entitled, not in 1978 but now, in 1973.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member's first question with regard to Milan, may I say that the government is fully aware of the importance of designating a Canadian airline to serve Milan. This question has been with us since last year when, under the revised agreement with Italy, we obtained the right to serve Milan in addition to Rome as well as onward traffic rights beyond Italy. The Italians, of course, received the right to serve Toronto in addition to Montreal and have been doing so since last November.
Unfortunately, it has not been possible to deal with the Milan question in isolation. Canada's international civil aviation policy is under review at the present time, including the assigning of international routes to our two flag carriers. Including among the considerations taken into account in this review are maximum benefits to the Canadian travelling public and the welfare of our airlines. The Milan designation is part of this larger issue, and the government feels the decision must await the results of this basic policy review.
In his second question, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) made reference to a "fair share". He did not mention this in his question of September 17 as reported in Hansard at page 6623. However, I will answer that question. In a market as widespread as that between Canada and the United States, it obviously would not be possible for us to participate in all the new routes from the beginning, nor perhaps is it feasible from an airline resource standpoint that we should do so. In order to meet the needs of the Canadian travelling public, it would seem sensible that new services be introduced as quickly as possible. This means that in a number of cases either a Canadian or a United States airline would have to operate the route first where the current traffic offering is not as heavy as to justify parallel services.
This was a matter for negotiation, and on some routes it was decided that some United States carriers would open the routes, with Canadians to phase in, and that in other cases Canadian carriers would open the routes, with United States carriers to phase in. For example, Canada opens the Edmonton-Calgary-San Francisco route and the United States follow in phase two. Canada opens the Toronto-Dallas-Fort Worth-Houston route and the U.S. follow only in phase three. Canada opens the Montreal-Cleveland route and the U.S. enter at the very last phase. I am sure this will be understood by the hon. member.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Tell us about Winnipeg.
October 30, 1973


FISHERIES-ACTION TO ENSURE CONTINUING SUPPLY OF VEGETABLE OILS FROM UNITED STATES FOR PROCESSING PRODUCTS
Mr.   Fred. McCain@Carleton-Charlotte: Mr. Speaker, it is so long since I asked a question pertaining to the supply and regulation of protein and vegetable oil materials in Canada that it may seem useless to discuss the matter at this late date and at this late hour. It is regrettable that this issue was not debated at a much earlier moment. But it is still, I think, of value to discuss it, inasmuch as what happened should be a lesson to Canadian governments both today and in the future and a reminder that the same blunder should never be made again.
I believe the Government of Canada panicked when it received notice that the United States had decided to place an embargo on protein and vegetable oil materials. Canada reciprocated by imposing identical legislation or regulation. But the government did not take into consideration the international aspect of the trade between Canada and other nations in these commodities. It did not take into consideration the fact that western Canada might well obtain a large portion of its requirements from the area immediately south of the border in the United States. Nor did it take into consideration the fact that the eastern seaboard of Canada exports practically all its fishmeal to the United States and the European market. It took no account of the fact that Canadian manufacturers had geared production of protein materials and vegetable oil to international demand.
It did succeed, in this restrictive measure, in disrupting the trade patterns of all these people. There was a very obvious alternative, I think, and that was that there should have been an approach to our neighbour to the south to make a deal for a trading basis on which we might exchange shipments of protein material on a unit by unit basis so that neither protein supplies nor vegetable oil supplies would be depleted. Rather, the opportunity would present itself for each individual who required these supplies to obtain them from their traditional source at better prices than would otherwise be available. The price of protein material required for livestock feed in the west was escalated because the normal source of supply was removed and transportation made up costs which were not convenient for them.
This was so precipitant and mandatory that ships already at the dock sailed unloaded with protein materials. It was so mandatory that inventories built-up in eastern fishmeal plants to the point where they could not be accommodated and the plants had to cease operations, or planned that they might have to. It was so serious that food processors could not get vegetable oils; they paid exorbitant prices for the sources that were available to them, and had to substitute to a degree that was not attractive.
I submit that had this been undertaken with the intelligence which we expect of government, and with the knowledge of the consequences of the policy, these hardships need not have existed to the degree to which they did. They could have been ameliorated by an intelligent approach. I submit that the government panicked and created a scarcity in some areas and a surplus in others. It
Adjournment Debate
did not take the necessary steps to trade these items in an area of convenience to Canada.
The unfortunate part of it is that shippers from the east coast of Canada who use export markets virtually exclusively for their products have found that their international trading reputation has been damaged, that they have a great deal of difficulty establishing themselves in those markets which they have used traditionally because we are no longer considered a reliable source of supply.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very poor way to approach a subject. It must be taken into consideration that we knew that certain companies in Canada requiring protein had their requirements covered on a long-term basis; that this meal was not going to be an adequate substitute for some feed manufacturers; that export markets were going to be vital and essential to them. As a result of this, processors of fishmeal in the Atlantic area, which have been hard pressed for years to make ends meet, were hurt again and lost an opportunity for profit-making. It also reduced the potential income of those people who were fishing. Taking the whole program all around, it was detrimental to virtually every user of protein in Canada. It was detrimental to every food processor who required vegetable oils. In the long run, it was detrimental to the character and the trading nature of our industry throughout the country.
This was avoidable. There should have been an attempt at negotiation. It should have been announced in this House, and people should have understood where they were going and why it was logical. It was not a matter to be studied; it was a matter where the information should have been at the government's fingertips when the decision was made.


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, Canada has now been given special exemption from normal export controls on United States soybeans and soybean meal. Restrictions on vegetable oils have not to date been lifted by the United States government. The Canadian government has not asked the U.S. for any exemption on vegetable oils as the Canadian users of this product, including sardine canners in the Bay of Fundy, have not voiced any difficulties in obtaining supplies.
Presently, domestically-produced vegetable oil is readily available to the fish processing industry. However, the price of Canadian domestic soybean oil is $34 per hundredweight, as compared with $27 per hundredweight for U.S. soybean oil. As a result of the price differential, the Canadian fish processors, primarily sardine canners, prefer the American product.
The recent move by the United States government to give exemptions to Canada on soybeans and soybean meal is soon likely to be extended to cover soybean oil. Further, before the end of this mounth, the 1973 U.S. soya crop is expected to reach the market. This should ensure the resumption of normal delivery from the U.S. Meanwhile, the Canadian controls on the export of vegetable oil are in place. We do not anticipate any serious problems during the remainder of the year for the Canadian fish processing industry in respect of the supply of vegetable oils.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.24 p.m.

Wednesday, October 31, 1973