1973-10-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Alasiair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make a brief statement about the mission which I led to the U.S.S.R. between October 14 and 19 in connection with the Third Mixed Commission under our intergovernmental agreement on co-operation in the industrial application of science and technology. In addition, I would also like to report that after the mission to Moscow I visited Belgrade to sign the first bilateral trade agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
During my stay in Belgrade I had discussions with a number of senior Yugoslavian officials, including Prime Minister Bijedich, Dr. Vratusha, Vice-President of the Federal Executive Council, and Dr. Ludwiger, the trade minister, on a wide range of questions affecting trade and economic relations between our two countries. Yugoslavia has become a promising market for Canadian manufactured goods and I look forward to further growth in this trade in the future.
These visits are part of a pattern to seek out new and promising trading opportunities for Canadian exporters.
Accompanying me on my visit to the U.S.S.R. were 36 senior Canadian industrialists representing a large number of companies. This is by far the largest delegation of businessmen a Canadian minister has led to the Soviet Union. This initiative on the part of the Canadian government highlights the business thrust of the activities which have been taking place under our agreement with the Soviet Union.
During the visit, Canadian businessmen associated with the eight working groups set up under the intergovernmental agreement held a large number of meetings, over 80, with their Soviet counterparts. We concluded, as page 4 of the protocol makes clear, that there were a number of important specific opportunities already under negotiation that should be continued and, indeed, some of the businessmen of the delegation remained in Moscow to carry out this work. There was a general consensus among the members of the delegation that the work of our mission represented an important step forward in Canada-Soviet trade and economic relations.
The Soviet Union is becoming an increasingly important market for high technology machinery and equipment
from western countries. I am convinced that there are significant opportunities for Canadian manufacturers to compete for this business. My department has been making vigorous efforts to ensure that Canadian exporters are placed in the best possible position to take advantage of these opportunities.
In addition to my discussions with L. N. Efremov, First Deputy Chairman of the State Committee for Science and Technology, who led the Soviet delegation to the third meeting of the Mixed Commission, I had the opportunity to meet with the First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers, K. T. Mazurov, and other Soviet ministers and senior officials. In these discussions we agreed that there is substantial scope for expanding and diversifying Canada-Soviet trade.
Pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to place on the table of the House, in both official languages, the protocol which I signed on behalf of the Canadian government on Friday, October 19.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House is pleased to see the minister back safely and to note the additional groundwork undertaken by him in anticipation of increased trade with the Soviet Union.
We read in an Associated Press despatch from Moscow that although the minister felt solid progress had been made in the talks, a breakthrough had yet to occur. The minister is reported to have said: "It is like building a house. You have to clear the site, design the building and lay a foundation. Perhaps not much shows, but a lot of solid work has been done. The test will be to see what appears above ground in the next two or three years." Like the minister, we shall watch the results with great interest and anticipation.
We note, also, that the minister visited Yugoslavia. We hope he managed to visit Dubrovnik for a couple of days, a favourite spot of many people who travel to that part of the world. Yugoslavia offers interesting possibilities for expanded trade. As a matter of fact, it is possible that the rate of expansion of trade with Yugoslavia may be even greater than with the Soviet Union. This is partially, at least, attributable to the fact that the Yugoslavs have been turning more in the direction of personal initiative, including some private enterprise.
The minister tells us his visit was part of a pattern. We welcome the pattern to the extent that the minister, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and other members of the government visit countries abroad with the idea of establishing better relationships and developing opportunities for trade. We would hope, however, that in doing so the minister and the Prime Minister will not neglect those

October 29, 1973
Trade
areas of the world which have traditionally been our major trading partners, in particular, the United States, Britain, Japan, the European Community, and now the Pacific rim countries and South America which offer a tremendous potential to Canadians.
So we hope that in the dying weeks of the present administration-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -the Prime Minister and his colleagues will do all they possibly can to repair and invigorate the trade relationships that exist between our country and the established trading nations of the world and to augment our opportunities in the less developed areas as well.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the minister back from his visit to the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.
I join with the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) in expressing hope that the contacts that have been made so far will soon lead to concrete contractual relationships in terms of orders for goods from our country by the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. In turn, of course, it is anticipated that such orders would be reciprocated by Canadian orders for goods to be supplied by those countries. The talks are making progress, the minister informs us, but up to this point we have not seen concrete results on either side. I certainly hope we shall see them soon.
There is one problem to which no reference was made either in the minister's statement or in the protocol tabled by the minister, probably for understandable reasons. I refer to the problem of foreign ownership of so much of the sophisticated industrial plant located in this country in relation to making sales to either the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia. It would be interesting to know what proportion of the businessmen who accompanied the minister on this trip were, in fact, representatives of United States-owned or other foreign-owned companies in Canada. It seems to me that if there were a substantial number the results of this trip would not necessarily be of benefit to this country.
We have seen the development of a good rapprochement
between the U.S.S.R. and the United States, a cooling down of the high level of heat in terms of the tension that existed between these two countries in the past, with increasing trade talks between them. Therefore the conclusion seems to be rather ominous for us in terms of increasing trade in the precise areas regarding which the minister says the Soviet Union may require exports from the west. Why should Canadian subsidiaries of American companies expect to get orders from the Soviet Union? It seems to me much more likely that United States parent firms of Canadian subsidiaries, either through offering lower prices or by other means, will make sure that contracts go to the United States. This illustrates there is a need to move much more rapidly than the government has indicated it is prepared to in order to regain a greater degree of control over our own industry, particularly advanced, technologically sophisticated industry.

I welcome the minister's return from his attempts to expand trade with the Soviet bloc countries. In welcoming this initiative I should like the minister to note that since he was away we have increased our deficit with our major trading partner, the United States, in automotive products this year for the first time in three years. The size of this deficit would make look like peanuts by comparison any sales we might obtain from the Soviet Union in the near future. Now that the minister has returned I hope he will come to grips with improving our trading relationship with the United States.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the minister for his trip in the Soviet Union aimed at promoting mutual understanding between our countries and I should like to tell him how hopeful we are for the success of these meetings since, in looking at the terms of agreement that we have been given, we note that these agreements are aimed at advertising Canada and Canadian products. This shows in my opinion that Canada is becoming more mature because instead of exporting only our raw materials to one or two countries like we used to do, we are now proving to other countries that we can profit from technological advances.
As for the meeting with Yugoslavian representatives, we are told that this country has become a promising market for Canadian products. I therefore believe that the time has come for Canada to export manufactured products. If we want Canada to develop, we must stop exporting regularly all our raw materials so that other countries may benefit from them. We are able to manufacture our own products from raw materials here in Canada and we have proved that we are able to export them.
The minister said that he was accompanied by more than 36 Canadian industrialists. I hope that there are many true Canadian industrialists. I am thinking here of the regional industrialists. As everyone knows, in my region we manufacture the biggest slasher-trimmer in the world and we export it all over the world.
I believe that the time has now come for the minister to promote the manufacture of Canadian products.
I therefore congratulate the minister and encourage him in his efforts to conquer world markets.


AIR CANADA
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to propose a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that senior officials of Air Canada assured employees of the company in Winnipeg who are on strike that no transfers of employees to Montreal would be made, and these are taking place, I should like to move:
October 29, 1973

That the action of Air Canada in moving its computer operations from Winnipeg to Montreal, with the consequent forcing of another group of employees to move from Winnipeg, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF COMPUTER OPERATIONS CENTRE AT WINNIPEG-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, if the House is not prepared to send this matter to committee, perhaps unanimous consent would be given to the making of a declaration by the House. I therefore ask leave under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That in the opinion of this House the government should call on Air Canada to establish the centre for its computer operations at Winnipeg and thus avoid yet another exodus of Air Canada employees from Manitoba.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[ Text]
Mr. Lawrence: In relation to the answers to Question Nos. 1034, 1035, 1036 and 1037, what geographical divisions or boundaries are used by the Department of Supply and Services when it desires to award printing contracts in any of the areas contained in the Counties of Northumberland and/or Durham in the Province of Ontario?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: No geographical divisions or boundaries are used in selection of sources in Canada for contracts for nationally used items awarded by the Department of Supply and Services from Ottawa. The opportunities to tender is limited only by the lead time made available by user departments to DSS, which, by limiting the time available for tendering and delivery of finished goods, may restrict the area in which the opportunity to bid can be offered.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: Did any person or persons employed by, on loan to, or attached to the Office of the Prime Minister assist in writing, compiling or composing in any way the address delivered in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister on January 8, 1973 and, if so (a) what is the identity of such person or persons (b) what is their job designation (c) what is their annual salary?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: (a), (b) and (c)-See reply to Question No. 2,286 answered this day.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What member or members of the staff of the Office of the Prime Minister have any part whatsoever in the writing, compiling or composing in any way speeches or statements made or issued by the Prime Minister?
2.	What is the job designation of such a person or persons and what are their annual salaries in each case?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. The
responsibility for the compilation and composition of public statements by the Prime Minister varies considerably depending upon the nature of the statement and the occasion of its delivery or release. This work does not always take place entirely within the Prime Minister's office, nor is participation in the work within that office limited to any given person or persons. Contributions are made from time to time by a number of persons according to the information available to them from the pursuit of their normal activities.
2.	Only one member of the staff of the Prime Minister's office is engaged solely in activities relating to public statements. He is Alan Grossman, Special Assistant; his annual salary range is $21,000 to $25,000, appointed 1 May 1973.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is Mr. Alan Grossman a member of the Prime Minister's staff or does he in any way assist the Prime Minister with any tasks?
2.	What is his exact position and function, what is his salary and on what date did he join the staff?
3.	(a) Does Mr. Grossman have any part in preparing speeches or public statements made or issued by the Prime Minister (b) did Mr. Grossman have any part in preparing the address delivered in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister during the recent debate on the bilingualism resolution and, if so, what was his part?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1, 2 and 3.
See reply to question 2,286 answered this day.

October 29, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Lawrence: In the period July 1, 1971 to July 1, 1972, for both CPR and CNR lines in the area between Belleville, Ontario and Toronto, Ontario
(a)	how many rail accidents occurred (b) what amount of damages was incurred by each railway in each accident (c) what were the cause or causes of each accident as found by the respective Boards of Enquiry <d>
what were the recommendations of each Board of Enquiry (e) which recommendations (i) have been implemented (ii) have not been implemented and for what reason?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: (a) three derailments reported to Canadian Transport Commission; two on CP Rail, one on Canadian National Railways; (b) damages are not reportable hence are unavailable (c) causes, as determined by Canadian Transport Commission investigations were: CP Rail (1) Coupler failure due to a defect in a location not visible during normal inspection; (2) failure of wheel rim due to a sub-surface defect. Canadian National Railways (1) Broken wheel flange. Battered condition of wheel after derailment precluded establishing cause of failure, (d) None, (e) Not applicable.


Mr. Lawrence: In the period July 1, 1972 to July 1, 1973, for both CPR and CNR lines in the area between Belleville, Ontario and Toronto, Ontario (a) how many rail accidents occurred (b) what amount of damages was incurred by each railway in each accident (c) what were the cause or causes of each accident as found by the respective Boards of Enquiry (d) what were the recommendations of each Board of Enquiry (e) which recommendations (i) have been implemented (ii) have not been implemented and for what reason?


Jean Marchand: The
Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: (a) One derailment reported to Canadian Transport Commission by Canadian National Railways, (b) Damages are not reportable hence are unavailable, (c) Cause, as determined by Canadian Transport Commission investigation was: Rail spread under train due to person or persons unknown having removed spikes near joint -of rail, (d) None, (e) Not applicable.


Mr. McCain: 1.	On a national basis, what air transport facilities (a) are provided (b) are not provided by the Department of Transport?
2.	What profits or losses were recorded by these facilities for each fiscal year 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73?
3.	What profit or loss was recorded by each individual air transport facility for each fiscal year 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73?
4.	(a) How many administrative divisions exist for air transport facilities which are supported by, or provided for, the Department
(b)	what are these administrative divisions?


Jean Marchand: 1. There are 411 licensed airports. Eighty-six are owned and operat-

ed by the Ministry of Transport; 67 are owned by the Ministry of Transport but operated by others such as provincial agencies, municipal authorities, and 258 are owned and operated by others.
2.	Operating revenues and costs of Ministry of Transport owned airports by region for the fiscal year 1970-71, 197172, and 1972-73 were:
Operating Revenues
Region	1970-71	1971-72	1972-73Atl ntic...	$ 5,335,118	$ 5,785,668	$ 7,586,076Quebec....	
17,365,082	17,737,897	20,247,374Ontario	
16,851,525	17,599,920	20,929,489Central	
5,160,104	7,515,201*	6,739,992Western. ..	
4,882,079	5,210,780	5,934,512Pacific	
7,238,971	7,242,196	8,218,522Total	$56,832,879	$61,091,662	$69,655,965^includes	an adjustment to prior years aviation fuel concession reve-	nue.	Operating Costs	Region	1970-71	1971-72	1972-73Atlantic...	$18,283,691	$20,689,220	$23,291,178Quebec....	
23,100,036	25,396,205	28,160,921Ontario	
23,106,954	27,930,898	32,651,019Central	
13,593,094	14,534,424	15,334,986Western	
15.087,451	15,750,173	16,946,331Pacific	
16,039,699	17,164,294	18,026,445Total	$109,810,925	$121,465,214	$134,410,880
3. Operating revenues and costs for the ten major airports owned by the Ministry of Transport for the fiscal years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 were:
Operating Revenues
Airport	1970-71	1971-72	1972-73
Halifax	$ 1,150,590 $ 1,232,741 $ 1,525,235
Gander	
1,047,763	1,072,757	2,057,962Montreal	
16,453,743	16,564,965	19,311,788Ottawa	
1,252,091	1,205,900	1,463,594Toronto	
14,824,410	15,603,391	18,526,764Winnipeg	
2,729,447	2,803,178	2,870,959Edmonton	
1,712,039	1,714,004	1,967,268Calgary	
2,277,910	2,332,372	2,696,681Vancouver	
6,269,882	6,205,803	7,089,652Victoria	
191,917	225,700	262,042Total	$47,909,792 $48,960,811 $57,771,945
Operating Costs
Airport	1970-71	1971-72	1972-73
Halifax	$ 3,215,665 $ 3,561,296 $ 3,704,995
Gander	
3,265,407	3,553,743	4,749,366Montreal	
16,218,079	17,664,380	19,243,959Ottawa	
3,592,055	3,863,299	4,230,257Toronto	
14,728,310	17,849,223	21,087,592
October 29, 1973

Operating Costs
Airport	1970-71	1971-72	1972-73Winnipeg	
5,181,828	5,471,377	5,750,747Edmonton	
4,396,888	4,399,039	4,485,111Calgary	
3,056,911	3,314,484	3,765,884Vancouver	
9,151,742	9,704,788	10,578,796Victoria	
793,045	854,158	852,803Total	*63,599,930 *70,235,787 *78,449,510
4. The Canadian Air Transportation, Administration has six regional administrations; Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, Central, Western, Pacific.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Did the Treasury Board take the request for special leave with pay, made under Article 23.05 of the collective agreement with the Letter Carriers' Union of Canada by A. Ozuk of Winnipeg, to adjudication and, if so (a) what was the amount involved (b) what was the decision of the adjudicator?
2.	(a) What is the per diem fee of the adjudicator plus expenses (b) what was the cost of his transportation to Winnipeg and return (c) what cost was incurred for (i) legal fees (ii) observer's fees (d) what was the total cost of the adjudication?
3.	Since the Public Service Staff Relations Act came into effect in 1966, how many appeals between the Treasury. Board and the Unions have been made (a) up to April 1, 1972 (b) between April 1, 1972 and March 30, 1973 (c) how many of the latter appeals have been lodged by the Treasury Board?
4.	Is it the intention of Treasury Board to appeal this matter further?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: 1.	No. Taken to adjudication by A. Ozuk represented by the Letter Carriers' Union of Canada, (a) $30.24; (b) to sustain the grievance and that the employee is entitled to one day of special leave with pay.
2.	(a) $180. (b) $84. (c) (i) None; (ii) None, (d) $596.
3.	Taking appeals to mean references to adjudication there have been: (a) 586. (b) 162. (c) None.
4.	No.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Prime Minister or anyone on his behalf distribute, reveal or comment on a document labelled Secret by the Privy Council Office to any or all the Commonwealth leaders or to any members of their delegations who were recently in Ottawa and, if so (a) what was the nature of this document (b) does the government intend to release it publicly or make it available to Members of Parliament?
2.	Is it government policy to classify certain documents and surveys as Secret in so far as Members of Parliament and the Canadian public are concerned but not Secret in so far as representatives of foreign governments are concerned?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. In
preparation for the meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government, the government of Canada agreed, at the request of the Commonwealth Secretariat, to prepare a document that could form the basis of discussion about techniques of government. The Secretariat, in accordance
Order Paper Questions
with their practice about documents in advance of such meetings, classified the document although the contents as such were not considered confidential by the government of Canada. The document was released publicly on August 9, 1973.
2.	There are instances where documentation prepared for use by governments on bilateral and multilateral negotiations, including the Commonwealth and NATO, is given an agreed classification which is observed by participating governments. Classified documents of this nature are not made public.


Mr. Forrestall: Is it the intention of the government to reduce the size of the budget of Information Canada for the fiscal year 1974-75 and (a) if so, what steps are being taken this year to accomplish that end (b) if not, for what reason?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It
would be contrary to government policy to make public the size of a department's budget for the next fiscal year prior to the tabling of Main Estimates for that year.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	For what reason did Government of Canada deposits with Canadian chartered banks rise from $336 million in July, 1970 to $2,224 million in July, 1973?
2.	What interest rate is currently being paid by Canadian chartered banks on such Government of Canada deposits and what was the average rate of interest received and the dollar amount of interest received by the government on such deposits for the six months ended July, 1973 and for each of the years 1970, 1971 and 1972?
3.	Does the Bank of Canada pay interest on the $1,900 million currently deposited by the Canadian chartered banks with the Bank of Canada and, if so, what is the rate of interest?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of Finance and Supply and Services as follows: 1. Government of Canada deposits with the chartered banks rose from $308 million July 31, 1970 to $2,092 million July 31, 1973. This increase of $1,784 million in Canadian dollar cash balances at chartered banks is accounted for by an increase in unmatured debt of $5,770 million, offset by an aggregate accumulated deficit for the period of $3,927 million and an increase of government deposits in the Bank of Canada of $59 million. These changes may be summarized as follows:
Accumulated July 31, 1970 to July 31, 1973
(* millions)
Budgetary deficit	 1,102
Non-budgetary deficit	 2,825
Cash requirement	 3,927
Net change in unmatured debt	 5,770
Increase in cash balances	 1,843
Opening cash balances at chartered banks	 308
2,151
Less: increase in cash deposit at Bank of Canada..	59
Cash deposits chartered banks	 2,092

October 29, 1973
Order Paper Questions
2.	The interest rate paid by Canadian chartered banks on government of Canada deposits in the week September 7-13, 1973, was 5.6 per cent per annum. For the six months from January 26 to July 26, 1973, actually 26 weeks, the average rate of interest received was 4.28 per cent and the interest amounted to $43,078,625.14. For the year ended December 31, 1970, the average rate was 5.53 per cent and the amount was $32,443,399; for the year ended December 30, 1971, the average rate was 3.27 per cent and the amount was $41,727,943.57; for the year ended December 28, 1972, the average rate was 3.19 per cent and the amount was $39,519,131.68.
3.	No interest is paid on chartered bank deposits with the Bank of Canada.
NATIONAL FILM BOARD-"3,000 PIEDS: LA RICHESSE DES AUTRES"


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	What is the director's name of the film produced by National Film Board under the title 3,000 pieds: La richesse des autres (film No. 106-C-0273-019) ?
2.	What was the total production cost of the film?
3.	What are the detailed costs of the film (a) travel expenses to Chile (b) travel expenses for Theo Gagne and the other stars (c) the amounts, if any, paid as fees (d) was Rene Levesque paid for his numerous appearances in the film and, if so, how much did he receive (e) the use of a plane to fly over the North West part of Quebec?
4.	What is the name of the official who authorized the trip to Chile and the expenses involved?


Mr. Stevens: What incentives have been granted by the government in each of the past three years to Canadian enterprises for all phases of innovation in the computer/communications field, particularly in application software and ancillary equipment development?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In the past three years the government has granted incentive to Canadian enterprises for all phases of innovation in the computer communications field in the amounts shown below. It should be noted that the sums shown indicate the year of approval. Payment of these sums is scheduled in each case over periods of up to several years. The number of enterprises receiving such grants is shown in parentheses.
(A)	Total Grants ($000)
1970	1971
PAIT & IMDE Programs	23,287 ( 8)	10,400 ( 4)IRDIA Programs	2,910 (21)	3,416 (20)
2,546 ( 5) 57 (17)*
(B)	Ancillary Equipment Content of (A)
($000)
PAIT	827 ( 2)	9,800 ( 3)	200 ( 1)
(C)	Software Content of (A)
($000)
PAIT	11,920 ( 3)	600 ( 1)	682 ( 4)
Due to the retroactive nature of the IRDIA program, the 1972 figures are only partially complete.


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1. Directors of the NFB film, Richesse des autres: Maurice Bulbuli-an, Michel Gauthier.
2.	Total cost of production: $154,000.
3.	(a) Travel expenses to Chile: $10,952.63. (b) Travel expenses for participants in film including Theo Gagne: $2,555.17. (c) Nominal amounts were paid to two participants, Mr. Gosselin and Mr. Provencher. (d) No. The appearances of Rene Levesque in the film were shot during two public events, (e) $165.
4.	Normal procedures were followed for authorizing the production and the specific request for shooting in Chile was approved by the Director of Production (French).


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Has the government received a bill from the government of Prince Edward Island for expenses incurred by that government in arranging for maximum utilization of Northumberland Ferries during the course of the recent rail strike and, if so, on what date and in what amount?
2.	What has been the response of the government to such presentation by the government of Prince Edward Island?
3.	Has the government of Prince Edward Island proffered any suggestions relative to the avoidance of any future cessation of the Borden-Cape Tormentine ferry service and, if so, what was the suggestion and the response of the government?
4.	Has the government any plans for preventing the isolation of Prince Edward Island from the national transportation links?


Jean Marchand: 1. No,
the government has not received a bill from the government of Prince Edward Island for expenses arising out of the utilization of the Northumberland Ferries during the strike.
.2. No response by the government was necessary in the absence of any claim.
3.	There has been no formal communication between the province of Prince Edward Island and the federal government in this matter.
October 29, 1973

4.	The continuance of alternative routes should guarantee that Prince Edward Island is not completely isolated in the event of future work stoppages.


Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	From the period October 30, 1972 to September 10, 1973, did the government carry out any improvements or other works at Mount Hope Airport and, if so (a) what was the description and nature of such improvements or other works (b) under the authority and direction of which department or departments was such work done?
2.	Were tenders called for such improvements or other works and, if so, were such tenders sealed and, if not, for what reason?
3.	To what companies were contracts awarded for such improvements or other works and, in each case (a) what was the value of the contract or contracts awarded to said companies (b) were the tenders submitted by each of the companies awarded contracts the lowest tenders and, if not (i) what were the lowest tenders in each case (ii) by which companies were these tenders submitted?


Jean Marchand: 1. The
federal government did carry out improvements at Mount Hope Airport between October 30, 1972 and September 10, 1973. (a) A contract was called to Strengthen Runway 11-29, Hamilton Airport, Hamilton, Ontario. This contract was to accomplish the following purposes: (i) Runway 11-29-to upgrade by reconstruction the middle section of Runway 11-29 for the taxiing of the Boeing 737 aircraft and resurface the remaining portions for light aircraft up to the DC aircraft category; (ii) Foxtrot Taxi-to upgrade by reconstruction "Foxtrot" taxi for taxiing of the Boeing 737 aircraft; (iii) New Parking Apron-to construct new Parking Apron (190x280') to accommodate the parking of aircraft up to the Boeing 737 aircraft level, (b) The work was done under the authority and direction of the Ministry of Transport.
2.	Public tenders were called for this contract, and in keeping with normal requirements, tenders were sealed.
3.	The above contract was awarded to Cayuga Materials and Construction, Cayuga, Ontario on June 27, 1973 (tenders had closed on June 26, 1973). (a) The value of the Contract was $441,730.05. (b) This was the lowest tender, (c) The only other tenders received were: Dineen Construction Ltd., 795 Main St. W., Hamilton, Ontario., $448,636.55. Dufferin Construction Co., 1925 Barton St. E., Hamilton, Ontario., $508,188.48.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	How much was expended by the government on architectural, consultant or other fees for the purpose of determining the cost of erecting a pavilion at Expo '74 in Spokane, Washington?
2.	How much was expended by the government on obtaining designs for such participation at Expo '74 in Washington?
3.	How much was expended by the government on salaries of individuals regarding (a) the proposed participation (b) site investigation (c) other, in relation to Expo '74 in Washington?
4.	How much was expended by the government on travel and accommodation for individuals in relation to the proposed Canadian participation at Expo '74 in Washington?
Order Paper Questions
5.	Was Canada required to pay any cost or a penalty to the organizers of Expo 74 as a result of the decision to withdraw support and, if so, what was the amount of such cost or penalty?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Nil. In a special category World Exposition such as Expo '74 all pavilion structures are erected by the organizer.
2.	$52,564.35 to Information Canada/Expositions (for research, project administration, design of pavilion improvements, exhibit and landscaping proposals) and $2,753.12 to the National Film Board (for a film storyboard). As stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the House on September 13, there will be a revised Canadian participation at Expo '74. The bulk of the expenditures remain relevant.
3.	These activities go hand in hand; thus it is not possible to isolate costs between (a), (b) and (c). Several officers have been working part time on plans for Canada's participation in Expo '74.
4.	$5,185.44, including $2,203.53 on behalf of Information Canada/Expositions technicians. The expenditures enumerated in 2 and 4 include the cost of briefings and negotiations with the provinces in respect to their participation.
5.	There was no penalty payable to Expo '74.


Mr. Stevens: What was the nature of the survey related to the proposed airport in Pickering that required government employees to count birds flying past the moon (a) how long did the employees take to count such birds (b) what was the cost to the government (c) what was the result?


Jean Marchand: After the announcement of the site for the New Toronto International Airport, certain statements and allegations were made concerning the location of the airport and its relationship to bird flyways in this area. In particular, it was stated that the effect of birds on the operation of the airport had not been considered adequately and that they would pose a serious hazard to safe flight operations. Assessment of this factor had in fact been made during the site selection process. However, it was subsequently felt that a much more detailed analysis was required in view of the allegations made by residents of the area. Accordingly, the Ministry of Transport engaged a well qualified environmental research firm to do a detailed ornithological study and we assume that this is the study in question. The study commenced in September of 1972 and will conclude in December of this year. This length of time was required in order that a detailed analysis of nesting habits, diurnal flight patterns and seasonal migration statistics could be assembled. The total cost of the study by the firm of LGL (Environmental Research Associates) Limited will be approximately $253,000. The results to date tend to confirm that the probability of bird hazards affecting aircraft operations in the area of the proposed airport is typical of that which might be expected in this part of southern Ontario and that no undue hazards will be presented. The study is, however, continuing in order to assess the fall migration period.

October 29, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Stevens: In each year 1967 to 1973 to date, what were the average (a) weekly earnings after taxes and allowing for inflation, for nonfarm workers expressed in 1967 dollars and assuming a family of four (b) personal debts of non-farm workers in Canada expressed in 1967 dollars (c) personal income taxes paid by non-farm workers expressed in 1967 dollars and assuming a family of four?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by Statistics Canada and the Department of National Revenue (Taxation) as follows: (a) Statistics Canada does not collect the information as requested, but does produce data on annual average family income before taxes for selected years, for 4-person families whose major source of income came from wages and salaries (would exclude most but not all farmers).
Average Income
Year
Current $	1967 S
1967	
8.551	8,5611969	
9,930	9,1311971	
11,767	10,179
'Statistics Canada does not produce data on weekly family income since such factors as seasonal employment make this difficult to calculate accurately.
(b) Average personal debt for all Canadian non-farm families and unattached individuals was estimated to be $1,040 in the Spring of 1970 or in terms of 1967 dollars, $930. Data for other years are not available, (c) Statistics are not kept in such a way as to make possible a meaningful response to this question.
Association
Amount
(g)	Canadian Amateur Football Association	
18,088(h)	Canadian Amateur Hockey Association	
6,755(i)	Canadian Horse Council	
5,955(j)	Canadian Amateur Synchronized Swimming Association	
4,375(k)	Canadian Water Ski Association	
3,463(l)	Canadian Curling Association	
2,950(m)	Sports Federation of Canada	
1,787(n)	Canadian Amateur Diving Association	
1,600(o)	Canadian Ladies Lawn Bowling Association	
1,325Total	
$270,800


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to separate the Air Accident Investigation Division of the Department of Transport from other branches of the Department and, if so (a) on what date (b) for what reasons?
2.	Is the Division subject to scrutiny and possible interference from other branches of the Department?


Jean Marchand: 1. The
Accident Investigation Division of the Canadian Air Transportation Administration has been separated from other branches since its formation in early 1958.
2. No, because it reports directly to the Director General, Civil Aeronautics of the Canadian Air Transportation Administration.


Mr. Marshall: Of the $270,820 in grants to 15 national sports governing bodies, what is the breakdown of the amount of the grant to the (a) Canadian Amateur Baseball Association (b) Canadian Federation of Amateur Equities (c) Canadian Cycling Association (d) British Commonwealth Games Association (e) Canadian Women's Field Hockey Association (f) Canadian Association of Amateur Oarsmen (g) Canadian Amateur Football Association (h) Canadian Amateur Hockey Association (i) Canadian Horse Council (j) Canadian Amateur Synchronized Swimming Association (k) Canadian Water Ski Association (1) Canadian Curling Association (m) Sports Federation of Canada (n) Canadian Amateur Diving Association (o) Canadian Ladies Lawn Bowling Council?
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and
Welfare):
Association	Amount
(a)	Canadian Amateur Baseball Association	
$69,615(b)	Canadian Federation of Amateur Aquatics	
41,086(c)	Canadian Cycling Association	
34,936(d)	British Commonwealth Games Association	
30,000(e) Canadian Women's Field Hockey Association	
27,800(f) Canadian Association of Amateur Oarsmen	
21,065

Question No. 2,758-Mr. Forrestall:
1.	What other agencies of the government than the Air Accident Investigation Division of the Department of Transport have access to the reports of AAID prior to their being published?
2.	What authority do these agencies have to make any alterations, however significant, to such reports before they are made public?
3.	In how many instances, in the past two years, have such alterations been made and for what reasons?
4.	Is it the policy of the government that agencies that are charged with the investigation of accidents can function best when they are subject to various types of outside pressure?


Jean Marchand: 1. None. However, legal counsel to the Canadian Air Transportation Administration is consulted to ensure that the reports drafted by the Accident Investigation Division do not contain any drafting ambiguities from a legal point of view.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	No.
October 29, 1973


Mr. Forrestall: In what specific ways is the Air Accident Investigation Division of the Department of Transport guaranteed the total independence in its task of (a) investigating air accidents (b) publishing full reports of its investigations?


Jean Marchand: (a) A
guarantee of total independence is not possible irrespective of the organizational location of the Accident Investigation Division, because in all major accidents the investigation is conducted by a team of experts from the aircraft industry, air carrier industry, research laboratories, Ministry of Transport, and air associations such as the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association. Further, the Accident Investigators of the Accident Investigation Division are delegated authority by the minister to investigate aircraft accidents in accordance with Air Regulation 829 and this authority is not delegated to any other specialists within the Department of Transport, (b) The minister has no obligation under the Aeronautics Act to publish accident reports but accident reports are published in the interests of communicating the findings to the aviation community for the improvement of aviation safety.


Mr. Forrestall: What steps (a) have been taken in the past two years (b) will be taken in the immediate future to ensure that the Air Accident Investigators are so placed, organizationally, that the public and international community can have full confidence in their ability to produce full, impartial and usefully objective reports?


Jean Marchand: (a) None, (b) The Canadian Air Transportation Administration is planning to introduce a review procedure for specific categories of accidents to enable the aviation community to examine and comment on the findings of the reports prepared by the Accident Investigation Division.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to set up an independent transportation accident investigation board, fully funded, to provide the type of impartiality required by the industry and the international community and, if so, what progress has been made in such considerations?
2.	To the knowledge of the government, has such an independent transportation accident investigation board been set up in the United Kingdom, the United States and virtually every other government outside the Soviet Bloc?


Jean Marchand: 1. An
independent study was ordered by the minister to examine the need for an independent transportation accident investigation body and the report is expected in the near future.
2. Accident investigation boards have been set up with some degree of independence in the United Kingdom and
Orders for Returns
the United States but the department has no knowledge of similar action by other states.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	How many UIC claimants were disqualified from receipt of benefits in the Dartmouth-Halifax area between January and June 30, 1973?
2.	Of those (a) how many appealed to the board of referees (b) what percentage were (i) successful (ii) unsuccessful?
3.	Of those rejected by the board of referees (a) how many appealed to the umpire (b) what percentage were (i) successful (ii) unsuccessful?
4.	What is the national average for successful appeals to the (a) board of referees (b) umpire?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The Commission does not collect information of the nature requested on a constituency basis. Therefore, we are supplying information which pertains to the whole Province of Nova Scotia. 1. 21,807.
2.	(a) 1,121. (b) (i) 20.8 per cent; (ii) 79.2 per cent.
3.	(a) 2. (b) (i) 50 per cent; *(ii) not applicable.
*Note: One decision outstanding.
4.	(a) 15.6 per cent, (b) 34.4 per cent.


Mr. Mitges: What amount was spent for the Science Council of Canada for the fiscal years 1971-72 and 1972-73?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In reply to Question 3,007 by the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges), following are the expenditures of the Science Council of Canada for fiscal years 1971-72 and 1972-73: 1971-72, $1,184,740.97; 1972-73, $1,339,368.68.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	On what date will the government be tabling the agreement between the Canadian and French Governments relating to the joint enterprise for building and operating an astronomical observatory in Hawaii?
2.	What general division is envisaged in this agreement respecting (a) cost of the building (b) cost of the equipment (c) cost of operating the facility (d) tenders for supply of equipment on the basis of national origin (e) supervision of construction (f) supervision of installation of equipment (g) staffing of facility when it is completed (h) time use of completed observatory?
Return tabled.
7298

October 29, 1973
Orders for Returns



GOVERNMENT POLICY COVERING RENTAL OF AUTOMATIC TYPEWRITERS

Mr. Forrestall: What is the general policy of the government covering the rental of automatic typewriters for sending form letters and have they ever been used in giving responses to Members of Parliament and, if so, on what occasions?
Return tabled.



RENTAL OF AUTOMATIC TYPEWRITERS

Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What departments or agencies of government employ or have employed automatic typewriters to type form responses to inquiries, on an intermitent basis or on a continuing basis, for each year since 1966 inclusive?
2.	What is the rental cost per month for such machines?
3.	How many such machines were rented and for what periods, as of April 30, 1973?
4.	What, to date, has been the total cost of renting such machines?
5.	Are any such machines currently in use in or for offices of Ministers of the Crown and, if so, for what Ministers?
6.	How many letters can such machines put out in a day, fully utilized?
Return tabled.



REMOVAL OF MINERAL RESOURCES NORTH OF 60TH

Mr. Forrestall: Does the government have contingency plans to secure for Canadian interests and Canadian ships the exclusive right for removal of mineral resources north of the 60th parallel and, if so (a) what are they (b) how quickly can they be implemented?
Return tabled.



CONSUMER PRICE INDEX

Mr. Stevens: 1.	Since its inception, what was the percentage change for each year from the preceding year in the cost of living index?
2.	What would be the current All-items Consumer Price Index if calculated from 1913 to date expressed in terms of 1949 equalling 100?
3.	What was the All-item Consumer Price Index, if calculated from 1913 to date, expressed in terms of 1949 equalling 100, as of January 1953, 1958, 1963, 1968 and 1973 and what was the percentage change from the preceding five year period for each such period?
4.	What would be the current Consumer Price Index for each of (a) food (b) shelter (c) services excluding shelter (d) goods other than food, if calculated from 1913 to date expressed in terms of 1949 equalling 100?
5.	What was the Consumer Price Index for each of (a) food (b) shelter (c) services excluding shelter (d) goods other than food, it calculated from 1913 to date expressed in terms of 1949 equalling 100, as of January 1953, 1958, 1963, 1968 and 1973 and what was the percentage change from the preceding five year period for each such period?

Return tabled.



COST OF SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVES TO SPELL OUT &quot;LINGUAL FACTS OF LIFE&quot; TO PUBLIC SERVANTS IN FEDERAL REGIONAL OFFICES

Mr. Masniuk: 1.	What was the total cost to the taxpayer for "Special staff Representatives" who went from coast to coast recently, to spell out the "lingual facts of life" to Public Servants in Federal Regional Offices?
2.	For what reason was this policy directed mainly to Englishspeaking Canadians in English-speaking provinces?
3.	What is the total cost to the taxpayer for "double banking" while unilingual Public Servants are on French or English immersion courses during the fiscal year 1972-73?
4.	How many English-speaking Canadians in the Public Service are presently taking French immersion courses?
5.	How many French-Speaking Canadians in the Public Service are presently taking English immersion courses?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
(English]

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs based on the report that the Secretary General of the United Nations has officially asked Canada for a contribution to the Middle East peace force. Can the minister advise as to the nature and extent of the contribution asked for from this country and can he indicate the government's response to such request?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm, as I announced last night after receiving confirmation of a request from the Secretary General late yesterday afternoon, that he has asked Canada to contribute to the logistics back-up for a United Nations force in the Middle East.
Immediately upon receiving such request officers were sent to New York from the Department of National Defence and the Department of External Affairs to ascertain exactly the nature of the assignment that was contemplated. These officers are still there. We do not yet have details and therefore no reply has yet been sent.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Is the minister in a position at this stage to indicate even in rough terms the number of personnel required and whether it is the intention of the government in this case to bring before the House an approving resolution following the example of his illustrious predecessor, Mr. Pearson, with reference to the Cyprus force?
October 29, 1973


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when a decision is made by the government we will announce it. If the commitment is of the nature of the past for which parliamentary approval was sought, the precedents will be followed.


REQUEST THAT APPROVAL OF HOUSE BE SOUGHT FOR PARTICIPATION OF CANADIAN ELEMENT IN MIDDLE EAST PEACE FORCE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the minister may have intended to give an assurance but I would like him to give an unequivocal assurance to the House that the approval of the House will be sought for any decision to commit Canada to participate in a peacekeeping force in the Middle East by way of logistics support or otherwise?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if our commitment is of the same general nature, for example, as in 1956-and it may well be-certainly I would bring forward a resolution seeking the approval of parliament.. But until we know exactly what it is we are being asked to do and the nature of our response as to how far we can fulfil this commitment, I cannot give as categorical an answer as the hon. gentleman might wish.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Can the minister give an undertaking that before any troops or other personnel are actually dispatched there will be consultation with the House?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the constitutional practice followed in the past is that the government makes its decision and, if it is of a nature that seems to require parliamentary approval, parliamentary approval is sought of the decision made by the government, not in advance of the decision and not in advance even of its implementation.

[ Transla tion]


FINANCE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Has his department or the government received any request by the provinces to amend the Bank of Canada's charter to allow long-term borrowing from the Bank by the provinces?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Not
recently, Mr. Speaker, but in the past several provinces, including Quebec, made proposals to that effect from time to time.
Oral Questions
[ English]


OIL-IMPACT OF VENEZUELAN PRICE INCREASE ON PRICES OF PRODUCTS IN CANADA
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister give us an assurance that his visit to Venezuela and the increase in the tax reference price of oil by Venezuela of some 56 per cent were purely coincidental? Was he given any notification in advance of this increase in the tax reference price of oil and, further, what in the view of the government will be the impact in Canada of this move in respect of the prices of petroleum products here?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, my visit to Venezuela, which took place two weeks ago today, was as I recall, the day before the Arab states decided to make their approximately 70 per cent increase in the tax posted price. The Venezuelan decision, as I understand the official statement, was really a following up by Venezuela of the Arab increase to get the same price on the world market for all customers as the Arabs are getting.


Mr. Nielsen:: They saw you coming.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The impact on the Canadian market, regrettably, will be substantial. Approximately 63 per cent or just under 60 per cent of the supply to the eastern Canadian market comes from Venezuela, and it is anticipated that this increase in cost will find its way into the Canadian market within a month or so.


POSSIBLE BANNING BY SAUDI ARABIA OF OIL SHIPMENTS TO CANADA-SUGGESTED FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL MEETING TO DEVELOP CONTINGENCY PLAN
Robert Lorne Stanfield: have a supplementary question relating to some of the other oil that is imported into Canada. Has the minister yet been able to find out whether Saudi Arabia has ordered the suspension of shipments by Aramco for delivery to Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think this is a situation where no news is good news. We have had no word of any additional interruptions to the one I mentioned the other day. My understanding at the moment is that Aramco will continue to ship to Canadian customers.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope the minister's optimism with regard to Saudi Arabia is justified and that he will not be tempted to visit that country himself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the increase in the price of imported oil to be expected now, will the minister arrange for an immediate federal-provincial meeting with the provincial ministers or governments for consultation to
7300

October 29, 1973
Oral Questions
develop a supply and pricing contingency plan for petroleum products in Canada this winter? Will the minister face this emergency situation by taking this step?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am not sure whether a general meeting of ministers would be the appropriate basis for doing this. We have already had discussions with a number of provincial governments in this regard and of course they will be very much involved in the contingency plans we are developing.


GOVERNMENT POLICY RESPECTING PETROLEUM
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the 56 per cent increase in the price of Venezuelan oil landed at Montreal and the resultant request by the oil industry for an increase in gasoline prices, will the minister tell the House what pricing policy the government proposes to follow in view of these events? More particularly, I want to ask the minister whether an increase in petroleum product prices will be approved by the government and, if so, by how much, and will the present freeze on western Canadian crude be maintained at least until January 30?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should indicate to the hon. gentleman that the requests for a price change which have been referred to in the House and which are now before the government are related to increases in the Venezuelan taxation at the end of August and at the end of September. The announcement of this weekend would, of course, not be covered by any decision which is now before the government. It is before the government at present and I hope to be able to clarify the situation a little later this week. At the moment, of course, we are still in a market situation where we have the September 4 price maintained both in the east and west sections of the Canadian market. The request has been with regard to a price change in the eastern section only.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the minister's public statement that after January 30 the price of western crude will be based on the landed price of offshore oil in Montreal, and in view of the fact that by that time the Montreal price may be higher than the present Chicago price, with a resultant windfall for Canadian oil producers, what criteria does the government propose to adopt to establish the posted price for oil produced in western Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps I can remind the hon. gentleman that the price in Chicago will be based on the competitive price of imported crude there, so our anticipation is that the Chicago price will remain above the Montreal price. The government has not taken any decision to extend price control beyond the January 30 period, and the price basically will be determined on the basis of the criteria I mentioned in the House last week.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands on a supplementary

and then the hon. member for York-Simcoe on a supplementary.


OIL-POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that if a national petroleum corporation were established this mechanism could be used to pool oil supplies in Canada and to standardize prices, can the minister give the House any assurance that he hopes to establish such a mechanism by January 30?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think it is a little difficult to suggest that it can standardize prices. Whether it be a national corporation or subsidiaries of the internationals which are importing oil, they have to meet the prices set by foreign governments. The decision regarding a corporation, as I have said a number of times, is before the government, but it does not appear at the moment that there will be an early announcement on this.


EFFECT OF REDUCTION IN TANKER RATES ON PRICE OF OIL
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question also is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. With world marginal tanker rates having plunged by 50 per cent over the weekend, resulting in oil transportation costs of up to $2 per barrel of oil being saved in transportation from the Middle East to this continent, would the minister inform the House if our tanker delivery arrangements are such that we can take advantage of these savings to offset world prices?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The arrangements, of course, will be between the different companies, but I can say, in agreement with the hon. member, that of course the Montreal price is made up of a combination of the basic price of oil plus the tanker price, and any drop in the tanker price will ameliorate the effect of any price increase.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I have a supplementary question for the same minister. Can he at least inform us, in view of this uncertain world situation where certain oil costs are rising while other costs such as transportation are falling, that he will not permit a retail price increase in gasoline or fuel until the companies'are in a position to state their actual cost position?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is the position we have taken, and one of the reasons for the delay is to determine the actual cost increase since the September 4 announcement.
October 29, 1973


INDUSTRY
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Before the minister left for Russia a press release was issued from his office stating that financial assistance will be provided to small and medium size companies to form a consortia for the export market. Can the minister explain to the House what his definition is of small and medium size companies as there are different definitions in the Small Businesses Loans Act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question asked in those terms is not in order. I am sure the hon. member will agree that to ask the minister to give a definition of a word used in such circumstances is hardly in order. Perhaps the question might be asked in some other way or in other terms to make it acceptable from a procedural standpoint.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the minister can tell us the cut-off point for the size of companies, and at the same time could he explain the percentage of Canadian ownership required in manufacturing concerns in order to qualify?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there is no provision with respect to the percentage of Canadian ownership in order to qualify. As to the specific cut-off point, I cannot assist the hon. member. Each case will be looked at on its own merits. Clearly the emphasis of the program is on small and medium size Canadian companies rather than on large ones, those that can support their own marketing operations externally.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will the minister assure the House that in refining the regulations as he goes along he will make every possible effort to make sure that the major benefit from this new program goes to struggling Canadian companies rather than to multinational corporations which have benefited from many of the government's projects?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, this program is organized to support the Canadian export efforts of Canadian firms.


FOOD PRICES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact the wholesale price index released today by Statistics Canada shows a slight decrease in the price of food, what steps is he taking to ensure that these decreases are being passed on to consumers, particularly in view of a growing body of opinion which seems to indicate the contrary?
Oral Questions


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this parliament has not given me the authority to control prices, but I, my colleagues, and all members of the House are certainly going to be interested in what retailers do to see that this welcome reduction in the wholesale price index is reflected in retail prices.


James Aloysius McGrath: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether charges are being laid with regard to the 100 cases of merchandising irregularities involving double pricing and other practices brought to the minister's attention by Mrs. Plumptre and her posse? Are charges in fact being laid?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Work is being completed on the files to see which of them, in light of further investigation and on the advice of the law officers of the Crown, provide sufficient evidence for charges to be laid. I expect to have this work completed shortly.


CAUSE OF DEFICIT IN AUTOMOTIVE TRADE WITH UNITED STATES-ACTION TO INCREASE INVESTMENT IN CANADA
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. While the minister was away Statistics Canada reported a net deficit of $68 million in automotive trade between Canada and the United States for the first six months of this year. Considering our surplus during the same period last year, this represents a turnaround of some $240 million in trade in favour of the United States. Have the minister's officials looked into the causes of this significant shift in trade in favour of the United States? If so, will he inform the House what is the main cause?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we have looked at the figures, we have looked at some of the underlying causes, and quite clearly the reason is that there has been a quite unprecedented demand on the part of Canadians for North American made cars.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the fact that answer is largely spurious but, more to the point, in view of the statistics for the last three years which show that during that period more than 95 per cent of the investment in that industry occurred on the American side of the border and hence is likely the principal cause of this shift in trade, can the minister inform the House what he and his officials have done about getting commitments from the automotive industry to ensure that we get our share of investment on this side of the border?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which we have under review on a continuing basis with the automobile companies.


John Edward Broadbent: Can the minister inform the House whether or not the trade talks between Canada and the

October 29, 1973
Oral Questions
United States on the auto pact as well as other matters have completely broken down, and is it now government policy to allow the Americans to deal with their grievances by undermining the trade pact through permitting over investment in this industry on the American side of the border?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there has been no breakdown in discussions with the United States with respect to potential improvements in the automotive pact to my knowledge.


PROVISION OF ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF OATS FOR ONTARIO LIVESTOCK FEEDERS AND DEALERS
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Recently livestock feeders and feed dealers in Ontario have been unable to get feed grains from the Canadian Wheat Board, particularly oats, and have not been assured of a continuity of supply during the winter. Would the minister look into this situation and have it rectified at an early date?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with the Canadian Wheat Board about the supply of oats. The rail strike and the congestion that followed from it have left supplies of oats in a difficult position. The Board is considering the steps that are required to ensure adequate supplies.


Robert Elgin McKinley: From his discussions with the Canadian Wheat Board can the minister say how far away is the time before he can promise supplies of oats to feeders and dealers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that depends on the solutions which the board considers to be suitable to deal with the problem. I will try to obtain further details about the steps the board now proposes to take and inform the hon. member.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Recognizing the obvious fact that up to the moment gasoline prices have increased substantially and that in fact additional increases are inevitable, will the minister, as Canada's leading transportation figure, not the presidents of the CNR and CPR, order the re-initiation of railway passenger service in western Ontario as recommended by 20 members of this House, and in other areas of Canada as it becomes feasible?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the opposition recognizes the effective way in which the hon. member has put his question to me.
I can assure him that this is a very serious problem. This week, next week or very soon I expect a report from the Canadian Transport Commission, since it was agreed that the CTC should look at the matter. After that we will have a tri-level meeting with the government of Ontario and the municipalities involved so that we can try to solve this problem which, due to the price of gasoline and fuel, is becoming more and more important.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Since the farm input price index rose 7.3 per cent in the third quarter of this year, will the minister impose an embargo on American overfat cattle and dressed beef flooding the Canadian market?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact I am in almost constant communication with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, and this is one of the problems we are discussing.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the statement made in Halifax on Friday last by the Minister of the Environment that it would not be possible to hold the Law of the Sea Conference at Santiago, Chile, next April, and in light of the importance of this conference to Canada, will the minister advise if an alternative host country has been secured and whether there has been any change in the dates of the conference?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, discussions are still going on in New York and elsewhere on this question. No decision has yet been reached on an alternative site to Santiago which, I agree, is hardly likely to be suitable for this conference. We looked at the question of whether or not Canada might offer the conference the opportunity of meeting here. However, we came to the conclusion that this would not advance the cause of Canada, that it would be better for us not to be in the chair but to be able to advance our own views. In any event, I believe that the alternative site preferred is likely to be in the same general area, namely, South America.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact it takes a minimum of one month to get an appointment for Canadians who wish to sponsor relatives for immigration to this country, can he inform the House of the reason for this long delay?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I presume the hon. member is referring to applications made from overseas posts. I can inform the House that applications from abroad are up some 30 per cent, partly resulting from the fact that our economic situation in Canada is improving rapidly and partly by virtue of the fact that we have cut off landed immigrant applications from people within Canada. We are doing our best to cope with these increased applications but inevitably, until we can supply further resources to the posts involved, there will be delays in processing in light of the increased volume.


Duncan M. Beattie: May I ask the minister if it is a fact that directives have gone from the Department of Manpower and Immigration instructing district offices throughout the country to give preferential treatment to illegal immigrants who surfaced during the recent 60-day amnesty? Could this be the real reason for the present delay?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, most certainly, during the period of the adjustment of status program, most of our resources and facilities were devoted to that crash program. I make no apology for that. I am afraid that this may have resulted in other delays. However, that program is over now; it is not being extended. I think we are settling back to normal.


Duncan M. Beattie: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a last supplementary, then the hon. member for York West on another supplementary and then the Leader of the Opposition.


Duncan M. Beattie: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would answer the question? Are they or are they not getting preferential treatment over legal immigrants to this country?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the answer, as far as I understand the question which I thought I had answered, is no.


SITUATION WITH RESPECT TO APPLICATIONS FROM CHILE
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary to the minister in reference to inquiries regarding delays connected with immigration
Oral Questions
applications from foreign countries. Can the minister say what the situation is at this point with respect to applications from Chile since the overthrow of the Allende government?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we have had information as recently as this morning from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees indicating that, according to their estimate, there are some 3,000 people who may wish to leave Chile. They have positively identified 2,017 of these and have declared 1,175 as refugees according to the UN protocol. Only 30 of those have expressed a desire to come to Canada, and we are processing and treating these as a top priority. We have an indication that perhaps up to 70 will seek Canadian immigration, and we will certainly give them top priority as well.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to Saudi Arabia. Taking note of the view of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that no news is good news but recognizing also the desire of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to pursue a more active diplomacy, may I ask him whether he has succeeded in making contact yet through some ambassador with the government of Saudi Arabia to check out the report which he indicated last week he was seeking to do?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have now made initial contacts with all the Arab oil countries.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the minister what word he has received with regard to the views of Saudi Arabia on Aramco shipping oil to Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the information we have is of two kinds. First, there is no indication that oil to Canada is to be boycotted. Second, on the contrary, the initial reaction has been to express doubt that Canada would be subject to the boycott, given the positive relations that Canada has maintained with the Arab states.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether Canada yet has an accredited representive in Saudi Arabia?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

October 29, 1973
Oral Questions IMMIGRATION


POSSIBLE EXEMPTION OF IROQUOIS INDIANS WISHING TO MOVE TO CANADA FROM HAVING TO APPLY FOR LANDED IMMIGRANT STATUS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that Iroquois Indians born in the United States must now apply for landed immigrant status when moving to Canada, that regulation being contrary to the traditional and historic rights of the Iroquois, is the minister considering changing the new regulations so that the Iroquois confederacy will be exempt from this regulation of last November 30?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think this question could be more appropriately referred to my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I can say we have not, so far as I know, any intention of recognizing the Jay Treaty and therefore, Indians or other people born in other countries who wish to become Canadians will have to apply in the usual manner.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Does the minister intend to issue deportation orders against those Iroquois Indians living in Canada who entered several years ago without going through the regular process of applying for immigrant status?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we would examine the circumstances in light of what I said in the House the other day about compassionate treatment in some of the cases, with regard to the length of time that this has been a traditional pattern. We will certainly look at the possibility of exercising my discretion under the act, but we will not treat Indians either worse or better than other people in the same circumstances.


Mr. Barnett:: A supplementary-


Mr. Muir:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, and in due course the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. At the moment the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council. Before posing my question may I extend to him my congratulations on the honour paid him Thursday night in Halifax by the Prime Minister, members of the cabinet, other members of his party and others.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Say it in Gaelic.


Robert Muir: The Prime Minister suggests that I say it in Gaelic. I doubt that the translators would be able to interpret what I would say. The minister was congratulated on the twentieth anniversary of his election to the House. I think he deserves congratulations.
In view of the continuing difficulties being experienced by those, particularly in the Atlantic provinces, who have truly legitimate claims for unemployment insurance benefits in receiving such benefits, would the leader of the House give us his assurance that Bill C-125 will be cremated without ceremony and not brought back before the House?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, before replying directly to the hon. member's question, may I thank him for his kind remarks and for the telegram which he sent to the dinner. It was read to great applause that evening.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the form of burial will be, but it will be fully parliamentary.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has a supplementary to the previous question and also the hon. member for Hamilton West. We will attempt to dispose of these supplementaries as soon as possible and then recognize other hon. members who have new questions.


IMMIGRATION
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Before I ask it, perhaps I might be allowed to add my word of congratulation to the President of the Privy Council as one who was elected at the same time as a rookie Member of Parliament and who comes from another island.
I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister arising out of the questions asked by the hon. member for Brant. Can the Prime Minister tell us when and under what circumstances the government of Canada has rejected the validity of application of the Jay Treaty, which affects the arrangements between Canada and the United States so far as the movement of people of Indian ancestry is concerned?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether that question should be asked at this time. The hon. member might place the question on the order paper or, if there is urgency, it might be raised at the time of adjournment.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
October 29, 1973


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister responsible for manpower and immigration, and particularly unemployment insurance. Can the minister advise the House as to what reasons have been given by the advisory council to the Unemployment Insurance Commission for the unacceptable delay in filing their second report, which apparently is extremely important to the minister because of the criteria set? Is there any reason for this unusual delay?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have been in almost constant communication with the chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Commission Advisory Committee. He tells me that he has been discussing this matter with both parties on the Committee. I say "both parties" advisedly, because four members are representative of union and four are representative of management groups. I believe the problem is that there is not agreement on the report that they should tender. I have indicated to him that if they cannot make a unanimous report, to please give us even a divided report so we can examine it, table it, and get on with the job.


FISHERIES
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Can the minister now indicate, and I ask him as earnestly as possible to do so, when the fishermen of eastern Canada can expect an answer as to what assistance they can expect from this government in helping to restore their fishing capabilities which were so severely affected by the storm last June? I ask this question of the Minister of Finance because the Minister of the Environment indicated that he is now seized of jurisdiction in this matter.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the government is actively considering a formula for providing compensation to fishermen for storm damage, and the appropriate announcement will be made soon by the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact the continual increase in copper prices, particularly since January, 1973, is causing a substantial
Oral Questions
strain on the electrical industry, the result of which can be predicted as being disastrous for many electrical manufacturers, will the minister launch an immediate investigation with the producers of copper with a view to holding and/or reducing their prices to more realistic levels when dealing in the domestic market?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, my officials are in contact with the copper producers on a regular basis. It may be of some interest to the hon. member to know that Canadian copper prices are significantly lower than the LME price which prevails internationally but not on the North American continent.


THE ROYAL FAMILY
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. It arises from this government's newfound affection for the monarchy. Can the Prime Minister advise what the government will be presenting to Her Royal Highness Princess Anne as a wedding gift so that the Canadian people, on whose behalf the gift will be sent, may be assured of its suitability?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question might place the Chair in an embarrassing procedural position. Perhaps the Prime Minister might be allowed to reply, after which I will recognize the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should, before replying, be inclined to ask the hon. member on what his premise is based.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I bring to the attention of hon. members there are just two or three minutes before the end of the question period. Before getting into a debate on this question, the hon. member might like to follow the advice implicit in my comment.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the answer given by the minister in the House in September, 1973, that an announcement would be made within a few weeks or a month with regard to development in northern Ontario, and since it is now over a month, can the minister inform the House when he now intends to announce such a strategy?
7306

October 29, 1973
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I think I have explained on a number of occasions that work is proceeding on a number of specific undertakings in northern OrjJario but that these will be implemented co-incident with the signing of a general development agreement with the province of Ontario. It is the working out of the general development agreement that is taking considerable time. I can say, however, that in the meantime quite a number of incentives have been granted in parts of northern Ontario in recent weeks.


John R. Rodriguez: In view of Premier William Davis' statement in northern Ontario this past weekend that the federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member can ask the question directly without basing it on a statement made outside the House under circumstances such as those referred to by the hon. member. We are running short of time. The hon. member may ask a brief supplementary. I will then recognize a few other members before calling orders of the day.


John R. Rodriguez: I will rephrase my question. In view of the denial by provincial officials that there is such cooperation going on between the two departments, will the minister inform the House whether such meetings have in fact been taking place?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, obviously they have been taking place. If there is not co-operation it certainly is not our fault.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: This is the first I have heard of that particular comment. I find it surprising because most of the comments are that we have been working together quite successfully.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Mr. Tom Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the report that the minister very commendably returned to his office and worked hard and late last night, and in view of the energy shortage, did the minister make certain all the lights in that giant energy consuming building were out before he left?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, but I made sure that during my absence I was kept constantly in touch with the departmental officials working long and hard during that weekend. They needed some light.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister seriously take the matter of leaving the lights on in his building under advisement since the consumption of power per month is enough to light 2,092 average homes?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I tend to share the hon. member's concern. I have raised the question myself. I hope that the next time the Department of Public Works erects a building it will be possible to turn the lights off individually in each office.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Erik  Nielson@Yukon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Solicitor General whether he is aware of the existence in the province of Quebec of an agency of the government of that province called the Centre of Analysis and Documentation which concerns itself with secret policing of matters affecting national security? If the minister is aware of the existence of that group, has it been established with the knowledge of this government? Is it operating with the co-operation of this government and does any similar group exist in any of the other provinces?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the group but I will be pleased to check into this and find out. I might say we have relationships with the Quebec Provincial Police through the RCMP, but I am not aware of that particular committee.


ALLEGED WIRETAPPING OF MEMBERS OF ST. JEAN BAPTISTE SOCIETY-POSSIBLE PARTICIPATION OF SECURITY PLANNING AND ANALYSIS GROUP
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. In view of the revelation last week of the wiretapping of telephones of two members of the St. Jean Baptiste Society, allegedly by members of the group to which the hon. member for Yukon referred, will the minister advise whether there was any relationship with the police and security planning and analysis group in his department and whether they had any advance knowledge of this so-called operation 95? If so, what part did that group play in the planning of these acts of political espionage?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I will also check into that. I am virtually certain the group in my office had nothing to do with this particular incident. I will get a full report and give it to the House.
October 29, 1973



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, October 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-164, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system and Air Canada for the period from the 1st day of January, 1973 to the 30th day of June, 1974, and securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railways Company and certain debentures to be issued by Air Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, just before the House recessed for the weekend on Friday, I started to participate in a debate on Bill C-164 on financing the Canadian National Railways. I was commenting on the importance of transportation in areas such as Saskatchewan, in view of our farm population and innumerable small communities. I also stated that in Melville we have a large CNR terminal.
We on the prairies sometimes get very angry with Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway because it is a fact that these two railways have been responsible for some of the lack of development, high freight rates and discrimination against the prairies. I gave some examples of this in the debate last Friday. This afternoon, I want to spend a few minutes going over the immense power of CNR and CPR to show how these huge corporations affect the lives of people living in the prairies and, indeed, right across Canada.
What is the difference between CNR and CPR? I suggest they are basically the same type of beast. They just have different hides. CNR is publicly owned. CPR is a privately owned corporation. CPR operates in eight provinces, CNR in 10. CPR has a highway transportation organization. CNR has a highway transportation organization as well. CPR has coastal steamships. CNR has coastal steamships. Both have hotels. Both have a telecommunications company and network. Both are involved in the air transportation business. Both are involved in pipeline research in this country. Both are involved in tax ripoffs from the Canadian people.
In my own province, the Hotel Saskatchewan in Regina just last year started paying taxes to the city of Regina. Last year they paid $350,000 in taxes. That will be their annual tax rate from last year on. However, prior to that, the Hotel Saskatchewan did not pay any taxes at all, despite the fact it is owned by the CPR and has been in operation for many years. The city of Regina still pays the complete water bill for that huge hotel. In other words, these two rail lines have a virtual monopoly on the rail, air and water transportation in this country. Because of that, they exercise considerable control over national policy across this country.
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada
I want to go back in history for a few moments and express my concern about the monopoly grip these companies have on Canadian life. I urge the government to take the initiative when it comes to freight rates and national transportation policy. The CPR was started in 1880 when they were given some $25 million by the federal government. At that time they were also given 25 million acres of land, the site of which they could choose over the next 20-year period for their roadbeds, for their stations, docks, workshops, sheds and so on, which went along with their rail transport system. They were given tax exemptions by all three levels of government on everything connected with the railway system. They had tax exemptions on the lands which were given to them for the 20-year period after that land was obtained. The federal government itself built 700 miles of railway during that period, the cost of which, including the land, was some $140 million, and which today would be worth considerably more than that. The CPR was also given exclusive mineral rights as well as all kinds of land.
You may wonder why the CPR at that time was given such huge welfare cheques or hand-outs by the federal government of the time. There were 40 MPs in the House and 12 Senators, and on checking the records I find that many, if not most, of these MPs and Senators had an interest in the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and were thus serving their self-interest by giving huge handouts to the CPR. The government also guaranteed, very interestingly at that time, the shareholders of the CPR that freight rates would be kept high enough so that there would be a minimum profit of 10 per cent on the capital invested in the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. In 1897 the Crowsnest Pass agreement subsidized the building of the CPR into southeastern British Columbia. So that gives you a bit of the background of the Canadian Pacific Railway in this country which was started by rugged individualists by the use of huge handouts and concessions from the federal Conservative government of the day, in mineral rights, taxation, direct subsidies and so on right down the line.
Now, what has the CPR become today? Is it exclusively a railway company? It certainly is not, Mr. Speaker. I have been able to tabulate some of the interests the CPR has, and I am sure this will be of interest to the House as an example of transportation in Canada. The Canadian Pacific Oil and Gas people have petroleum rights in over 23 million acres of land in western Canada. Canadian Pacific Railway Hotels, which is part of Canadian Pacific investment along with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, owns and operates 11 hotels across this country. Marathon Realties owns a monstrous $310 million worth of assets and the $35 million Place du Canada in Montreal. Comin-co, which was formerly the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, owns or controls National Hardware Specialties Limited in Ontario, which is a zinc die-casting plant. Western Steel Limited is owned and controlled by the CPR in Vancouver. Another company the CPR owns is Pinepoint Mines Limited in Trail, B.C. They own Pacific Coast Terminals Limited in New Westminster. They own Ricken Mines in Yellowknife. They own Coast Copper in
7308

October 29, 1973
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada Trail, B.C. They own Sunco Mines Limited, which is also a copper mine.
The Canadian Pacific Railway, has interests in the United States. There is a zinc interest in the country of India. It has fertilizer, lead and electronic plants in the United States, and a lead smelting plant in Japan. There are Canadian fertilizer plants. There are six hydro-electric power plants in the Province of British Columbia and some pipeline interests as well. The CPR, with its fully-owned Canadian subsidiaries, had a net income last year of close to $70 million; Cominco, which is owned 53 per cent by the CP Investments Limited, has a net income of over $35 million; Pinepoint Mines Limited, which is the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's as well, had a profit of over $35 million. These are some of the interests which Canadian Pacific Railway has and which show how it has become a huge monstrosity in the last few years in this country. And the CNR is not far behind the Canadian Pacific Railway when it comes to a corporate octopus with immense power in this country as well. In fact, Mr. Speaker, when I go back over some of the reports of the CPR I see that from 1920 their net profits have been $1,279 million. That indeed is immense and that, indeed, makes the company very, very powerful.
Now, Canadian National Railways has a very similar history. It is involved, as I say, in very similar enterprises across this country. Canadian National was formed by the amalgamation of several railways after 1920, railway companies that went broke, railway companies that a Conservative government again at that time bought out, fully compensating the owners thereof. The Canadian government guaranteed bonds of the Canadian National Railways to the tune of $860 million. This does not include the forgiveness of debt which occurred in 1937. It does not include the converted half of the $760 million debt which existed in 1952 in the form of preferred equity shares, and this does not include the forgiveness of interest for ten years, ending in 1961, of $100 million. Despite that, the debt I am told is still almost $2 billion.
Now the CNR, like the CPR, is also involved in all kinds of enterprises across the country. We have the railway system itself. We have CN Express. We have Canadian National Railways Limited in France. We have Canadian National Realties, Canadian National Steamship Company, Canadian National Telegraph, Canadian National Transfer, Canadian National Transportation. We have Canadian Northern Quebec Railway Company, which is owned bh the CNR. We have Chapman Transportation Company, which is owned by the CNR; Eastern Transport, Empire Freightways, the Great Northwest Telegraph Company of Canada. We have Husband Transport, Husband International Transport, Midland Superior Enterprise Limited, the Minnesota-Manitoba Railroad Company, Minnesota-Ontario Bridge Company, Mount Royal Tunnel and Terminal Company, all owned by the CNR.
I could go on and on listing the companies that are owned by the huge Canadian National Railways Company here and beyond our border. They own the Northern Consolidated Holding Company, Provincial Tankers Limited, the Quebec and Saint John Railway Company, Royal Transportation Limited, Scobe's Transport, Swan River-The Pas Transfer, Toronto-Peterborough Transportation

Company, Central Vermont Railway, which is operated, of course, in the United States, the Duluth-Rainy Lake and Winnipeg Railway in the Duluth and Winnipeg area, and so on. These are the companies that are run by the Canadian National Railways here in this country.
If we look back at the history of the CNR in this country we find they have been much more willing to provide aid and service to industrial developments than they have to the ordinary citizen through decent transportation service, passenger service and working conditions for the employees. We find that in 1952, the CNR and the government of Canada combined to offer great incentives to build a railway to Kitimat and a bridge across the Skeena river for mining industries in that area. The same thing happened with the Lynn Lake developments in Manitoba where the CNR and the government of Canada combined to build a railway called the Sherritt Gordon line.
So you can see as you go back through the history of the CNR that they have been very, very quick to use the taxpayers money to build services for some of the private mining companies and private interests in this country. And now we get down to 1973. What do we see the CNR trying to do in conjunction with the CPR in this country? Members hear about the terrible passenger service, about Air Canada, among other things, and I want to mention one or two more specific items relating to the prairies. We find now applications before the Canadian Transport Commission to abandon 3,000 miles of railway track in the Province of Saskatchewan alone. And this is in addition to the elimination of station agents during the last few years.
Why do they want to abandon railway tracks when they have this immense empire behind them which has made enormous profits over the last dozens of years? There are a number of reasons why they want to abandon railway lines on the prairies. First of all, the National Transportation Act provides that in order to qualify for subsidy a railway must first apply to abandon the lines in question. This is one of the reasons the railways have applied to abandon 3,000 miles of railway line in my province.
The CPR and CNR have both said that one reason they must abandon certain lines is competition from trucking companies, which is becoming so severe that they are losing money. But, Mr. Speaker, who owns a lot of the trucking companies in Canada? The CNR and CPR. What we have is their rail operation competing against their highway transport operation, and this is used as another excuse to abandon rail lines in my province. The railways also wanted to abandon grain elevators, but the farm organizations are disputing that kind of application. What they are really trying to do is maximize their profits because the rail lines serving these small towns are not returning to them a very high profit, certainly not the profit they would like to see.
I ask, why not use the port of Churchill more than we do to export grain from the prairies? This would save the farmers 10 to 15 cents a bushel because Churchill is closer to the prairies. But the railways refuse to do so, because when grain is shipped through the Lakehead and down the St. Lawrence seaway system the CPR and CNR

receive more revenue through freight rates than they would if grain were shipped through Churchill.
Another reason the railways want to abandon lines is that it costs about $35,000 per mile per year to keep the track in shape. This figure relates to railway lines all across the country, not necessarily to the specific ones they are trying to abandon. There are 3,000 miles of track in my province of Saskatchewan, which works out to a figure of $105 million a year for maintenance. In other words, they want to save $105 million a year in my province alone. Where would the saving go, Mr. Speaker? I am sure _ it would not go to the farmers in the form of increased assistance, because they would have to haul their grain much greater distances from the farm to the elevator terminal. I am sure the saving would go into the general treasuries of the two railways concerned. If the $105 million a year which would be saved in Saskatchewan if the railways' attempts to abandon the rail lines were successful were invested at a reasonable rate of return over a period of 20 years, it would produce some $4 billion, to say nothing of similar savings in other provinces in Canada if rail lines were abandoned.
Then, of course, there are other costs incurred by rail line abandonment. For example, what would happen to people in small towns, villages and hamlets if local grain elevators were closed down? This represents about half of their economic base, and therefore they would be unable to exist. The municipalities will lose a lot of their tax revenue, services would become more centralized, people would be encouraged to leave the areas and go to larger centres in order to seek jobs, bring up their families and even retire there. I suggest this is a serious issue. Before the minister allows the CTC to grant the applications to abandon these lines, the minister should understand not only the economic consequences of such an act but also the social consequences for the people in rural Saskatchewan, and others living in different parts of rural Canada similarly affected.
The government of Saskatchewan has stated that rail line abandonment should be postponed in this country until at least 1980. I urge the minister to listen to what the government of Saskatchewan has said since they, like other governments on the prairies, know what their people living in rural areas want. If that were the case, better services would be provided to these people and they would have a better way of life. The very set-up of the board of directors of our two railways militates against the interests of people on the prairies. For example, of the 24 members of the board of directors of the CPR, only three come from western Canada, 19 come from eastern Canada, and there are three from foreign countries. There are 14 directors of the CNR; only four come from the west and 10 from eastern Canada.
In a debate of this sort, I and other members from the prairie provinces want to take the opportunity to put forward the argument that our transportation system be used to the benefit of all people in this country, not just those who happen to be fortunate enough to live within the golden horseshoe of southern Ontario in and around the city of Toronto. The freight rate structure in Canada should be organized in such a way as to remove any anomalies. For example, unprocessed goods can be shipped
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada from Saskatchewan more cheaply than finished goods. This should not be the case, but as long as it is the case rural Saskatchewan will remain undeveloped, as will our north, most parts of Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.
I would encourage the minister, in all seriousness, to inform the railways that they will not be allowed to abandon their rail lines. In addition, I suggest he remove freight rate anomalies and thus serve all of the people in this country. One way to do this would be to nationalize the CPR and run just one railway system in this country. With regard to compensation for the CPR, according to the ledgers that I have seen it would not cost much to buy out the CPR, because most of that empire was built with the taxpayers' money in the first place. They have been getting welfare cheques from us for years. It is now time that the people of Canada owned, operated and controlled that particular railway along with the CNR. Let us have one railway system in this country that will serve all of our people from coast to coast.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I understand there is one, possibly two, more speakers to follow me. It is not my intention to take up too much time, but there are one or two points I should like to bring forward in this debate.
Bill C-164, which we are presently debating, gives the members of this House an opportunity to discuss the many transportation problems we have in Canada. Having listened to the debate over the past few days, I find a number of very interesting proposals have been put forward by members of all parties which I trust will be given very careful consideration both by the Department of Transport and by the committee that will deal with the bill once we give it second reading.
I welcome the opportunity to raise several transportation problems in my riding of Kootenay West. As hon. members know, a number of members have spoken on pension matters, abandonment of railway lines and so on. Similar problems exist in other parts of Canada, and I think all arise because of the fact that the transportation policy of this nation is inadequate. It is the lack of a unified transportation policy that has led to much of our current difficulties on our transportation system in Canada. I feel that the lack of adequate national policy in this field can have disastrous results, particularly on the growth of certain areas. Coming from a rural area I find that sometimes these weak transportation policies can seriously harm the potential economic growth of those rural areas in which we are very interested in seeing jobs retained. Certain economic ventures, too, are often destroyed when rail lines are abandoned.
Canada is a country whose economy is dependent on vast amounts of both exports and imports. Large quantities of raw materials are to be found in every part of our nation, and fast and efficient transportation facilities are required to get these products to market so we can be competitive. In addition, we find that Canadians travel a great deal. Whether they are commuting to and from places of employment or travelling for business or pleasure, we find that some method of transport comes into the picture. Our country, with its huge area and vast dis-

Canadian National Railways and Air Canada
tances, uses many modes of transportation including rail, air, ship and, of course, our ever increasing truck transport. It is essential that all these methods be welded into a closely coordinated system to ensure that we receive the fast and efficient movement of goods and people that is required in this day and age. There is no reason all aspects of such a transport system should not be fully coordinated, owned and controlled by Canadians. It is for this reason the members of our group have been pressing for years for a Canadian merchant marine. I am not going to go into this because other members have spoken about the need for a Canadian merchant marine, but it does seem odd that Canada, a country with the longest coastline in the world, should have practically all its shipping trade carried in ships of other nations.
There are several transportation problems, however, which affect that part of B.C. I represent and to which attention must be paid to prevent further deterioration of transport facilities in the area. I should like to deal first with a problem which has been settled by the present B.C. government, but which could become a problem at some future date unless some legislative changes are made to prevent it. I refer to the recent plan to build the Kootenay and Elk railway to connect with the Burlington Northern at the United States border for the purpose of hauling coal from the east Kootenay to the Pacific coast via a United States railway line.
I firmly believe that Canadian raw materials and goods should be transported, wherever possible, by our own Canadian transportation systems, and as a result I welcomed, as did most residents of British Columbia, the action of the present B.C. government in stopping the export of Canadian jobs by the proposed plan to haul Canadian export coal over U.S. rail lines. The point I should like to make here is that the application to build the Kootenay and Elk railway should never have been allowed in the first place. This railway was only an appendage of a U.S. rail line and was to have no rolling stock of its own. Despite this, the lack of adequate federal legislation allowed the Kootenay and Elk to be incorporated under provincial law, although it was in no sense a provincial railway. This indicates that a legislative change is required in our Railway Act, and I urge the minister to proceed with it at an early date.
I might point out in passing that there are a number of products that various companies might be interested in having hauled over competing U.S. rail lines. I think legislation should be updated to make certain that appendages of U.S. rail lines cannot come into Canada and take away some of this lucrative rail freight haul. The former Social Credit government of British Columbia encouraged the building of the Kootenay and Elk railway. It would have meant the loss of many hundreds of Canadian railway jobs and would have been a severe blow to the Canadian economy. Their argument was, however, that it would provide competition for the CPR and, more important, it would provide an alternate route to the Pacific coast to ensure that our coal export contracts with Japan would not be placed in jeopardy. I might point out that there is already an alternative route to the Pacific coast and it is one which lies entirely within our own country. I refer to the Kettle Valley Line which more or less parallels the United States border. It runs from the East Koote-

nay area and now joins the main line of the CPR as it comes down the Fraser Canyon.
I believe there is a need for an alternate route to the Pacific coast from eastern B.C., but it should be confined to Canadian territory and, in my opinion, the Kettle Valley route would make an excellent alternative. It would relieve the growing pressure on the main line of the CPR and could be the safety valve in the event of a long and serious tie-up on this main line. It appears, however, that the company is reluctant to spend the necessary funds to make this line a viable alternative. It has reduced services and diverted traffic elsewhere in the hope, I presume, that eventually it will be able to persuade the Canadian Transport Commission that portions of the line should be abandoned. I would urge that a major upgrading of the Kettle Valley line take place. For a start it could be used to assist in the lucrative coal haul, perhaps by being used as the route to return the empty coal trains to east Kootenay, thus relieving some of the pressure now on the CPR main line.
At one time the Kettle Valley line went through the Coquahala Pass which gave it access to the Fraser Valley without having to go through the dangerous Fraser Canyon. This particular pass was abandoned a number of years ago by the CPR and, as a consequent result, all the rail traffic to the lower mainland, both CPR and CNR, must go down the Fraser Canyon. We can still vividly recall the immense traffic tie-up in the Fraser Canyon from the heavy snowfall of two years ago in which both our two transcontinental rail lines were involved. I understand there is a feasible route to get rail traffic into the Fraser Valley to the west of the dangerous Fraser Canyon. This matter should be investigated and, if found feasible, should be advocated by our National Transport Commission. Our increasing dependence upon continuous supplies of goods both to and from our Pacific seaboard is becoming of increasing significance as time goes on.
Many members during this debate have mentioned the economic upset and trouble which will be caused by the proposed abandonment policies of both our national rail lines. I find the same situation arises in my constituency of Kootenay West, where rail lines have been abandoned by the CPR, and the company is making moves to abandon more of its small branch lines. I might add that once a rail line has been removed from the area the chance of economic development taking place is greatly reduced. Once the rail line goes, we see a considerable number of small economic job-producing enterprises go with it, and as a result these little communities become less attractive because of a decreased number of job opportunities. There has been talk of diversification of industry throughout our country in an attempt to cut down on many of the major problems which now confront us with a growing concentration of citizens in urban areas. Unfortunately, the transportation policy of the present government has done nothing to ensure the continuity and growth of our smaller rural centres and is leading to increased urbanization as time goes on.
I understand that in 1975 the CPR will try to abandon the rail link between Rosebery and Nakusp. The company would very much like to get rid of this phase of its operation. Over the years there has been a gradual erosion
October 29, 1973

of service by the company in this area, and this is no doubt directed toward the final abandonment of service to the area. It is my intention to oppose any further abandonment of rail lines in Kootenay West. The entire area has tremendous economic potential and this will gradually be developed over the next few years. We must not allow the CPR, with its faulty transportation theories, to slow down or stop the type of economic development which should and could be taking place in British Columbia.
This is the reason so many members have stressed the need for Canada to make some major changes in this whole policy in respect of transportation and communication. This bill deals with Air Canada and with air service in general. I should like to speak very briefly on air communication service in and out of Kootenay West. It should and could be improved. For example, in this day and age we find there is not a daily service from Castlegar airport to Calgary and the east. This just does not make sense. Pacific Western Airlines, which has the franchise for the area, should be obliged to institute a daily service. Once travellers are certain a daily service is available this helps generate passenger travel. It is disconcerting to air travellers to be forced on certain days to either stay overnight in Calgary or fly to Vancouver and then return several hundred miles to Castlegar. The additional cost involved is an unfair levy on those travellers who are forced to take the Vancouver route.
Another aspect of air communication which requires more attention is the growing need for improvement to existing municipal air fields and the development of new ones. This is an area of communication which is showing rapid development and one which needs far more attention than it has received to date. Rapid communication within a region is essential, for many centres are a long distance from those airports which are serviced by a licensed airline. Facilities are required to ensure that charter flights can provide services if required. There is also a rapidly growing use of private planes for both business and pleasure. This phase of air travel also needs attention, and I would urge the Department of Transport to allocate far more funds to the development of facilities for this type of air travel.
There are some immediate requirements in my area for improved service in this field. Every existing airport needs improvements. The priority in this regard is certainly at the Trail municipal airport at Columbia Gardens where the immediate need is for a paved runway. The department is aware of the problems, and I will press the government to see that action is taken on them.
There are a host of other problems, but this is second reading of this particular bill. Most members have covered other aspects of transportation and when this bill comes back to the House for report stage it is my intention to again raise several of the points I have briefly mentioned here this afternoon and to suggest other points I should like to question the minister about. I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words and trust that some time today this bill will receive second reading in the House.


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill with a feeling partly of
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada sorrow-and partly of anger-sorrow because this bill reveals in a striking manner all the weaknesses for which this government has become notorious. We have another case like the budget measures where the bill is presented to this House more than a year too late to do the job for which it is intended. This bill should have come before the House prior to the election, but the government was so disorganized by panic that it just shelved everything, the budget and CNR financing. The government had time only to change the auditors. It forgot the essentials and looked after the patronage. We do not mind when a little gravy goes to a Liberal firm, but surely a little discretion could be shown. It is a strange spectacle to see that those occupying that front bench over there in the House have gravy all over their faces. It is no wonder people refer to "the gravy train". I mentioned anger, and I emphasize that because the bill and the way it has been received emphasizes the iniquitous relationship between the government and the sunshine socialists to my left.


John Napier Turner: Give us a good Halloween speech.


Steve Eugene Paproski: We have seen the spectacle of member after member of the once dedicated NDP-CCF party, a party that once knew how to fight for the west, rising in their places and offering mealy-mouthed words of praise for this and other legislation in this House. They can see nothing wrong. When was the last time they could see anything wrong with this government?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Last Friday when I spoke.


Steve Eugene Paproski: There is an exception to the rule, and I will come to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The awful corruption of power was written all over that performance. Here is a party once noted for its conscience. Under the present leader, it has checked its conscience at the door. It clings to the skirts of power. Perhaps "NDP" stands for "no damn principles". They had two reasons for lavishing praise on the CNR financing bill. First, the CNR, a government-owned corporation represents the ultimate in the vocabulary of socialism, the Nirvana of the Socialist state, government-owned, government-controlled, a sacred cow that can do no wrong. We have had problems with cows on the tracks. In this debate for the first time we witnessed a sacred cow on the tracks and the NDP want us to take away the cowcatcher.
Here is a party of dedicated socialists, full of pious platitudes about the common man, the rights of the little fellow and, during the debate as I recall it, they rose one after the other defending the sacrosanct privileges of an organization which has shown signs of both bureaucratic arrogance and bureaucratic incompetence. Worse than that, in all those reams of words, these defenders of the people could not find time to say a word in defence of those who had given their lives to the CNR and the people of Canada, the CNR pensioners. I say that with the one exception of the hon. gentleman who rose on Friday, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Their pensions into which they paid over the years are an insult to the generosity of the Canadian people.

October 29, 1973
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada
The CNR has built up an enormous fund out of their contributions and the contributions of the people of Canada. They have invested those funds in a number of curious ways. But they have consistently refrained from passing on the benefits of those investments to the workers whose contributions made the fund possible. In terms of today's living costs and similar pension systems in other organizations, it is time the CNR passed on some of the benefits of the huge pension accrual to those who earned it. This matter has been brought to the attention of the government on numerous occasions.
Perhaps at this point I might refer to an item in the Edmonton Journal of October 4 entitled "CN Pensioners seek 10% Increase".


John Napier Turner: What paper?


Steve Eugene Paproski: A good Liberal paper, the Edmonton Journal.
This newspaper report states in part:
. . . the retired railwaymen say they were servants of the Grown and should be given the same consideration as the civil servants who got the 10 per cent increase . . .
CN instituted the two-per cent yearly pension increases Jan. 1, 1970. The increases were also retroactive to the time a man retired. For example, a man in 1970 who retired 15 years previously would receive a 30-per cent pension increase, and two per cent thereafter.
This is the type of benefit these pensioners should be receiving and are not. There has been delegation upon delegation, brief after brief, submission upon submission, and very little or no action. This is why I find it strange that in all the outpouring of words from the conscience-stricken members of the socialist group so very little was said about the plight of the CNR pensioners whose pension fund has gone up and up, while their pensions in real terms have gone down and down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do you agree with what I said?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes, I do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then why do you not say so.


Steve Eugene Paproski: This is an injustice which should not be tolerated in this country. Surely, the NDP for once, representing ridings in which CNR pensioners are living, and in view of the principles they have paid lip service to, could think about breaking ranks with their wagon masters in the Liberal government. All it takes is a little courage, the courage of their convictions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To think that we kept this debate going so that you could take part in it!


Steve Eugene Paproski: When one considers all the speeches about rights and justice, here is a case crying out for rectification. I say to the government: pass on the increment in that pension fund, now nearly $1.5 billion, to the pensioners. Surely, this is one case in which those who speak loudly of rights, justice and welfare might stand up and be counted.

This government has so bungled and botched the welfare system in this country with its futile handouts to spur of the moment groups, would be reformers and world changers, that people are losing their respect for legitimate welfare needs. Let me say that there are people in this country who belong in the ranks of the unfortunate, people who have suffered illness, death, the loss of a breadwinner, accidents, and have seen their savings dwindle away. While our friends on the NDP benches are making pious speeches about being on the side of the angels, real suffering exists and real suffering calls on the resources of this nation for assistance. Many CNR pensioners are in the category where suffering has taken its toll through age, illness or neglect. Yet, the CNR, in its arrogance, this sacred cow maintained at the taxpayers' expense with the approval of the NDP, refuses to lift a finger to restore the pension rights of veteran CNR employees.
We have now seen everything. The NDP, which over the years has paid lip service and mouth service to the pensioners, is now afraid to speak up because they are in bed with the Liberal party and terrified out of their wits to face an election.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Nonsense.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I do not know when the election will be. All I can say is that if the only cement to hold this House together is the cement between the NDP and the Liberal party, then the sooner it cracks the better.
I also want to bring to the attention of the CNR authorities the crashing nuisance of the hump yard in Edmonton. I use the word "crashing" advisedly. I would just like the president of the CNR and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) to come to Edmonton and try to sleep anywhere in the city within a mile of the hump yard. Let me assure them that they would not get a wink of sleep that night. All night long this symphony of distraction continues-crashing, groaning, whining, screaming-as boxcars are shunted up and down making sleep impossible. The continued existence of the CN hump yard in the built up areas of a modern city like Edmonton is a transgression on the good nature of the people of Edmonton. Once again we find that this arrogant institution does not give a damn for anyone. Either the hump yard must be moved to the outskirts or shunting must be banned between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m. I ask the minister most seriously to look into this matter about which many representations have been made. We have found that the CNR in its arrogance has turned a deaf ear to our requests.
I want to speak about Air Canada and the refusal of the appendix of the CNR to inaugurate a direct air link to Edmonton, the capital of western Canada, and may I say the oil capital of the world. Surely, it is ridiculous for travellers going to the metropolis of western Canada, the Mecca of the west, to be routed through Toronto and have their whole vision of Canada spoiled by the mindless turmoil and inextricable jumble that exists at the Toronto airport. The people of western Canada are entitled to a through service to Edmonton, and if we cannot get it under this government we will darn soon put a government in power that will be able to secure the services and the recognition to which we are entitled.
October 29, 1973

For too long we have had the policy in force of everything for the east and nothing for the west. In view of the fact that western oil and western wheat contribute in a major way to the prosperity of Canada, while a great part of the east simply lives off western resources, we feel we are at least entitled to recognition. Under this government the policy is not only to bleed the west white, but the west is expected to say thank you.
In closing, may I say thank you to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who had the vision to construct that great airport in the Edmonton area, which at one time was thought to be a white elephant, but now with the bilateral agreements, will become one of the foremost airports in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.

[ Translation]

Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved:: That Bill C-224, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (No. 2) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to pursue the point of order of which I gave notice on Tuesday, October 23, as recorded in Hansard at pages 7136 and 7137.1 realize that it is rather unusual for a member to raise a point of order with respect to a bill the terms of which he fully supports. Nevertheless, rules are rules and should be held in high regard. I also feel that there are certain consequences from the point I wish to make which should be considered, indeed certain rights which should be preserved. The point of order that I raise has to do with the fact that when this bill was placed on the order paper and given first reading there was attached to it what we call the royal recommendation. That recommendation, which is given by His Excellency the Governor General, is required in all cases where a bill involves the expenditure of public money or, to put it in other terms, in all cases where any money has to be paid out of or charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
It is my contention, and I think it is so well supported it hardly needs to be argued, that that is not true with respect to the Canada Pension Plan. It is a completely self sustaining plan. In fact, its self sustaining character is so
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2) complete that even charges for rent, telephone and all other kinds of administrative services are made against the plan or against the fund which is set up under the Canada Pension Plan.
The Canada Pension Plan was first brought in 1964 but it was passed in 1965. At that time there was a resolution that preceded the bill. This was before the days when we had abolished the resolution, but it took the same form as the Governor General's recommendation now takes. Some questions were asked about this at that time. The answer given by the then Prime Minister, the late Right Hon. L. B. Pearson, was to the effect that when the plan got operating it would of course be completely self-sustaining, but to begin with there were certain costs involved in getting the plan established, certain expenditures that had to be made before any receipts came in, and that in that sense there were initial charges that had to be paid by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
However, one of the requirements of the original act, the Canada Pension Plan as passed in 1965, was that any of these costs that had been incurred before the plan came into effect were to be paid back to the Consolidated Revenue Fund out of the fund established under the Canada Pension Plan. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, because the Canada Pension Plan as it now operates is a plan which does not draw on the Consolidated Revenue Fund in any way, it seems to me that it is an act of supererogation or, to put it in simple language, it is wrong to attach a Governor General's recommendation to this amending bill. Someone might say, "No harm is done. Let's be on the safe side." But of course the harm that is done is that if the Chair rules that such a recommendation is required then private members are denied the right to make any amendments, even though their amendments might not require any payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
With regard to the fact that no charges are made against the Consolidated Revenue Fund may I remind hon. members that if they look at the public accounts of Canada from year to year they will see that there is an account known as the Canada Pension Plan account, but it is completely separated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Also it will be noted that some of the expenditures that are listed as charged to the Canada Pension Plan are administrative costs, rental of space and all the rest of it. In other words, the principle that everything must be paid for out of the contributions that employers and employees pay into the Canada Pension fund is well protected. Indeed this is guaranteed in section 110 of the Canada Pension Plan itself, which is found at page 849 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, vol. 1. It fills a column so I will not read it in full, but it does say very clearly that everything that is received by way of Canada Pension Plan contributions must go into the Canada Pension Plan account, and every payment that is made out with respect to the Canada Pension Plan must be charged to the Canada Pension Plan account.
Then, there is subsection (4) of section 110 which says:
No payment shall be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund under this section in excess of the amount of the balance to the credit of the Canada Pension Plan Account.

October 29, 1973
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
In other words, it is very clear that not one cent can go out of the federal treasury, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, for the payment of any of the costs of the Canada Pension Plan, whether it be the paying of pensions or other benefits or whether it be the paying of administrative costs. This has been argued a number of times. It seems to me that the arguments that took place in 1964 and 1965 on this point were not really conclusive, because there was a mixed bag at that time, but since then the expenses involved in getting the plan going and any expenses that were paid prior to the starting of the plan, have been paid back.
A more recent discussion of this point is one that took place on April 20, 1971. I am looking at a number of pages in Hansard for that day, pages 5093 to 5097. I may say at the outset that I find it interesting in addressing you, Sir, as Mr. Speaker, that two of the persons who took part in the debate that day were a predecessor of yours, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), and the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants, who is now the occupant with you of what he calls that lonely plateau.
Since both of these esteemed gentlemen, one a former speaker and the other the present Deputy Speaker, made statements about the matter I think it will be interesting to have Your Honour's view on the matter as well. When I first looked at these pages I thought that maybe my quoting of these two gentlemen would be offset by the fact that you said something that day. But no, Sir, you were not in the chair that day. It was Mr. Honey, deputy speaker in the last parliament who was in the chair. So, Sir, this is your golden opportunity. You have not ruled on this point yet, and you have such excellent authorities as the hon. member for Edmonton West, a former occupant of the chair, and your present colleague, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave).
On that occasion the bill being discussed was a private member's bill which had been presented by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) and the arguments I have given today in brief were given then by all of us who took part on the side of private member's rights. In the end Mr. Honey ruled against us, but I draw attention to the fact that he based his ruling almost exclusively on the fact that Bill C-34 in that session, a bill in which the hon. member for Hillsborough sought to amend the Canada Pension Plan in a certain way, did include a clause which said:
Expenditures under this Act shall be provided under section 104 of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1970.
There was that element of weakness in the bill that was before the House on that day. But, Mr. Speaker, I point out that there is not one jot or one tittle in Bill C-224 now before us that says anything shall be paid as provided under section 104 of the British North America Acts, 1867-1970. In fact Bill C-224 does not touch at all the sacred provision of section 110 of the Canada Pension Plan Act which says that not one red cent-I will come back to that phrase in a moment-shall be paid out of the federal treasury for the purposes of the Canada Pension Plan. Therefore it seems to me that this bill is not a money bill in the normal sense and that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), in whose name it is,

should be able to proceed with it without the royal recommendation.
Let it be quite clear that one of my motives in raising this matter is that I want to protect rights that I think we have as private members. Once this bill is before us of course the Canada Pension Plan is open, and I think we should have the right to make suggestions, and even to move amendments that would make improvements in the Canada Pension Plan if we can demonstrate that this can be done without involving any charge on the treasury.
I realize that any such amendments which we might make would have to be considered when they would come along, but of course we are locked outside to begin with if it is ruled that this is a money bill and that there has to be a royal recommendation, because then we are faced with the citation that says that the royal recommendation lays down once and for all the terms of the bill.
I said earlier that we had an interesting debate on April 20, 1971. I should like to quote a few words from one of the authorities who spoke that day. In the present context he is probably the one whom we should most like to quote. As recorded at page 5095 of Hansard for April 20, 1971, the hon. member said:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to join briefly in the arguments that have been presented to Your Honour and to recall some of the wording in the resolution that was presented to the House when the Canada Pension Plan was introduced on October 28, 1964. But before I read portions of the resolution, I agree that up to that point the moneys had been spent by government departments with reference to the setting up of the plan, particularly with reference to the studies that had preceded the setting up of the plan, in that very special sense, involved an expenditure of tax moneys, of Her Majesty's revenues, in relation to that legislation. These moneys had to be spent so that the expertise established for publication of these ideas could be incorporated into the Canada Pension Plan itself.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has recalled, the then member for Rosthern raised with the prime minister of the day the question of why there should be a resolution when the Canada Pension Plan was to pay its own expenses. There were exchanges between them, and perhaps I should read what the prime minister said then:
The hon. member then quotes Mr. Pearson as follows:
The fact is that it will cost some money to get this plan into operation, as my hon. friend must know. Afterwards, when the plan is in operation, the expenses will be borne by the fund.
It is no secret that the person whose words I am quoting, as recorded in Hansard of April 20, 1971, is the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants. He went on, from that basis, to argue that the resolution as attached to the original Canada Pension Plan bill was there purely for technical reasons but, now that the plan is paying its own way, it should be possible for a private member to move amendments to the legislation. As the hon. member pointed out, no money was to come out of the federal treasury.
I alluded awhile ago to "not one red cent" coming out of the federal treasury. Of course, I was in part repeating what the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants had said. Discussing the bill on that occasion and pointing out that it did not involve any charge on the treasury, the hon. member put it this way:
When could there be any requirement whatsoever that so much as
October 29, 1973

one red, black or blue cent of public money be put into its operation? I suggest you could look from one end of the plan to the other, whether in its present form or, hopefully, as amended by the hon. member for Hillsborough, and not find any such obligation.
The hon. member went on to say:
I would respectfully suggest to Your Honour that it would work a hardship on the backbench members of Parliament if a very narrow construction were placed on the rule about the introduction of measures calling for expenditures. I think, first, the rule would have to be pretty severely twisted to cover the circumstances that arise in the bill of the hon. member for Hillsborough, but in any event it would be a most narrow and unfortunate construction if the Chair were to say that this bill was outside the competence of a private member.
It is no secret that, sometimes after four o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker is in the chair. It is after four o'clock now, but Mr. Deputy Speaker is yet not in the chair. It would have been interesting to quote his own words to him. However, the ruling, when it comes, will be a most important one, which will need a great deal of consideration.
Using the past words of our present Deputy Speaker, I suggest, Sir, that if you look from one end of Bill C-224 to the other, you will not find any obligation for one red, black or blue cent of money to be paid out or charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. In view of the very cogent argument, the very strong case, presented by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants, as he then was, on April 20, 1971, I ask Your Honour to rule that this bill is not one placing any charge on the treasury and, therefore, that it should not have attached to it the royal recommendation.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the numerous arguments which have been advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I hope I will not traverse the same ground. In drawing his particular point to the attention of the House, the hon. member referred to a debate which took place in 1965. On March 9, 1965 the House voted on a certain matter involving an appeal against a ruling made by the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole. That matter involved precisely the same principle we are now considering.
The House was considering an amendment put forward by the then hon. member for Perth, the hon. Mr. Monteith, and at that time the then hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka carried the ball from a procedural point of view. A ruling was given, dealing with the amendment, and the ruling, and I say this inferentially, challenged the right of a private member to move an amendment to the Canada Pension Plan and any of its provision regarding distribution. Shortly thereafter, I debated with the then minister of finance, Mr. Benson, precisely what was the nature of the contribution made by the Canadian citizen to the Canada Pension Plan fund. The then minister of finance refused to debate whether or not this was a tax. Any reference to that debate will show that, actually, such contribution was considered to be a tax.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He was then the minister of national revenue.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I stand corrected by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The minister
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2) was then the minister of national revenue. He did not wish to become involved in that debate because, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said and as the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), as he then was, said, there was not one jot or tittle of evidence within Bill C-5, then under consideration, to support the authorization of the payment of one red cent out of the fund. May I say that the ruling on the matter that precipated the debate on April 20, 1971 was, as I have said before, erroneous. Having reread all the material referred to and the debate of April 20, I am still convinced that the original ruling was erroneous and should not be followed.
First, if the royal recommendation is to be carefully and scrupulously followed by the Chair, as Mr. Deputy Speaker suggested the other day, there is a corresponding obligation to make sure that the recommendation is required. Second, there is the obligation to make sure that the recommendation is couched in correct terms. I say that because it cannot be used, shall we say, to stand off private members. If it is included for that reason, I suggest it is not proper. I suggest that this is what we are debating today.
I put it to Your Honour that there is no need for a recommendation in this particular case, as the bill seeks a change in the distribution of funds paid into the Canada Pension Plan by the contributors. From that plan the government of Canada cannot derive one cent for ways and means, and it cannot spend one cent for administration. The late Prime Minister Pearson remarked at one stage there would not be any money required to get the program in operation. The money was not paid back from the sources. The money was provided under item L60(b) in an appropriation bill which was passed and received royal assent as Bill C-150 of 1964-65. The Canada Pension Plan Act went through as Bill C-151.
In the revision of the statutes in 1970-71, if one looks to the historical index of what happened to all appropriations, we still see that opposite L60(b) is marked "spent". Therefore, the whole of that appropriation has gone. It is cleaned out. The loan has been repaid. Here is a little known fact. The government derived more money, and attempted to get even more money out of the fund, than it had spent with regard to the expenses of getting the plan geared up and under way.
An attempt was made to collect the expenses of public servants who had devoted time, travel and expenses in the 1950's in connection with the establishment of the Canada Pension Plan. The government of Canada tried to reimburse itself from a fund that belonged to the citizens of Canada. However, it was determined that until there was an amendment to the Canadian constitution in 1964 authorizing and permitting the government of Canada to get into a Canada Pension Plan, there was no authority to recover any moneys. The recovery of the so-called expenditures was stopped as of 1964.
That is an aside, but it indicates that the government of Canada cannot use any of the moneys under this plan for general purposes under the consolidated revenue fund. In any event, all of the expenses of organization and so forth

October 29, 1973
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2) have long since been repaid and there are funds far in excess of the requirements of the plan. It is argued that the citizens of Canada are being shortchanged by reason of the fact that loans made from the Canada Pension Plan fund are at a much lower rate of interest than the market. Therefore, the fund could provide moneys for the payment of the increase that is now being asked if the current interest rates were being charged. There would be sufficient moneys to make these payments. There would be no difficulty.
Many arguments could be made, but I come back to what I think bothers most members. In particular, it bothered Deputy Speaker Honey in 1971 when he considered that if it was not a tax, it was an impost. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the impost arises out of an old method of classifying or drawing up taxation statutes.
Prior to 1830, taxing statutes provided for the purpose for which the money was to be used. There were, therefore, limitations on the expenditures. For example, if a particular bill imposed a tax on tobacco for health purposes, the total amount of that tax had to be used for health purposes and no other purpose. It was in 1830 that the consolidated revenue fund was established by the United Kingdom government of the day. Therefore, we have a consolidated revenue fund into which all taxes are paid. Taxes are generally exacted under the Income Tax Act, the Customs Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act.
This left parliament free to exact a statute that dealt solely with the purpose for which the expenditure was to be made and, instead of including a tax, provide only that a certain sum was to be paid out of the consolidated fund either in the statute itself or in a subsequent appropriation act. The old method is still, but rarely, used. The Old Age Security Act is a classic example of an impost because it provides that a proportion of the expenditures were to be provided by an additional 2 per cent sales tax.
If Deputy Speaker Honey was right in his ruling on April 20, 1971, then the provisions of the Standing Orders relating to Ways and Means apply. A Ways and Means motion must be tabled under Standing Order 60(1) and, if adopted, a bill then brought in based on the provisions of such motion. The bill now before the House must be ruled out of order as not complying with Standing Order 60.
That is the dilemma that comes about from considering the contributions and the whole scheme of payments under the Canada Pension Plan Act as being part of a tax or an impost. Our Standing Orders and Section 54 of the BNA Act say we must proceed via another way if this is a tax, but this is not the way. This act is then bad. On the other hand, if this act is to be right, there cannot be any Ways and Means application. There cannot be any question of a tax or impost. Therefore, the recommendation is unnecessary. If the recommendation is unnecessary, the bill is then amendable. That, in essence, is the nub of the problem facing Your Honour at the present time.
I repeat what was said on March 12 as it appears at page 12290 of Hansard and subsequent pages.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What year?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: 1964-65. This was in consideration of clause 44 of the Canada Pension Plan Act.

One cannot have it both ways. If it is not a tax and does not affect Ways and Means, there is no requirement for a recommendation. On the other hand, if it requires a recommendation because it is a tax or it affects Ways and Means, then the procedure adopted by the government in presenting this bill is wrong and they have to start over.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the arguments which have been advanced this afternoon. Standing Order 62(1) reads:
This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
It seems to me the arguments which have been put forward this afternoon by the two hon. gentlemen who have preceded me do not really hit home in their entirety. Surely, the funds involved here are not only part of the revenue of the federal government, but go back to the provinces; they are used, for example, by local school boards and I submit they are part of public revenue. It has been argued, apparently, that these funds are not paid out of consolidated revenue. Surely, they are. It is said they come from the Canada Pension Plan fund, a fund in which money must always be available in order that applications for payment may be met. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that what are involved here are not only payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund but payments by the federal government into the Canada Pension Plan fund on behalf of the 250,000 or 275,000 employees of the federal government. This contribution represents a direct expenditure on the part of the government and for this reason a recommendation by the Governor General is needed. I have no idea how many millions of dollars these contributions will amount to, but the total sum is bound to be a very large one.
It seems to me the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) really tipped his hand when he said he and his friends wanted to see this done without a recommendation in order that in private members hour they could bring in bills to amend the Canada Pension Plan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or to amend this bill.


Maurice Brydon Foster: The Canada Pension Plan is an integral part of the social security program of the present government or, indeed, of any government, and I suggest it is the government which must take responsibility for it. It should be the prerogative off the government to bring forward amendments. It is not something which can be done by a private member. After all, we do not have a congressional system here. The government has to be responsible for legislation, especially where the expenditure of funds is involved, so it seems to me that the precedents by which we have so long been guided require the royal recommendation, and for good reason, and that the point of order raised by the hon. members should not be upheld.
October 29, 1973


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, the issue has been well covered by the first two speakers in this discussion, but in answer to the query which has just been raised regarding the application of Standing Order 62(1), I suggest that the Canada Pension Plan as now established amounts to a 100 per cent private scheme, operated freely by a trustee which happens to be the state. I believe this is the answer to the last argument which was put forward. The other two points have been ably advanced, so the case rests.
We do take this matter seriously, Mr. Speaker, and, I trust I can say without being misunderstood that if the Chair does hide behind the royal recommendation we have a democratic right to make certain that the other point of view comes forward.


Marc Lalonde: I shall be very brief, Mr. Speaker. Listening to the learned arguments put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton West and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I was reminded of advice given to me when I was a young lawyer-the weaker your case, the longer must be your argument.
The only point I wish to stress is that the funds are collected by the Receiver-General of Canada and put into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre may, indeed, have let the cat out of the bag when he quoted that section of the Canada Pension Plan legislation which refers to the Canada Pension Plan account. It is true that there is an account, but there is no such thing as a Canada Pension Plan fund, that is, a whole lot of money put into a special corner where no one can touch it. It is merely an accounting format.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is no Consolidated Revenue Fund either; it is just a form of words.


Marc Lalonde: Disbursement dispersion is made from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and, likewise, what is collected-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is there a Consolidated Revenue Fund?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. It is just a form of words.


Mr. Speaker:: If there are no additional contributions to this very important and interesting procedural debate, I shall attempt to make a ruling. The hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) has suggested that he, and the hon. members who sit around him, consider this procedural matter very seriously, and I expect them to do so because it is an important procedural point. It was raised some days ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and it is in response to the caveat received from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the Chair undertook to make a thorough study of precedents and citations from learned authors to determine whether there was substance in the suggestion that the royal recommendation was not required in this particular case.
Hon. members appreciate the difficulty with which the Chair is faced. There is a long established principle at stake here, a principle which has been confirmed for
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2) many, many years, and in all instances, I may say, by Speakers who have preceded me. I hope hon. members will not expect the Chair to go into all those rulings. I have tried to come to what I consider to be the substance of the matter in order to reach a conclusion.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) raised this point in relation to Bill C-224 and to the royal recommendation, which reads as follows:
His Excellency the Governor General has recommended to the House of Commons the present measure to amend the Canada Pension Plan to remove the limitation of two per cent in the annual increase in the pension index within the meaning of the Act, to fix the year's maximum pensionable earnings for 1974 at $6,000, for 1975 at $7,400, and to provide thereafter that increases in the consumer price index be fully reflected in the escalation of benefits payable under the Act.
Hon. members have suggested that there was no need for such a recommendation since, in their view, the expenditures which may result from the adoption of the bill would be paid out of the Canada Pension Account and would not be any charge on the treasury. This, at least, is the way I understood the argument which was suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he first broached this subject, and the three hon. members to my left who (spoke) pretty well followed this line.
I have carefully studied Bill C-224 and have listened attentively to the arguments which were put forward earlier this afternoon. As I understand it, Bill C-224 seeks to change the Canada Pension Plan by increasing the year's maximum pensionable earnings for 1974 and 1975. As a result of the amendments proposed, contributions by both employees and employers would be increased. The federal government itself is an employer, and consequently its contribution to the fund would be increased. I say this with great respect, since I have much admiration for the wisdom of the hon. members who have taken part in this debate, but it seems to me that this is perhaps an aspect of the matter that they have not touched upon, at least in detail. Section 119 of the Act provides that contributions to be made by the Crown as employers' contributions in respect of persons employed by the Crown shall be charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and credited to the Canada Pension Plan Account.
The suggestion that this constitutes a charge on the treasury finds support in a citation from Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Procedure, 18th edition, page 745 which reads as follows:
The imposition of charges on funds, other than the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund does not require the royal recommendation, unless it involves an increased payment out of those Funds, or increases the liability (e.g. through a guarantee) upon them, or automatically attracts a grant from moneys provided by Parliament. The National Insurance Fund and the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Fund are examples of this kind of fund; and proposals to increase the benefits payable out of them do not require the royal recommendation . ..
But any increase in exchequer contributions to these funds or in the expenses incurred in administering them-even though ultimately recoverable by the exchequer must, of course, be recommended by the Crown.
This is where I have some difficulty finding in favour of the arguments advanced by hon. members. They suggest

October 29, 1973
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2) that moneys paid out of the Canada Pension Plan account are not moneys paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Yet section 110, of the Canada Pension Plan Act to which hon. members have referred, clearly provides that there shall be established in the accounts of Canada an account to be known as the Canada Pension Plan Account; that there shall be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and credited to the Canada Pension Plan Account all amounts received under the Act as or on account of contributions or otherwise. Subsection (4) of section 110 provides:
No payment shall be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund under this section in excess of the amount of the balance to the credit of the Canada Pension Plan Account.
I fail to follow the argument proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who quoted section 110(4) as evidence that no moneys will be paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It seems to confirm that all payments actually made and authorized under section 110(3) of the Act would have to be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in accordance with section 110(4).
May I also refer hon. members to Bourinot's Fourth Edition, page 417, which reads as follows:
Besides the grants voted in the estimates there are certain payments which have not been provided for annually, but are defrayed out of the consolidated fund in conformity with various statutes. These payments comprise: costs and charges incident to the collection and management of the revenue; interest of the public debt; salaries of governor-general, lieutenant-governors, judges, etc.; loans, grants to provinces under the Union Act; and all other permanent payments. Whenever it is necessary to make any changes with respect to these permanent grants, they must be introduced in the shape of resolutions in committee of the whole, and bills founded thereon.
It is a fact, of course, that the resolution stage of a bill containing charges on the public revenue is no longer part of our procedure, but the requirement of a recommendation of the Crown still forms a fundamental and essential part of our procedure. May I refer hon. members to section (2) of citation 246 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, which reads as follows:
The Governor-General's recommendation to any resolution involving a payment out of the public treasury must be formally given by a privy councillor in his place at the very initiation of a proceeding, i.e., as soon as the motion has been proposed for the House to go into committee on the resolution.
All hon. members are familiar with the provisions of section (1) of Standing Order 62, to which hon. members have referred, which is based, of course, on the relevant section of the British North America Act.
Hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, have referred to private members' bills amending The Canada Pension Plan which either have been allowed or disallowed. I should like to refer in particular to a bill sponsored by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) which came forward on March 29, 1972. After due consideration this bill was given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to proceed, even though it was moved by a private meniber and was not accompanied by a recommendation. The bill provided that housewives might become part of the plan where they contributed both for the employee and the employer. With respect, that was quite a different proposition from the one now before us. In addition, the Chair did enter a caveat about the possi-

bility that the financial initiative of the Crown might be involved.
Hon. members have also referred to a bill which, I believe, was introduced by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) entitled "An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (Pension Index)", which by the way is another purpose of Bill C-224. This bill was ruled out of order on April 20, 1971 as infringing the financial initiative of the Crown. This and other precedents which were quoted for the guidance of the Chair were all instances where the amending bills were ruled out of order.
Hon. members have suggested that perhaps the time has come for the Speaker to overrule the former Deputy Speaker, and even to overrule himself, in relation to a decision which had been made in committee of the whole by the then Chairman, appealed to the Deputy Speaker in his capacity as Acting Speaker and confirmed by the Deputy Speaker in that capacity, and then confirmed by a vote of the House.
I suggest with great respect to hon. members that it is extremely difficult for the Chair to accept the suggestion that all these precedents should be disregarded and a different decision reached at the present time. I fully sympathize with hon. members regarding the ability of private members to introduce bills or to propose amendments, including amendments to the present act, but hon. members will appreciate and agree with me that the Chair is bound by precedents, particularly by the Standing Orders, which reflect the position proposed by the British North America Act, and by our practice and cutoms regarding the requirement when charges on the treasury are involved.
I am fully appreciative of the fact that I may not have dealt with all aspects of the arguments which were advanced, particularly the very interesting and forceful argument of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). But I doubt that the majority of hon. members would feel I would be justified in disregarding all the precedents and past practices of the House in reaching the conclusion that the royal prerogative in this case should be disregarded, that we should communicate with His Excellency and tell him that we would like to return his recommendation, that it is not needed and is superfluous in the present circumstances. Therefore, I must reach the conclusion that I should not entertain the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to launch the debate on Bill C-224. There are only a few minutes left before five o'clock and I hope I shall be able to go into details when the debate resumes later this evening.
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 had been suggested by the government of Canada and the provinces.
October 29, 1973

Since this review began, legislation has been introduced to reform and substantially increase family and youth allowances in Canada.
Today, Bill C-224 deals with amendments to the Canada Pension Plan and we are about to debate it. It constitutes the third major piece of legislation the government is introducing as a product of this comprehensive review of Canada's social security system.
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.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you would allow me to review very briefly the principal areas of agreement between the provinces and the federal government that are outlined in the joint communique. The government of Canada and the provinces where the Canada Pension Plan operates, and the government of Quebec, where the Quebec Pension Plan operates, have agreed that legislation whould be introduced so that, first, starting in 1974, pensions paid under both the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans will be fully escalated in response to increases in the cost of living; second, the earnings ceiling for pension calculations, and contributions to both the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans will be $6,600 for 1974, and thereafter will be increased by 12 Vi per cent a year until the ceiling reaches the average earnings of Canadian industrial workers. At the present time, the earnings ceiling is $5,600 under the Canada Pension Plan, and $5,900 under the Quebec Pension Plan; third, the level of earnings exempted from Canada Pension Plan contributions will be $700 for 1974 and thereafter will be set, under both the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan, at 10 per cent of the earnings ceiling for Canada Pension Plan and Quebec Pension Plan contributions. At the present time, the level of exempt earnings is $600 under the Canada Pension Plan, and $700 under the Quebec Pension Plan; and, fourth, effective 1974, the earnings test which now applies to persons drawing CPP retirement pensions between the ages of 65 and 69 will be eliminated.
The federal and provincial governments also agreed that other issues which had been raised, in many quarters, in connection with the reform of the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans such as those relating to equality between men and women with regards to contributions and benefits, non-contributing spouses, early retirement provisions, and the level of survivors and disability benefits under the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans should receive priority attention.
Administration of Justice
These agreements, if enacted by the Parliament of Canada and the Quebec legislature, will have a profound effect on the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans. They mean, among other things, that maximum CPP retirement pensions, which now run at about $90 a month, could reach a level of $250 a month by the end of this decade.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark)-Multiculturalism-Request for program to assist ethnic press in light of postage rate increases; the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-National Defence-Operational state of Air Squadron 442 based at Comox; the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt) - Agriculture-shipment of horses to Europe for slaughter.
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 notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce a measure to establish a parliamentary committee to investigate all aspects of crime and its treatment in Canada, which should have specific terms of reference to closely examine
(a)	the subject of crime prevention and the work of the Correctional Consultation Centre of the Solicitor General's Department
(b)	the subject of punishment-its deterrent value and relevance to the rehabilitative process-with particular attention to capital punishment, by collecting factual information and holding public hearings (c) the correctional process, including the Penitentiary and Parole systems.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in some ways I hope the debate we will have during this private members' hour will give us an opportunity to deal with some of the basic underlying problems we have dealt with in such an exhaustive, but not very effective, way during the prolonged debate this session on capital punishment. I do not want to spend too much time talking specifically about the motion, but rather would like to deal with the need for the passage of this or a similar motion. Let me explain at the outset that I am not committed to every phrase and nuance of the

October 29, 1973
Administration of Justice
motion which was in fact put down almost a year ago. Since that time, I have expanded on some of my own thoughts in respect of things to be done in our responsibility, and if I seem to be slightly in advance of the motion I hope this will be accepted in that fashion.
I want to begin by quoting from a book which I would recommend to each and every hon. member of this House. Indeed, if it were possible for members to read this book and not hear my speech I would urge them to do so. If any member wishes to read it now, and if I can get agreement now, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down. The book is entitled "The Crime of Punishment". It is written by Karl Men-ninger and was published about five years ago. I wish to quote from one section of his book which, in a sense, is a quotation from Dr. Hans W. Mattick, associate director of the Center for Studies in Criminal Justice at the University of Chicago. He says this about the present approach in North America to crime and punishment:
The most securely imprisoned population tnat exists is the general public that is uninformed about the nature and consequences of imprisonment as practiced in America today. They are imprisoned in a mass delusion which, in the long run, punishes society far more severely than society can ever punish a convicted criminal.
That is what I want to speak about this afternoon. I wish to say at the outset that our prison system, both federally and provincially, has failed miserably. I do not think there is any member of this House who could stand up and dispute that statement. I believe it is a shocking statistic. I know of no other branch of public endeavour that has such a high failure rate! Most of the people being turned out of penal institutions, both federal and provincial, come out not as reformed, rehabilitated individuals but as people who have grown exceedingly hardened to a life of crime. As late as today, I attempted to obtain the actual figures in respect of recidivism from the federal standpoint but it is impossible because there are so many different ways to define whether or not a person can be considered as being reformed or as being repentive of his criminal activity. We are told that roughly half those who serve time in federal institutions upon release will commit further and possibly more dangerous crimes, and will eventually be convicted and returned to an institution for incarceration.
We know that in many cases the list is as high as 80 per cent. I believe the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) said some months ago that roughly four-fifths of the inmate population, upon release, would commit further crimes, be detected and eventually reimprisoned. This statistic should shock and disturb every thinking Canadian. In fact, we can go so far as to suggest that the present penitentiary system is really nothing more than a crash course for some, and a continuing course for others, in a life of anti-social or criminal behaviour. Our penitentiaries, in fact, become postgraduate institutions in continuing crime. I think it is absolutely unbelievable that all of us on both sides of the House for years have regarded this as a normal and acceptable situation. We say we place men in prison in order to protect society, that we hope in the course of their imprisonment they will be reformed and

rehabilitated, but that if not we have at least offered some security to the general public.
But, what security have we offered when we have only given the Canadian public the assurance that, regardless of how long any particular man or woman serves in a federal institution, upon release three out of four inmates will commit further breaches of the law or heinous crimes. Does that offer security for your family or mine? I cannot see that it does. In terms of security, perhaps there is the short-term problem of whether or not someone will escape. If that likelihood is lessened, then perhaps it is a limited security, but not one that is particularly comforting to me.
I do not believe it is particularly comforting to know that we have improved our security today so that we are ensured that instead of 100 people breaking out of institutions we may reduce that figure to 30. That is not the essence of the issue of security. The real security is to be assured that the largest a number of people who serve time in a federal institution will, in fact, be able to come out into society and act positively, constructively, responsibly and not in an irrational style or in an anti-social manner as is currently the case.
So there is no security worth recommending in our federal or provincial penal system. If our system has worked so badly, one may wonder whether we have been putting enough money into it. This is where, in terms of our responsibility, if we have exercised some measure of control over the public purse, the situation becomes almost ludicrous were it not so tragic because we know that on a per capita basis in respect of those serving time we are spending about $10,000 a year. This could be regarded in some perverse way as the first instance of a pretty well paid, guaranteed annual income but not a guaranteed income that would do much either for society or for the particular recipients involved. This is a guaranteed income plan about which we want to know a good deal more and possibly revise it.
Added to the aspects of breakdown and violence I mentioned, the one most disturbing of all is the rapid rise in prison population. It has increased this year by 14.5 per cent. I think the Solicitor General mentioned an increase of some 1300 prisoners in federal institutions this year over last year. There has been a particularly large increase in my area, the Maritimes, of some 20 per cent and an even more disturbing increase among women of some 30 per cent. This is not a large figure when one considers it is an increase from 108 to 152, but none the less it is a significant increase. What is the reason for this monumental failure in our prison system, federally and provincially? Why have we managed to deal with this aspect of society in such an inadequate way? I should like to say and this is the primary purpose of my motion today-that we have not examined for some little time-I do not mean "we" in terms of some special group but rather generally and in terms of members of this House-such basic considerations as what is crime, how it is defined and what is the real function of our prison system.
I suppose some would say the reason we do not have an effective prison system today is that we have not thoroughly studied the problem and have not gone into it in detail. Here is where we come upon the most amazing paradox. Even though we have had problems in this coun-
October 29, 1973

try pertaining to language and culture, and problems in respect of adopting medicare and health care as well as introducing massive changes in our tax system and in each case have appointed royal commissions to estimate the task for us, in the field of correction and penalogy we have not had one royal commission but three since 1938. I brought the documentation along in order to show the weight. I am sorry the visual size cannot be recorded in Hansard. The first is the Archambault Commission of 1938, followed by the Fauteux Commission in 1956 and recently the Ouimet Commission in 1969.
Each commission in turn provided an enormous number of recommendations. In addition, if these royal commissions were not sufficient to impress us concerning the amount of headwork that has been done, at the present time we have a subcommittee of our own House and a major committee of the other place both studying various aspects of this question. There is an unbelievable amount of information available. But I suspect the information that is available has not, in most cases, been rationally considered but that the sort of snap responses of public opinion to violent events in the news and bizarre criminal aspects have been the operational principle in terms of governmental response.
People are just not aware-and I include people who make up the membership of this place because I think we had a pretty clear indication in the debates which ranged over the months on capital punishment-how little time and attention we have given to the general subject of crime and punishment, and specifically in relationship to the most difficult concept of punishment, that of capital punishment. I can think of no other area of public consciousness in which we have so misled and deceived the general public as that of the relationship of crime and criminal activity to judicial decision, to rehabilitative programs and to the effective protection of society. In a general way, I think that we have been confused about the difference between morality and crime, and perhaps as a clergyman I can say that we must get our thinking straight on what we mean when we talk about crime. While we may talk about the fact that the law treats all men equally, and we can report bizarre stories about multi-millionnaires and people in high-class positions being involved in crime for which eventually they are convicted and serve time, the fact of the matter is that 90 per cent of those serving time in federal institutions come out of seriously disadvantaged situations. There are so many reports on the subject that it is difficult to know from which to quote. Let me refer to the report of the Task Force on Community-Based Residential Centres submitted to the Solicitor General recently which contains the following statement in its opening paragraph on reasons or excuses:
The members of the Task Force on Community-Based Residential Centres believe that most criminal conduct is spawned in the community, contributed to by the social, economic and political circumstances of the community. Thus, criminal behaviour is a function both of the offender and of the community, and the solutions must be sought in both.
I am afraid that we have been living with a great number of delusions about the nature of crime and its
Administration of Justice
treatment, perhaps because it has been regarded as the kind of subject you do not talk about at the dinner table with your family. Crime, after all, in the parlance of most people is sinful; you do not expose children to it or indulge, in polite or genteel society, in a discussion of the facets of criminal behaviour. We have not really considered where morality leaves off and our whole concept of capital punishment debate is a good example of our failure to deal rationally with the subject. I would say to my fellow abolitionists who participated in the debate that we did not deserve to win that vote, because during the last five year period we have done damn little to explain why we should abolish capital punishment, and why there should be other sweeping changes in our whole judicial system as well as our system of penology.
I am not a prophet, but I would say that if we do not take the opportunity over the next five year period to explain how the abolition of capital punishment, in relationship to other changes in our prison system makes sense, then I doubt very much that the House of Commons, say, in 1978, will have the public support to extend the abolition or partial abolition of capital punishment. Fundamentally, what we need to do is to alter public opinion. I think that that must begin in this place. That is why I am suggesting that we need a parliamentary committee. I think it must be a special parliamentary committee which, I hope, would comprise members of this House and the other place, and would have suitable staff as well as a large computer which would be fed all the information presently available. Then, this material would be collated in some rational and sensible way. We must have the opportunity to educate both ourselves and the general public.
I really cannot be very hard on the Solicitor General, because he is caught in a very difficult situation. On the one hand, he has the general public, represented by many members of parliament in the House, ready to jump on him the moment there is any detection of a weakening of security procedures or any bizarre crime that occurs as the result of what appears to be a change, an adjustment in the present penitentiary system. On the other hand, he has a staff,-a very mixed staff I might say-some of whom would understand a great deal more than I would about the need for sweeping reforms in the penitentiary system, but many of whom have lived inside a very punitive set up. I refer particularly to those who serve at the very personal level, those who exercise functions of guards and security officers and who have come in-and I do not hold this against any individual-with a very limited amount of training and experience. Often, they have been caught up in the confusion that exists within the internal set up of the penitentiary service.
How in heaven's name can we expect any cabinet minister to function in that kind of set up and make the necessary changes to produce the improvements that must occur in our penitentiary system? I think that can only happen as we expose the question, and expose all this information, to the general public as well as expose ourselves as members of parliament to the essential issues involved. That is why, in spite of the fact that we have a parliamentary committee in this place and one in the other place doing things in a piecemeal manner, there is a real danger in piecemeal activity. I would suggest that one of

October 29, 1973
Administration of Justice
the reasons we have had a rapid increase in the prison population this year is the fact that we have had piecemeal changes, mandatory supervision, cutting down on paroles, stiffer sentencing, greater police efficiency, all of which has been brought about by certain changes or potential reforms in the system but done on an ad hoc basis. This method endangers the present structure because we have overcrowding in many federal institutions, and that has caused some of the disturbances and riots and may well cause more if we do not treat the situation as a total concept.
While it is true that, as members of parliament, we have a basic duty to reflect and exchange the views, ideas and concepts of the public we represent, we also have the basic responsibility to provide leadership. I can think of very few areas where leadership is required more than in the whole area of crime and the treatment of crime in our federal institutions. I know there will be a federal-provincial conference in December, but the trouble with so many of these conferences is that often they consist of the converted preaching to the converted. These reports are full of all kinds of notions. The Ouimet report, in the opening of the fourth chapter, contains the following statement:
Throughout this report we stress the need for public understanding of the issues involved in crime and corrections and for direct citizen participation in the correctional services.
That is what we must achieve. But we will not achieve it just because we set up another royal commission or have another inquiry from the Solicitor General's Department or because a university group produces a report, and there are many such reports now. We must make the Parliament of Canada aware, we must sensitize it to the basic problems that exist within our penal system, and in that process we must have a dialogue with the Canadian people so that the reforms that must be instituted by this parliament can be achieved. I think that is our basic task, and I hope that the suggestion for a joint committee can go a long way toward achieving it. I will be very interested to hear the views of the other hon. members. I hope that they will, in a large measure, support this proposal.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I think that all members on this side of the House will generally agree with the suggestion which the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) has made with respect to the inadequacies of the prison system and the need for reform. In fact, we agree with this so much that the government which we support has, in effect, been doing all of the things about which the hon. member for Egmont has been talking. But there remains the problem to which he refers, namely, that there is insufficient public support to enable these reforms to go forward as fast as many of us would wish.
Without at this point getting into the fundamental question of value judgments, the value judgments which, say, the hon. member for Egmont and many other people in this country would make, we can at least agree that there is not really enough publicity given to these problems, and not really enough public awareness of the details such as

the actual situation in the prisons, the actual success of our rehabilitative practices, and so on. On the one hand, there is certainly some disillusionment with the work our prisons are doing, but on the other hand, obviously public opinion may be split between those who feel there should be a more repressive attitude taken in prisons and those who feel that the approach should be different and stress the rehabilitive rather than the punitive aspect.
The hon. member frankly stated at several points that, he did not want to be held too closely to the words of the motion that he has put before us. Yet at the end of his speech he did return to the substance of his motion, and so I think it is fair to look at the motion which he has put before us and to consider the debate in those terms, and not in the broader terms of reform of the whole prison system, which he also portrayed in his speech.
The exact motion which the hon. member for Egmont has moved is:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce a measure to establish a parliamentary committee to investigate all aspects of crime and its treatment in Canada, which should have specific terms of reference to closely examine . . .
Here a series of particulars are given:
. . . (a) the subject of crime prevention and the work of the Correctional Consultation Centre of the Solicitor General's department (b) the subject of punishment-its deterrent value and relevance to the rehabilitative process-with particular attention to capital punishment, by collecting factual information and holding public hearings (c) the correctional process, including the Penitentiary and Parole systems.
There appear to be several elements in the motion which we are being asked to approve today. The request is made that this committee should investigate all aspects of crime and its treatment in Canada. That would seem to suggest, if the words are taken literally, that in dealing with "all aspects of crime" we should be dealing with questions of law enforcement as well as questions of treatment of crime. But from the emphasis which the hon. member has given I would take it that the aspects he is particularly concerned about are those concerned with the treatment of crime in Canada, which somewhat limits the terms of reference.
The fact is that all of the recommendations which are made in this motion are actually under way, and in many cases have been under way for a great length of time. I will not take the time of the House to go through all of the ways in which we are now carrying out these various proposals. But I would draw the attention of the House, in slightly more detailed fashion than has been done by the hon. member, to the work of the special subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
This subcommittee has been actively involved now for some months, with some six or eight members, in visiting penal institutions across Canada. I understand they have visited the institutions in the west, and are now probably about to proceed to those in the eastern part of the country. They have received submissions from inmate committees and from many other people connected with prisons. They are concerned with the general problem of the administration of the penitentiaries. The hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin), who has recently been the centre of much attention in this House as the sponsor of
October 29, 1973

one of the amendments to the capital punishment bill, is the chairman of that subcommittee. I am sure that under her able guidance the committee has been doing not only an excellent job of studying the situation but will make a report which will prove enlightening to the standing committee and to all hon. members of the House.
The Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in the other place has been equally involved with the study of matters which are recommended for our concern in this motion. That committee has had an examination of the parole system of Canada under way for some two years. It has heard roughly 115 briefs from after care groups, inmate groups, and from public organizations such as the Canadian Bar Association. I understand that the committee itself has not held public hearings outside Ottawa, but the staff of the committee has gone across the country to make a tour of the various prisons and to talk with officials and inmates. This committee is looking at all aspects of parole and other types of release, and particularly at such questions as temporary absence, day parole, mandatory supervision, the question of federal-provincial responsibility, the composition of the National Parole Board and questions as to whether it should be regionalized, parole eligibility, and also parole hearings and decisions.
This committee has not, I understand, studied the laws and practices of other countries as such, but it has looked extensively at the model legislation in the United States, and I have no doubt that after a two-year study of this kind, it will be coming forward with a report which will be very important indeed both for parliament and the country.
In sum on this point, all of the matters which it has been suggested here we should look at are being looked at, and in fact some of them are being looked at by parliamentary committees. This brings me to what I believe might be stated to be the second point of the motion, the first being the investigation of crime and its treatment in Canada. The second is that this should be done by a parliamentary committee. In a way, this is probably the most essential point which the hon. member is raising because he, himself, has remarked on the unbelievable amount of information which is available and yet, in contrast with the amount of information, the emotional and snap response which the public often makes to the information and to the situation.
In particular, he has commented on the failure of all sides of the argument to deal rationally with the subject of capital punishment. There is no doubt that this is a failing, but it is not one which is very easy to cure by a parliamentary committee or in any other way, because in fact what is involved in issues such as the capital punishment issue is a deep clash of values between various segments of our population.
Canadians simply do not all believe the same kinds of things and, as the hon. member has suggested, some are not seeing the evidence. One might even say they are not prepared to see the evidence that can be put forward on this subject. And since the result is one that comes from very deeply felt attitudes towards life, it is not easy to see how the work of a parliamentary committee, or indeed of parliament itself, could change such deeply seated views.
Adminis tra tion of Jus tice
Yet I would not want to be despairing of the expectation that any of us, indeed all of us, could change our minds on questions such as this.
Now, we really come to the question which the hon. member has most directly placed before us, the question of public understanding, and he has included in that the understanding of members of this House, of the issues. He believes that the best way to have an effective public understanding of all the issues connected with crime and its treatment would be through dramatizing the issues through the public acts of a special parliamentary committee. One thing which I cannot refrain from saying in a debate such as this, and I say it all the more because it certainly does not apply to the hon. member for Egmont, or indeed to any other hon. members I see in the House at the present time, is that there are some hon. members of this House who, it seems to me, for political advantage rather shamelessly exploit various aspects of the penal situation. When problems arise many of the members opposite will make political capital of them in a way which will inflame public opinion.
I believe this is one of the sources, perhaps one of the major sources for the continuation of this problem which we have, the fact that it is not something on which members of this parliament are showing positive leadership. This is a matter with respect to which some members are showing negative leadership. Only if that factor can be changed can we begin to make progress in guiding the public.
If a parliamentary committee is to be useful in resolving the sort of conflicts that arise in parliament and in the country generally on issues such as this, that parliamentary committee should not be a special committee. I think we should work through the ordinary standing committees of the House. After all, if the issue we are considering is one of the great issues confronting our country at this time, it should be brought before a parliamentary committee. Our parliamentary standing committees have been established to deal with such matters and they have been dealing with them for a long time.
Several years the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, of which I was and still am a member, studied the penitentiary system. That study fizzled out. It was undertaken during the course of our study of the estimates. We went west and looked at some penal institutions. I think that experience was an eye-opener for many members of this House who had not been inside such institutions. We saw not only what was being done, which was all too little, but we saw the tremendous difficulties that are encountered in doing anything to rehabilitate prisoners in our institutions, especially in the kind of prisons which we have traditionally established.
Without pursuing all the details of that investigation, may I say the failure of that justice committee to pursue this matter adequately was the result of a failure of determination on the part of members of the committee. That failure should not be taken as an indication of what the standing committees of this House can or cannot do. For many reasons I feel that an inquiry such as the one suggested should not be undertaken by a special commit-

October 29, 1973
Administration of Justice
tee. The only advantage that I can see flowing from the establishment of such a committee would be that it would include members of the other chamber. This might be an advantage in helping us to co-ordinate all our views on the subject.
Quite apart from any considerations involving our committee system, I believe that even if we were to set up, first, a special committee which would look into the problem, we should still need to bring it back to the justice committee or whatever committee of the House may be most directly seized of this subject matter. The special committee somehow would need to involve the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. In other words, the justice committee being the committee that is charged with dealing with matters of this kind, it being the committee that works with the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General, it would be the body which in the final analysis would have to see to it that progress was made. If that body was separate and apart from the body undertaking the investigation, I do not think the purposes which the hon. member has in mind as set out in the motion would be well served.
As many hon. members wish to take part in this debate I will say no more except to observe again that we on this side of the House share the hon. member's concern about reforming the system. Some of us harbour reservations about our ability to accomplish what the hon. member wishes. We do not think you can do it by setting up a special parliamentary committee. However, I would very much favour, as I know other hon. members would, giving such further terms of reference as are necessary on this subject to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to enable it to pursue investigations that are even more wide-ranging than those it is at present pursuing.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member introduced the motion standing in his name he spoke sincerely and, if I may say so without giving offence, he also sounded frustrated and in some ways disillusioned with respect to this subject matter. The parliamentary secretary went on at length recounting the work of the committees. He made special reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs which has been seized of many matters coming within the general ambit of the motion before us.
As I listened to the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), who mentioned that three major royal commissions have looked into these matters since 1938, and as I listened to the parliamentary secretary and reflected on the various pieces of legislation and reports of various commissions with respect to which the committee reported to the Solicitor General, it seemed to me the last thing we need is another parliamentary committee to do what the motion proposes. It seeks the establishment of a parliamentary committee which would look into all aspects of crime and its treatment in Canada.
Much of the time, particularly in the last ten years, the attention of this House has been devoted to the investigation of crime and its treatment. Increasingly, people of this country have come to feel that this exercise is becoming more and more futile. Indeed, as I was listening to the hon. member I looked at a newspaper that had come from my constituency today. The headline, in big, black letters

reads, "War declared on vandals". The article which follows reads in part:
Broken windows, garbage dumped in the street and other rowdy activities showing an apparent total disregard for law and order were typical of this group . . .
The article continues:
The underlying problem, according to the Cumberland mayor, is that the 'laws are taking the teeth out of law enforcement.'
The article then refers to a recent letter sent to the Attorney General which blames-
.. . 'the leniency of the courts and the lack of support given to the police by the courts' . . .
Apparently the matter was of great concern to the council. The letter continued:
'In many cases the police are severely handicapped in dealing with situations because of the permissiveness allowed and perpetuated by senior levels of government. Often, when violations do result in convictions, the penalties are so inadequate as to make a mockery of the whole process.'
I quoted that excerpt to illustrate this point: although parliament has been concentrating more of its efforts in this area, and although members are becoming more expert on the fine points of administering our penal system and developing new approaches to parole than at any time in our history, the kind of sentiments expressed in the article are on the increase. Dumping garbage on the streets is not a crime in the sense that committing murder is a crime; nevertheless, in many ways the two crimes are not so different one from another.
The hon. member's notice of motion has been on the order paper for some time. Certain events have taken place since it was first put on the order paper. I have referred to garbage being dumped on the streets and to acts of vandalism. In my view, the last thing that we need is a parliamentary committee, special or otherwise, which would spend further time looking into "the subject of punishment-its deterrent value and relevance to the rehabilitative process-with particular attention to capital punishment". Capital punishment has been examined in greater depth by this House than perhaps any other aspect of crime, probably with little or no effect on the incidence of murder.
Instead of trying to have a committee of this House look into all aspects of crime and its treatment, it might be a more useful exercise if this House, either as a body or through some special mechanism, spent a little time looking at crime and its causes. By and large we have completely ignored the root causes of crime in discussions about changes to our penal laws, parole acts and all the other matters which come under the administration of the so-called correctional system. We have not done anything in so far as focusing the attention of this House and the Canadian public on the whole question of the causes of crime.
Because I have not taken part in any of the committee meetings I wish to say a few words in this debate. Quite frankly, I am a little sick and tired at the fact that we have increasingly been conducting microscopic examinations into little changes this way or that in connection with the question of crime and its treatment. Perhaps that is one of
October 29, 1973

the main failures of governments of this country in the past ten years. In my view it is one of the basic failures of the whole outlook and thrust of action we get from Liberal governments.
While they tend to be composed of well-meaning, humanitarian-minded individuals, as is the hon. member for Egmont, they refuse to look squarely in the face the kind of society which has been growing in our country. They refuse to recognize that the very foundation of our society is greed which is surrounded by a halo of something, in sort of glorious quotation marks, called free enterprise. In the name of free enterprise we have built a society that is now starting to react increasingly in the way I have suggested. There is increasing vandalism. When I say we should start looking at the causes, I mean we should have an economic debate in this House. If we want to get at crime, let us get at some of the real causes of poverty and injustice which seem to be the nature of our society.
I am old enough to have been born in an age when 80 out of 100 Canadians were born on farms. Most of us lived in a rather healthy, rural kind of community. Unless we went to one of the larger centres we could go for years without ever seeing a policeman. Yet in the little village referred to in this newspaper article, the only thing that has happened is that they have increased the police force. We have become increasingly a people dispossessed of any real ownership or feeling of participation in what makes our economy tick. When people feel dispossessed, lost and rootless it is axiomatic, when they see others who have legally amassed great control and wealth and are sitting at the top, that there will be resentment against this basic injustice.
As well-meaning as the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Egmont is, I submit that setting up a committee to do the kind of job suggested would not accomplish anything. It would not accomplish any more than the other dozen standing or special committees, or royal commissions we have had in recent years. If the hon. member really wants to see a turnabout in this kind of attitude, as do we who have taken the position that murder by the state is not an answer to murder by an individual, he should be asking the House to concentrate upon these kinds of things. I know this is a nettle that people like the hon. member for Egmont do not want to grasp. But unless he is prepared to come to grips with and grasp firmly a desire to deal with these things and recognize this is a society whose foundation is based upon greed and the grabbing of profit, which is bound to breed crime among those who have been dispossessed, he will not achieve the purpose which in his heart I know he desires.


Mr. Rod Blaker (Lachirte-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable sympathy for the motion of the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) that I rise to speak on this subject. While I tend to agree with some of the comments made by previous speakers that perhaps a special parliamentary committee on this subject is not necessarily the right way, it strikes me that many of the comments made by the hon. member are worthy of further thought and, certainly in my case, admiration for the consideration which went into his remarks on this problem.
Administration of Justice
I may be incorrect because I am working from memory, but I believe recidivism is approximately 80 per cent in the case of individuals who have been incarcerated for more than one year. Where they have been incarcerated for less than a year, the rate of recidivism is approximately 20 per cent. Taking another aspect of our whole concept of punishment of crime, it is almost stunning that in an effort to reform an individual-and surely punishment is not the only aspect we are interested in, in terms of crime-and to return him or her to a normal, productive life as a citizen, one of the big things we should think of is placing such an individual in the same building and in the same environment as hardened criminals.
There can be little doubt that whatever our intentions may be with regard to the correction of criminal mentality, it is none the less a fair accusation against the penitentiary system to say it constitutes a school for criminals. In all fairness, mention should be made of the other aspects of the penitentiary system and the very substantial efforts which have gone into correcting and improving that situation. However, there remains enough of a problem that I believe the comments of the hon. member for Egmont on that subject are perfectly valid.
I wish to underline the comment made by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), I say this with all due respect for the hon. member for Egmont, but I ask him at the same time to acknowledge that it is a very sad practice on the part of some members of the House to seek to derive political advantage from every escape which occurs. They play to the media. This attitude does none of us any good. It is certainly not good for society that we should use an escape from prison as an opportunity for political gain. It is most regrettable that this practice should continue.
I think it is most timely that the hon. member's motion should have come forward today. As he may know, commencing today and lasting for the next three days is a national conference on youth services in crime prevention which is being held at the government conference centre. This conference has representation from departments of the federal government, the provinces and volunteer agencies. This goes to the merits of what is suggested in the hon. member's motion. There is considerable hope that the experience gained from such a conference will be valuable in enabling us to make further advances toward the goal we have in mind, that is, to prevent crimes taking place and to prevent individuals becoming criminals.
I shall be more brief that I had intended, Mr. Speaker. I had thought to discuss action taken through the Department of the Solicitor General, in co-operation with other departments, in terms of crime prevention among young people. I shall only say that the broad activities of the department and of other departments are concerned with planning to prevent delinquency through the development of interventional procedures prior to a youth's entrance into the criminal justice aggregate, the expansion of relations between the police and the community, activities reflecting innovation in the police role, the expansion of community corrections and the development of manpower planning in diversifying the utilization of human resources in social defence. I might also in parentheses

October 29, 1973
Administration of Justice
mention the study to which the hon. member for Egmont referred.
A considerable amount of work has already been done, though work still remains to be done. There is a reasonable expectation, in line with the contemplated expenditure of close to $1 million in the next two years, of doing something along the lines proposed by the hon. member in terms of working out a new and refreshing way of dealing with the whole question of crime and punishment. The government and the department of the Solicitor General are well aware of the type of thinking which has been expressed in the House today. I certainly share with the hon. member for Egmont the hope that it will begin to change the almost Middle Ages mentality which exists today when it comes to the whole question of crime and punishment, particularly as it relates to young people who seem to be placed in the position of having virtually no hope of returning to a normal life once they have been convicted; at least, their chances of doing so are increasingly becoming very slim.
[ Translation]


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, I can see that time is passing but I sincerely want to congratulate the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) for his motion.
I am not in favour of establishing a new committee. In my opinion, as stated by the hon. member, we are well enough documented to be able to reach a political decision with regard to penal reform.
Because of the lack of time, I will simply call the House's attention on a point which I consider most important. I have practised criminal law for seven years and I have always been irritated by all that time spent at determining conviction, determining whether someone was guilty or not while the sentence aspect was neglected, that is what to do with the accused once convicted.
I think that much time was devoted to conviction by opposition to sentencing because the lawyer could see the inadequacy of the penal system and of the means available to the criminals and found it advisable to tell his client not to plead guilty and be rehabilitated in those institutions but to plead not guilty so as to avoid the harmful experiences which are the current results of those institutions.
The Prevost report which was submitted to the Quebec legislature pointed out that we should have a distinction between the sentencing system and the convicting system and I am in perfect agreement. In closing my remarks, I think we should adopt the principle of two judges, one to determine conviction and a second specialized in sentencing.
Mr. Speaker, that was my contribution to this debate.
[ English]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock, the hour for private members' business has expired and I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

[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.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the applause you heard has very little to do with the present bill. None the less, I think we should go back to our business and carry on with consideration of Bill C-224 which I had begun to talk about shortly before five o'clock.
[ Translation]
When debate was adjourned at five o'clock, I was saying that, if enacted by the Parliament of Canada and the Quebec legislature, the agreements reached at the last federal-provincial conference would have a profound effect on both pension plans. Among other things, they mean that maximum CPP retirement, which now run at about $90 a month, could reach a level of $250 a month by the end of this decade. They also mean that the bonds of national unity as they affect Canadians in their daily lives, now and in the future, will be strengthened in that 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. Important differences between the two plans will still exist, notably with respect to the so-called flat-rate component of survivor and disability benefits, but these will be reviewed on a priority basis with my provincial colleagues.
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-
October 29, 1973

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 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. On the other hand, the government is anxious that increased benefits be placed in the hands of the 500,000 beneficiaries, who would immediately be affected by full escalation, in the earliest month possible, which is January 1974.
In addition, the government does not believe that 7 million CPP contributors and their employers should be placed in a long period of doubt as to the level of their 1974 contributions, nor should they be required to make retroactive payments to the CPP Fund.
This possibility could arise if enactment of the proposed earnings ceilings for next year is delayed beyond January 1, 1974.
To meet these conflicting objectives, the government has decided to split its legislation for amending the Canada Pension Plan into two bills-one bill would concern itself with the most urgently required changes, and the other one, with various other changes. The government hopes that with this approach, and the co-operation of Parliament and Canadians generally, it will be possible to meet the immediate needs of 1974 CPP beneficiaries and contributors, and at the same time leave Parliament and the people of Canada with ample opportunity and time to scrutinize the proposals that will have a fundamental and long-term effect on the Canada Pension Plan.
Bill C-224, therefore, represents the first of the two major CPP amendment bills which the government proposes to introduce, and contains the most urgently required reforms-that is, full escalation of CPP benefits, and increased earnings ceilings for CPP contributions for 1974 and 1975.
The second bill, which I hope to introduce later on, will concern itself with the other reforms mentioned.

The first major objective of Bill C-224 is to provide fully escalated benefits for the 500,000 persons who I estimate will be drawing CPP retirement, survivor and disability benefits as of December 31, 1973.
More specifically, the bill will achieve the following: Firstly, it would provide that from January 1, 1974 on, CPP benefits would be fully escalated according to increases in the cost of living. Secondly, it would fully restore the purchasing power of benefits which became payable between 1967 and 1973 and which are still being paid on December 31, 1973. In other words, for payments in 1974, the 2 per cent limit on the cost of living escalation of CPP benefits that now applies would be treated as though it had never existed for those monthly benefits still in pay. Thirdly, it would place the escalation of CPP benefits on a more current basis. At the present time, CPP benefits are adjusted according to movements in the consumer price index that occur over a 12-month period ending on June 30 of the previous year. This bill would advance this 12-month period to October 31.
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
In addition to allowing more current adjustments for the future, this amendment would require the 1974 benefit adjustment on the basis of a 16-month cost of living change. By referring to the bill hon. members will see the actual clause in that respect.
These changes, when taken together, mean that the retirement pensions that are being paid on December 31, 1973, would be increased in January, 1974, by rates ranging from 8 per cent to 20 per cent, depending upon the year in which they began. Perhaps for the record I should give these figures for each year, starting in 1967. I will not mention the individual years, but the years can be considered in ascending order. For retirement benefit, beginning in 1967, the January, 1974, escalation would be approximately 20 per cent, and in the subsequent years it would be 18 per cent, 15.5 per cent, 13.5 per cent, 11 per cent, 10.5 per cent and 8 per cent.
Orphans benefits would all be increased by about 20 per cent without regard to the year in which they first became payable. Basic orphan benefits would, therefore, rise from their present level of $28.15 a month to about $33.75 per month.
The effect of these changes on widows, disability and disabled widower benefits cannot be calculated as readily, for these benefits are comprised of differing combinations of flat rate components, which would be increased by 20 per cent, and earnings-related components which would be increased from 8 per cent to 20 per cent.
The increases for these benefits would, however, fall in the range of 8 per cent to 20 per cent for widows over 65, 13 per cent to 20 per cent for widows under 65; and 11 per cent to 20 per cent for disability benefits. Generally speaking, the largest percentage increases would apply to those drawing benefits for the longest period and to those drawing the smallest benefits. The cost of making these escalation improvements is estimated at approximately $30 million for 1974.
The second objective of the bill is to increase the earnings ceiling for Canada Pension Plan contributions for 1974 and 1975. The act, at present, provides that this ceiling which, to use the language of the act, is called the year's maximum pensionable earnings, is determined, up to and including 1975, by the consumer price index, subject to a 2 per cent annual increase ceiling. This formula would produce earnings ceilings of $5,700 and $5,800 for 1974 and 1975 respectively. The government, through Bill C-224, is proposing that these ceilings be raised to $6,600 for 1974, and to $7,400 for 1975.
In my meetings with the provinces, with labour and business organizations and with members of the Canada Pension Plan advisory committee, I encountered the virtually unanimous view that the current earnings ceiling for CPP coverage is grossly inadequate. This view coincides with the one held by the government. Generally speaking, the view was expressed that the ceiling should move according to the movement of average wages in the Canadian economy, but different views were expressed as to whose wages should be used to adjust the earnings ceiling and how the adjustments should be calculated.

October 29, 1973
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
The issue of the criteria that should be used for adjusting the earnings ceiling on a continuing basis will be covered in the next CPP amendment bill. I might mention here that there has been unanimous agreement among the provinces and the federal government as to the basis for this adjustment. This present bill only establishes the ceilings for 1974 and 1975 only.
Although the proposed increases are substantial, it should be noted that they are still well short of reflecting the movement of Canadian wages since the inception of the plan. Average earnings this year are about $8,400. Next year it is estimated that they will rise to $9,000, and in 1975 to $9,600. The ceilings proposed have been determined on the following basis: for 1974, the CPP ceiling would be raised first to $5,900 to coincide with the one applying now to the QPP, and then by 121/2 per cent to a level of $6,600. For 1975, the ceiling would be determined by increasing the 1974 ceiling by 12 Vi per cent to $7,400. In other words, the earnings ceiling for 1975 will, if the bill is enacted, be slightly in excess of the level that would have existed if the $5,000 earnings ceiling of 1966 had simply been increased by the full rise in the cost of living.
I should mention that establishment of an earnings ceiling for 1974 is an urgent requirement to enable employers to make CPP contribution payroll deductions from the start of 1974, and to avoid subjecting employers and employees to retroactive adjustments. However, establishment of an earnings ceiling for 1975 is also desirable to obviate an administrative difficulty for the Department of National Revenue.
To illustrate the problem I might mention that our desire to escalate CPP benefits in pay on the most current basis has led us to relate the cost of living adjustment of benefits to movements in the consumer price index to the end of October. The consumer price index, however, also determines, as the law now stands, the earnings ceiling for contributions up to and including 1975. While relating the adjustment of benefits to movements in the consumer price index up to October 31 is highly desirable, this date, if used for adjusting the earnings ceiling, would not allow the Department of Revenue sufficient time to give employers and employees adequate notice of payroll deduction requirements for 1975.
To remove this difficulty, the bill establishes the earnings ceiling for 1975 as well. Future arrangements for determining the earnings ceiling will be dealt with in the next bill which I plan to introduce on this question, and it may very well be that at that time we will want to repeat the provision for 1975.
The increases which the bill proposes in the earnings ceilings for 1974 and 1975 will have two important effects for new beneficiaries and contributors. That is, they will raise the level of retirement pensions and the earnings-related portions of survivor and disability benefits that will come into pay in the future. Secondly, they will increase total contributions for contributors who have earnings in excess of the present ceiling. The current contribution rates of 1.8 per cent for employees and employers, and 3.6 per cent for self-employed persons will, of course, not be changed by the bill.
I should like very briefly to illustrate the effect of these ceilings on retirement pensions. Under the present provi-

sions of the act, maximum retirement pensions will reach $90.71 a month this December, just before the bill would come into effect. With the new ceilings, and operation of the transitional features of the plan, maximum retirement pensions would reach $109.60 a month in December, 1974, and $134.96 a month in December, 1975. This represents an increase of approximately 50 per cent over a two-year period.
Increasing the earnings ceiling to $6,600 for 1974 will, as a byproduct, have the effect of increasing the contribution exemption from $600 to $700. This means that the contribution exemption level under the CPP and QPP will be the same for 1974. It also means that contributors with earnings of less than $5,700 in 1974 will find that the total CPP contributions they will have to make for 1974 will be slightly less than the ones they are making for 1973. Employee contributors with earnings in excess of $5,700 for 1974 will be required to contribute an additional 15 cents a month for each $100 of earnings in excess of $5,700, to a maximum additional contribution of $1.35 a month for 1974.
In other words, the maximum employee contribution for 1974 will increase from the current figure of $90 to $106.20. This would be matched by the employer. For the selfemployed, who pay double rates, the maximum contribution would increase from $180 this year to $212.40 next year. On balance, it is estimated that the new earnings ceiling for 1974 will raise the level of contributions coming into the Canada Pension Plan fund during 1974 by about $100 million.
The most significant other provision in Bill C-224 is found in clause 8. This clause waives, for this bill only, the requirement that provinces must be given at least two years' advance notice of substantive amendments to the Canada Pension Plan. If this requirement were observed in this instance, it would not be possible to introduce full escalation of CPP benefits until January 1, 1976. The bill does, however, preserve the normal provincial consent provisions of the act, which means that if this bill were enacted by parliament it cannot come into force until two-thirds of the provinces having two-thirds of the Canadian population have signified their consent to the enacted amendments.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that I fully expect that this consent will be given. In fact, the provisions of the bill before this House tonight have received the unanimous endorsement of all provinces at the federal-provincial conference of October 11, in Ottawa.
To summarize, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-224, if enacted by parliament, will increase the CPP payments now being received by some 500,000 Canadians by amounts varying from 8 to 20 per cent of current payments: it will increase the level of CPP retirement pensions and other benefits coming into pay in the future; and it will restore parallelism between the Canada and the Quebec Pension Plans in the areas of contributions, the escalation of current benefits, and future retirement pensions. I hope hon. members will agree that these important improvements should be passed on to Canadians as quickly as possible.
October 29, 1973


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, it will hardly come as a great surprise to the minister if I say to him that I see little likelihood that we will be opposing this measure, fighting it to the death or in any other way trying to make difficult the passage of a measure which, as he pointed out, has already the unanimous approval of the provinces. This, of course, is one of the aspects to which I made reference not long ago, that there is something akin to a fait accompli when the House of Commons takes up measures which have been dealt with by two levels of government in executive conclave. Indeed, much of the administration of this country is moving into this particular area of dual governmental administrative procedure.
I must observe, also, that the minister's making a speech and my following him is becoming quite a habit, and I am wondering if none of his colleagues in the cabinet has any legislation to bring before parliament, or is he the only working minister in the whole lot? It seems we did have the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), in a rather gentle and detached way, presiding over the CN financing bill within the last few days; but we all know that bill has been around for several years and one has to look through one's notes in order to recall when it was first brought to the baptismal font of this legislative cathedral.
Although it is not because I want to go out and hear the Quebec election returns, because I do not think there is a great deal of contention about them, I wish I could stand up and say in a few sentences that this is an excellent measure and we are for it. However, we live in times and under conditions whereby measures of this kind, measures that are very commendable, even in the process of their discussion, agreement and presentation become outdated. It is not possible, it seems, under current dispensation for this minister who is working very hard in this particular area to keep up with the needs of the people.
The problem is that this change was decided and agreed upon some months ago. I believe these figures came out, certainly in the orange paper and perhaps in the Speech from the Throne. One wonders, in view of escalating living costs, whether they have become somewhat unrealistic.
I quite agree with the minister's statement-I do not know whether or not he was quoting the provincial ministers-that the ceilings were grossly inadequate. They certainly were, and the movement upward is to be heartily commended. Certainly we want the movement upward in respect of these pensions not delayed for one single day. Needless to say, I rejoice in the departure from that unrealistic and iniquitous 2 per cent figure. We on this side of the House are not recent converts to that particular point of view. My distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard), in the previous parliament, on one of the allotted days under Standing Order 58, moved a no confidence motion which read as follows;
That this House condemns the government's failure to contribute to pensions, allowances and other benefits granted or administered by the government a yearly percentage increase corresponding to the percentage increase in the consumer price index for Canada.
That is what my colleague moved in 1972 in the month of March, some months before a certain event took place
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
in October. In 1971, as was alluded to this afternoon in that very interesting discussion on procedure in which the minister made a brief intervention and I, with greater caution, made none, reference was made to a bill which I brought before the House which, had it been in order, had it been accepted and passed, indeed would have put into effect the actual cost of living increase two years ago instead of at the present time.
So, with all the modesty which I always display, I may say that I personally am not a recent convert to the idea of knocking out that unrealistic-now pathetically unrealistic-figure of 2 per cent. I can assure the minister that we all are behind him in this or, perhaps if we want to be nasty, he is behind us; but it does not make any difference who is behind whom-we are all trying to help the Canadian people, and that is what really counts.
One notes the minister's suggestion that we have yet another Canada Pension Plan, No. 3, and that we should therefore move to discuss and pass with reasonable expedition, this bill dealing with the raising of the ceilings in effect and making realistic the cost of living increase. I think that is a good way of proceeding, although it means that he and I again will become the workhorses of the House of Commons in the legislative sense. So there will be a time for ampler discussion on broad concepts with particular reference to the question of the Canada Pension Plan and, indeed, the whole question of the social security system of the country generally.
I was impressed by the reference in the dominion-provincial communique, to which I believe the minister made an allusion this afternoon, to the following effect:
. . . 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.
This is something which we look forward to discussing with great seriousness. I have said before in the House that I think this country has reached the stage where its citizens should be able, if they wish, to withdraw from the active labour force at 60 years of age. I think also-and I have said this before-that it is not incumbent upon the government either to put people at that age out to pasture or on the shelf, whichever metaphor one prefers. But I think there should be that level of security from this state that they may be able voluntarily to withdraw from the active working force, and the state should be able to provide them means whereby they can live a full and interesting life, one without fear of economic disaster.
I believe that that is a very important goal. I have always been slightly intrigued by the situation under the Canada Pension Plan where, if you carry through with some brittle logic, you would say that we discourage the guys from 65 to 69 from working, but it is quite all right for the fellows from 70 to 99 to enter the working force and they will not suffer. Of course, that is carrying the logic to a brittle conclusion.
Another thing which is obvious in the structure of the Canada Pension Plan, as we talk about ceilings and as we compute pension rates, is that so many people will find that as they carry through the Canada Pension Plan they
7330

October 29, 1973
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
will get no uplift; if they are in poverty, they will remain there. Of course, this is the flaw if the potential return is geared solely to earnings, and this is an aspect which requires careful consideration.
I know we do not assume that the whole program of security is vested in or rests upon the Canada Pension Plan, but I was looking through the latest report a while ago and I saw some figures which were pretty upsetting. The average amounts of monthly benefits in March 1971 were as follows: retirement pension, $23.03. We know the CPP had not run its full course, but $23.03 is a pretty small amount. The widow's pension was $59.38. Even the improved figures-and we welcome and salute them- which the minister mentioned tonight, and I presume I have them somewhere in my voluminous files, show a maximum of $109.60 in December, 1974.
According to my arithmetic, the figure is something like $1,619.52 a year. I think that the Senate poverty report set out $2,650.00 a year per person as the poverty level, plus OAS if he is old enough. As I said earlier, I am not suggesting that the whole plan rests upon this, but we have to realize that we are not dealing here with any great generosity. I do not think the minister can be accused by anyone of recklessness. I think these projected figures are by no means too high, and indeed we must constantly improve the lot of the people of this country, and especially of those in the upper age bracket.
Another group which we must consider-and it is always a pleasure to look at this group-is the group of women in our society. I think that in this age of enlightenment-I look at a particular expert on this, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) who was so well honoured in his native province the other day-we must look into our existing legislation. I do not believe it is sufficient to say that the housekeeper, the mother, the wife is not in every way entitled to become a full-fledged participant in the Canada Pension Plan. I do not think that she need be tagged in there as a dependent. I would like to see the housewife become, not the dependent of the male wage earner but enter into the plan in her own right.
I think that is not only the proper treatment for a very important segment of the kind of society which we believe in and which we have, but the people who know these things in an actuarial way, my business friends and colleagues in my party who have learned how to make money-something I have never been able to do-and who understand economics tell me that this would strengthen and improve the plan itself. Certainly it would do a great deal to recognize-to use an old-fashioned expression, and I do not know whether it is adequate at the present time- the equality of the sexes. This is an area I am looking forward to discussing in greater detail. I am sure my colleagues, particularly the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), will want to express views further to and in elucidation of those which have already been advanced by her.
Although I know other ministers are not bringing forward very much legislation, I think this minister, with his activity, is allowing the House, indeed prompting the House to take a careful look at the whole question of care

for the aged. Last week it was legislation for the young, for the children. We have got miles to go in reference to the disabled. I do not know whether it is because the two parties are nearly in balance now, whether the people of Canada believe that it will not be too long before there may be changes, but I have found an absolutely phenomenal increase in my correspondence. My staff have found it too, as a matter of fact. The magnitude of the problems people are facing in this field is simply overwhelming. I think it is well that we are dealing with these questions, trying to make the best of what is available, to bring our best thoughts to bear on improving the lot of our people.
I would say that we are just beginning to get into the orange paper. When I first spoke on it some months ago, I said then that the references to the Canada Pension Plan and to family allowances were the two things I could detect as tangibles. We have to go a lot farther than that. I think in this country we will have to move into more serious consideration of integrating our whole concept of the well-being of our citizens. I think we will have to look into private pension plans. I think we will have to consider carefully those people who are excluded from existing plans. We must look with far more generosity and compassion on the disabled. I received a letter just last week from a man who cannot get out of his bed, who has one retarded child, two other children and a wife working at low wages. He gets $60 a month. How do you answer a man like that? What do you say?
So I say to the minister-I know some of my colleagues will be picking up the detailed provisions in the bill-that he need not worry about passage of this measure. I enjoyed his remarks very much. I think, from what I can gather, that the meetings which he had with the provincial ministers were fruitful and useful. I was impressed by the communique. We will be asking some further questions in committee, but we want to expedite this measure, to help the 500,000 people he has mentioned to gain some improvement in their status, to give them some support in their attempts to cope with the cost of living situation which is very painful, very prevalent; and for so far as this goes to improve the lot of our fellow citizens, naturally we support and will support the passage of the bill. We look forward to the minister's next performance, and we will give him that same attentive, sincere, impartial, nonpolitical assistance which we have always vouchsafed him in all his efforts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in spite of my effort this afternoon to get a procedural ruling that would permit private members to make amendments to this bill, and in spite of the fact that we may still try, I want to say at the outset that we very warmly welcome Bill C-224. I noticed the valiant effort of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) to say that in reverse. I thought he succeeded in doing it very nicely by saying he was not against the bill. He leaves me no option but to come right out and say that we welcome it; but of course I can always add the phrase "so far as it goes".
I noted the minister's statement on why he is presenting two bills to deal with the matters to which the federal government and the provinces have agreed, namely, that the items in this bill are so important, and that it is so
October 29, 1973

urgent to get them onto the statute books before the end of 1973, that it was better to bring them in now rather than waiting until the finishing touches had been added to the other changes that are proposed.
The importance of removing the 2 per cent ceiling and of raising the yearly maximum pensionable earnings on which persons can contribute is such that I accept the minister's word on this point, namely, that this bill should not have been delayed until the other points were completely resolved. But I urge him very strongly to get that other bill in just as soon as he can. I was not very happy some days ago when he said something to the effect that he might not be able to get the other bill introduced before Christmas. I still hope he will find it possible to do so, because some of the other points that are going to be dealt with in it are likewise very important.
As an incidental benefit from this bill, I wish to share in the sense of satisfaction that it puts the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan back on parallel paths. As the record will show, I expressed considerable concern during 1972 at the extent to which these two plans were following separate paths in certain respects. The then minister of national health and welfare did not seem to think it was terribly serious. At any rate, I did. I am glad that now, with respect to such things as the escalation formula and the yearly maximum pensionable earnings, the plans will again be parallel with each other.
Sir, the minister has outlined in very clear terms the things that this bill does. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to go over them as we sometimes do just to make sure that we understand. I do want to say how welcome is the decision to abolish that 2 per cent ceiling on the annual escalation of pensions and other benefits paid under the Canada Pension Plan.
I suppose it is inevitable that because there are four parties in this House we should all want to get the inside track or be the ones to have made the first pronouncement. I was interested to note that the hon. member for Hillsborough pointed out that the proposal to remove the 2 per cent ceiling was actually made in 1972 by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard), and in a bill proposed by the hon. member for Hillsborough in 1971. There is some argument, therefore, as to which one of the two main parties was before the other in making this suggestion.
May I remind both the Liberals and the Conservatives that when the Hon. Judy LaMarsh in 1964 or 1965 first announced the escalation formula of 2 per cent and made the statement on motions, it was my privilege to respond on behalf of my party. Accordingly, that very day I criticized and attacked that 2 per cent limit as grossly inadequate. When we got the first Canada Pension Plan into the joint committee and dealt with it, I did my best to persuade the government of the day that it was not good enough, for example, to apply the wage index to the escalation of pension entitlement before retirement and then to use only the cost of living index up to a 2 per cent ceiling with respect to the escalation of pensions payable after retirement.
So while my friends on both sides of the House are arguing as to which of the two old parties is ahead of the
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
other, when they talk about 1971, 1972 or 1973 let me remind them that we were fighting against the 2 per cent ceiling in 1964 and 1965. In a sense, since we have had to wait that much longer to win, I suppose the joy in our camp is all the greater.
The past state of affairs has been a disgrace, especially in the last few years when the cost of living has been mounting by a much larger percentage than the annual increase in Canada pension benefits, limited as that increase has been to an annual increase of 2 per cent. The value of the Canada Pension Plan which is, without doubt, a most important piece of social legislation has been severely tarnished by that 2 per cent limitation. I congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) for having been able to persuade his cabinet colleagues to remove that ceiling altogether. I congratulate him for getting rid of the ceiling and for the formula under which there is to be established a catch-up factor, the result being that in January, 1974, benefits under the Canada Pension Plan will increase not just by the actual percentage rise in the cost of living in the previous year. For those who had been getting Canada Pension Plan benefits in earlier years there will be a percentage increase, going back to 1967, which will make up for what those people did not get during earlier years.
I thank the minister for putting on the record the actual
percentages for each of the years in question, so that persons who are drawing benefits will be able to determine what their increase will be this coming January. It will range from 8 per cent for those whose pensions began in 1973, up to 20 per cent for those whose pensions began back in 1967.
As I say, this is a significant development. A significant step forward has been taken by removing the 2 per cent ceiling and relating pensions to actual cost of living increases. But I must not let this part of my remarks go by without saying to the minister that, although he has the honour and privilege of being the head of his department when this particular battle is being won, he must remember that this is not the end of the matter. He knows that under the Canada Pension Plan, the formula for escalating entitlement during the years that contributors are working is based on the wage index which, over the years, has moved up faster than the cost of living. He knows, also, that a very important joint committee of the Department of Veterans Affairs and organizations representing veterans some months ago recommended that veterans pensions should escalate, not just by the rise in the cost of living but in accordance with the rise in the standard of living.
One of these days, when we have won this cost of living principle across the board, the new crusade will begin. Actually, it is already under way but it will really get going when we push for pensions to reflect, not just the full rise in the cost of living but the full rise in the standard of living. I have pressed that point a good many times and I am doing so again tonight. Wonderful though it is to have pensions escalate by the full percentage increase in the cost of living, it is not good enough to say to our older and retired people, "All you will get in your retirement years is enough for you to be able to buy the same total package of goods and services that you were able to buy at the time you retired."
7332

October 29, 1973
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
Those who happen to be working are earning or seeking to earn not just enough to cope with the rise in the cost of living; they are earning or seeking to earn enough to enjoy the rise in the standard of living. I contend that that is a right which belongs to our retired people as well. This is not the end of the story, important though it is to get all pensions to the point where they escalate by the full rise in the cost of living.
I do not detract one iota from the congratulations which the minister deserves for having brought us to this point. Let him, let the government, let this House and let the country know that there is an even greater battle yet to be won, that of escalating pensions by the full rise in the standard of living so that our older and retired people will be part of our total society, our total community, and not segregated into a group which has to do with less than those who are still working. As I say, we welcome most warmly the step which has been taken. The House will hear further from us about the crusade that must yet be carried on.
We also welcome the increases that are now proposed in the yearly maximum pensionable earnings, the YMPE, and the consequent adjustment that will take place in the yearly basic exemption, the YBE. This piece of legislation is as full of alphabetic symbols as American life was in the days of F.D.R. In particular, the raising of the YMPE to $6,600 in 1974 and to $7,400 in 1975 will, as the minister says, put us on the road toward an YMPE that is closer than is now the case to the average earnings of our people. Surely, if a pension plan is to be really worthwhile, it should be based on average earnings and not on just a small portion of those earnings. I will have something to say about this later when I come to the things that I want to propose to improve the bill further. At the moment I simply say that we welcome these increases. I thank the minister for explaining how we get to the figure of $6,600 for 1974 and to that of $7,400 for 1975.
I look forward to that other bill yet to come which will put a formula into the act so that we will know several years in advance what is going to happen to the YMPE. When we use these alphabetical phrases, some may wonder what this is all about. Even when one turns YMPE into yearly maximum pensionable earnings, one may wonder what is the significance of that.
The minister pointed out that this represents the level upon which employees may make their 1.8 per cent contribution, which is matched by the employer. However, even more important, it is the figure that determines the maximum pension a person can get at the time of retirement. After all, the maximum pension one can get out of the Canada Pension Plan is a 25 per cent factor of what one's earnings have been through his career, escalated by the formula that is in the act. The higher we get the level of earnings on which one can contribute the 1.8 per cent, the higher is the pension prospect at the end of the road. I hope to see this go up quite a bit yet, but I will come to that later in my remarks.
The minister has also done a service by telling us about the details in the act. The arrangements and the special clauses in the bill, under which anyone who starts draw-

ing a pension or benefit under this act during the year 1973 will get the benefit of the full escalation, are excellent.
I have examined the bill with a fine toothcomb. As an opposition member it is my duty to see whether anything has been missed in terms of these details. As far as I can ascertain, a pretty good job has been done. This bill, considering the extent to which it goes, is welcomed by us. Like the hon. member for Hillsborough, I can say to the minister that he need not look for much trouble in getting this bill through. Of course, if he wants to look for trouble the way he can do that is by stalling the bringing in of the other bill. We will be glad to get this bill out of the way so the other one can be brought in.
After all these words of praise and welcome that both the hon. member for Hillsborough and I have given to the minister, we had better watch out or some people will be asking us if we are still members of the opposition. Accordingly, I move on to express regret that some of the things the minister promised are not in the bill before us. Some very important matters do not seem to be in prospect very soon.
I am glad to know the minister has the agreement of the provinces to remove the work test or the earnings from employment test from the Canada Pension Plan with regard to those who are between the ages of 65 and 69. As the hon. member for Hillsborough said in his delightful way, what is the logic of discouraging people between 65 and 70 from working and then encouraging them to work when they are between the ages of 70 and 99? I do not know why anyone who looks as much like a Father of Confederation as he does stopped there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: There may have been some sense to that work test at age 65 when the Canada Pension Plan was first brought in, but there is certainly no sense to it now. If the minister has the agreement of the provinces to remove the work test, I do not know why it is not in this bill. If he is holding it back as a bargaining piece, he might say so. I do not think he needs to do that. He is getting along very well with the provinces. If it was agreed to, why is it not in this bill? If we can persuade him to put it in when the bill is in committee, that would be a good idea.
Let me say quite frankly that one of the reasons I am glad to see the work test removed for those between age 65 and 69 is that I feel very strongly, as I have argued many times, that the time has come to lower the eligible age, both for old age security and the Canada Pension Plan, to age 60. In advocating that, I have said many times that I am prepared for it to be done on a voluntary basis. In other words, the only people who should draw old age security and Canada Pension Plan benefits at age 60 should be those who are out of the labour market. One of the reasons I am glad to see the work test removed between ages 65 and 69 is now, that we know how it works, it can be applied instead to those between 60 and 64.
Whether that precise test is applied or not, the point I wish to make in this connection is that I press upon the minister tonight, as I have pressed on him in every speech
October 29, 1973

on the subject of pensions I have made in the course of this session since he became minister, that this question of lowering the pensionable age simply will not go away. It is something that is held very strongly by members of all parties in this House. It is put forward in a number of ways. Some talk about lowering the age for women if it cannot be done for men. Others talk about lowering it for spouses, and so on. I think there will be real problems if it is done that way, because if it is done for spouses, what about widows and spinsters?
The fairest way to do this would be to say to everyone who is over 60 and out of the labour market, whether he has ever been in it or whether he gets out of it, that he is entitled to the pension. That would be a fair way of working it, and I push that on the minister very strongly.
I now come to a question to which the hon. member for Hillsborough also alluded. Others will do the same. He made some reference to what the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) might say in this area. I shall refer to what the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) will say in this same field. I am referring to the rights of women.
There is one change, or one group of changes that I really think ought to be in this bill. I refer to those changes that would make things equal in the Canada Pension Plan as between a husband who dies and a wife who dies. Maybe you do not do much for women's liberation by being concerned about what happens to a woman after she dies, but surely if rights are to be equal, the rights that a wife leaves when she dies should be the absolute equal of the rights a husband leaves when he dies. This is a change in the act that could be made rather simply. I believe the interdepartmental committee that has been working on implementation of the Florence Bird report, the report on the status of women, is agreed on that. Frankly, I do not see why this kind of change is not in the bill before us tonight.
I think we ought to go a lot further. The hon. member for Hillsborough was on the right track in what he said in this connection. Some of my hon. friends have argued that housewives be allowed to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan. Some people I know who are professionals or technocrats in this field say it cannot be done because the Canada Pension Plan is an earnings-related scheme. Even in those terms, is it not a fact that when a man and wife decide that one of them is out in industry or business and the other is at home doing what has to be done at home, the income which the one of them brings home is the joint income of both of them? Surely it is the family earnings. A married man who goes out to work knows that what he earns is not his alone; it is the income of both of them.
This being the case, it would not take much wit on the part of those who work in the Department of National Health and Welfare-and I can say there is a lot of it in that department-to amend the bill before us in such a way as to permit contributions on the total income of both spouses, so that pension rights are there in equal terms for both husband and wife on the basis of their total income whether it is made by the husband alone, or by the wife alone, or by both of them. This business of constantly
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
treating the wife or the widow as having only such rights as flow from her husband is certainly a far cry from equal status as between man and woman. In discussing what I have just proposed, it is sometimes suggested that wives might make special contributions, or that husbands might make extra contributions. Difficulties arise, one way or another. But I see no difficulty in accepting the concept that even though the contribution may have to be increased above 1.8 per cent to some higher percentage, pension rights should be equal as between man and woman.
I digress for a moment. I think the whole question of survivors pensions for widows under the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Members of Parliament Retirement Allowances Act, the Canada National pension plan, and all others across the board, need to be reviewed. We have grown up with this concept and accepted that it was perfectly in order to approve pension plans which provide for what we call 100 per cent pensions to a man on retirement. If his wife dies first, he continues to draw the 100 per cent; but if he dies first, her pension drops to 50 per cent. The sense of this escapes me. I suppose the idea is that the widow needs only a 50 per cent pension because she might pick up another husband, and that the hushand needs the 100 per cent in order to look after another woman if she picks him up. But it really belongs to a mythology of the past.
I do not know why women's lib does not have more to say about this. I expect I will get some letters now saying that women's lib has been pointing these things out. But in the public service, male employees pay 6V2 per cent and have survivor benefits, while female employees pay 5 per cent and have no survivor benefits. It does not matter whether a female employee is married or whether the male employee is a bachelor. I suppose this was all right when pension plans were first set up in the public service around a century ago, but certainly it should not apply now.
I am saying that the problem is one which goes beyond the Canada Pension Plan, but certainly within the Canada Pension Plan equality should be established. I hope that in the other bill which the minister will bring in before 1973 is over there will be an increased measure of equality as between men and women. And if the minister does not solve the whole problem then, I trust he will get the very capable people in his department to work on the question of how to operate the plan in such a way that the earnings of man and wife represent a unit on the basis of which each of them has rights which in my view must be equal.
I move, now, into another area in which I believe work should be done by those who are deeply involved in improving the Canada Pension Plan. I relate this to the growing sense of dissatisfaction and concern about private pension plans. One of my hon. friends says too many of them are rip-offs. In too many cases employees at the point of retirement find they are getting much less than they thought they were going to get. There have been various examples of the money not being there. Some improvements have been made. There is the Pension Benefits Standards Act which covers all pensions coming under federal labour jurisdiction, and four provinces have passed similar legislation affecting plans under their own juris-

October 29, 1973
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
diction. But these measures really do not go far enough. And even if, by improving the Pension Benefits Standards Act, you could cut down on the number of defaulters and bring about improvement in the plans which some of these employers operate, the plain fact of the matter is that for the masses, for the great majority of Canadian people, the best old age security they have is the security provided by the state.
At the moment it is a combination of old age security and the Canada Pension Plan. Everyone 65 and over qualifies for old age security. If I have my way, that will soon apply at age 60. But I feel the plan should be enlarged in a number of ways so as to try to meet the need which for so many has not been filled by private plans. That is why, when I referred earlier to the YMPE and to the fact that pensions are 25 per cent of one's average earnings, I suggested that pensions paid under the Canada Plan ought to be higher, say 50 per cent of the average earnings, or maybe even more. The minister might tell me that this would involve a higher percentage of contributions than 1.8. I would agree to a higher percentage.
One of the difficulties that would arise is that some people are making payments into private plans and if you require too many percentage points there is not enough left to live on. But surely some way of integration between private plans and the Canada Pension Plan could be worked out. Surely some way could be found whereby employees who are in employment where there is no pension plan in operation at all could pay double that 1.8 per cent and have the prospect of a better pension at the end of the road.
It is fair to say that society will move in this direction. It has taken a few decades to build up the idea that pensions are a social right. People will want this right to be more secure in the years ahead, but they will not get it out of private plans. They will only get it out of a state plan, out of still further improved old age security legislation and a still further improved Canada Pension Plan. I do not look for this massive improvement to appear in the bill the minister will be presenting, hopefully, at the end of this year. But I do ask the minister to put the people in his department to work on this problem of arranging for the Canada Pension Plan to take over in many areas, and certainly to provide the much broader pension protection that all Canadians desire. Many Canadians are in private plans which are unsatisfactory, or do not have anything else except their potential old age security and their potential benefits under the Canada Pension Plan.
Not many were expressing ideas like this when the Canada Pension Plan was first brought into being, because at that stage it was experimental and one could not ask for too much. Now it has proved successful. It has proven itself as the best way of supplementing old age security so that people can have adequate pensions, and I submit that the principles and practices of the Canada Pension Plan should now be greatly enlarged.
As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, we welcome this bill and the things it does. It escalates all Canada Pension Plan benefits on a basis equal to the full percentage increase in the cost of living, and it raises the amount of

earnings on which contributions can be paid, which means greater pensions at the end of the road. We look forward to the other bill that the minister will be bringing in, I hope soon.
In addition to that, I hope the minister will put his people to work on the task of making the Canada Pension Plan a plan that really treats men and women on a basis of absolute equality. I hope the minister will also make the Canada Pension Plan one that will solve the problem of adequate pensions for all our people, bearing in mind the inadequacy of so many private plans. We welcome the progress that has been made in the field of pensions and social security in the last 40 to 50 years, and we look to still greater progress in the years that lie ahead.


Mr.  B. Keith Pertner@Thunder Bay: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join in the hearty praise of this legislation that was so eloquently expressed by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). This legislation is important and it is certainly praiseworthy.
Bill C-224, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, is such an acceptable and popular piece of legislation that any protracted debate of its principle is really quite unnecessary; therefore, my remarks in support of these amendments to the Canada Pension Plan will be appropriately brief.
The sharp rise that has taken place in the consumer price index over the past several months has been a matter of very deep concern to all hon. members of this House and to the government. Inflation has been of concern to all of us because of the squeeze it has put on the budgets of most Canadians, with its oft-times serious effect of eroding the value of their savings. In an inflationary economy the fixed income situation must be eradicated. This is especially so in the case of persons who, as a result of inflation, find themselves in desperate financial circumstances.
Bill C-224 is one of the several responses by this government in its determination to deal with inflation by restoring the purchasing power of those who have been adversely affected by the rising cost of living. These amendments to the CPP will raise to a more acceptable level the pension benefits that have become payable between 1967 and 1973, and will continue to escalate those benefits in accordance with the consumer price index and the growing incomes of the wage and salary earners of Canada.
These amendments to the CPP are further examples of the progressive social legislation of this Liberal government-


Erik Nielsen: Ugh!


Mr. Penner:: -and are in keeping with the well-established traditions of Liberalism to give leadership in social programs that help all Canadians regardless of where they live and work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Ugh!
October 29, 1973


B. Keith Penner: I hear a few guffaws from the other side of the House. I can only say that there are a great many Canadians who would be frightened of the day, if those members opposite are ever given the opportunity to sit on social legislation programs, when they would be taking no further action.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: So you admit the day will come.


B. Keith Penner: Bill C-224 represents another step along the way in the federal government's comprehensive overhaul of Canada's social security system. More particularly, all hon. members will applaud the good effects of these changes as they apply to the benefits paid to widows and to those who are disabled. These are especially worthy of applause by all hon. members, as are the other aspects we are considering.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: Certainly I must commend the government for the open approach it has taken in the preparation of this very important legislation. The bill now before us is the result of very active consultations with the provinces, with labour, with business organizations, as well as with members of the Canada Pension Plan advisory committee. It truly represents a Liberal approach to law-making and helps to explain why our party more than any other political party, in the drafting of social legislation that helps to upgrade and improve the quality of life of our citizens, has the confidence and support of the Canadian people.
In his working paper on social security in Canada, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has endeavoured to take into account the whole sweep of social security policy in this country and to develop a more comprehensive, logical and imaginative approach. This working paper is the federal government's contribution toward a joint federal-provincial review of Canada's total social security system. The aim of the exercise is to find new, workable and constitutional arrangements in order to achieve the kind of integrated social security system that will best serve the needs of the Canadian people. The document to which I refer is more than just another study; it is a working paper which establishes some immediate priorities, such as the increase in the family allowances from what was close to $8 to $20 per child per month, and changes to the Canada Pension Plan.
With regard to pensions, the Government of Canada and the provinces have agreed that pensions paid under both the Canada and the Quebec Pension Plans should be fully escalated in response to increases in the cost of living. They have also agreed that the levels of earnings upon which benefits and contributions are based should be raised.
The new strategies which are outlined in the working paper on social security seek a nationwide consensus. They are not being unilaterally imposed by the federal government. It is the aim of our government to ensure national minimum standards while allowing for provincial flexibility in setting priorities. It is not the intention of this government to suggest "cut and dried" or "take it or
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
leave it" proposals. Legislative steps and administrative arrangements must be satisfactory to the provincial governments as well as to the federal government.
Co-operation with the provinces is vital and necessary, greater flexibility and more innovation are needed and consultation and negotiation are expected; but none of these ought in any way to diminish the role which the Parliament of Canada must continue to play in further development and improvement of our income security system. We in this House have a responsibility to combat poverty by way of a fair distribution of income disparity across the country.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has given this country outstanding leadership in proposing and bringing forth legislation to change, in necessary ways, our social security system. The launching of such a social security review, however, is in no way an indication that our present system is fundamentally unsound or in need of total tranformation. Such is simply not the case. The truth is that Canada's social security system is one of the most advanced in the western world, and this is thanks to the continuing efforts of a succession of Liberal governments in Canada.
Our system of social security today provides a very solid foundation upon which to build, in the context of today's needs. Such is the case with the Canada Pension Plan, an excellent plan now being amended or adjusted to make it an even better plan, more suitable to present circumstances and conditions.
I noted with satisfaction, as did the hon. member for Hillsborough and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that the minister will shortly be proposing other changes to the Canada Pension Plan, including further boosts in earnings ceilings for pension calculations until these ceilings reach the average earnings of industrial workers in Canada.
I am also delighted with the minister's assurance that the earnings test, which now applies to persons receiving Canada pensions on retirement between ages 65 and 69, will be eliminated. I hope, as well, that the minister will give most serious consideration to provision for the participation of housewives in the Canada and the Quebec Pension Plans. It is true, of course, that these plans at the present time do not entirely ignore housewives since they provide for a pension for a widow of a contributor, but further steps are required. I draw the attention of the House to the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada which in one of its recommendations states the following:
The housewife who remains at home is just as much a producer of goods and services as the paid worker, and in our view she should also have the opportunity to provide for a more financially secure future. Canada has given some of its workers an opportunity to do this through the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans. To neglect to do the same for some three and one-half million other workers in the home is to ignore the essential nature of their work.
I personally favour an approach which would permit a housewife to build up a pension by means of the contributions she herself makes. If anyone doubts that the housewife is an earner, I suggest that he or she stay home for a few days and try to carry out the chores with which she has to cope.

October 29, 1973
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Where does she get the money?


B. Keith Penner: To conclude, Mr. Speaker, in passing this bill we are increasing the level of Canada Pension Plan benefits now being received by some 500,000 Canadians, and we are raising the level of Canada pensions and other benefits coming into pay in the future. In brief, we are improving a government-sponsored plan, a part of our social security system, a part which benefits Canadians who hold to the value of independence or self-dependence. Most Canadians expect to meet their own needs through their own efforts and they expect others to do their best to do the same. The new, improved Canada Pension Plan helps to make that possible. This plan is no welfare scheme but is an earnings-related plan which benefits those who contribute to our economy and so also contribute to the plan, thereby providing for their own retirement and their own future.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I feel somewhat inadequate in speaking on this bill tonight following the deliberations of my two illustrious colleagues, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), both of whom have a record in this distinguished chamber of speaking on this matter many times before over the ages-and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre goes as far back as confederation! Of course, I have not such a record in this House, but I am happy tonight to be able to join the crusade to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has referred.
I also feel somewhat inadequate because the preceding speaker from the Liberal Party outlined all the answers and all the problems. I am not so capable, nor is any member of my party nor anybody else in Canada. I must give that hon. gentleman credit for taking so much for granted.
Let me join my colleague the hon. member for Hillsborough in congratulating the minister for this bill. I hope its passage will be swift. I am particularly happy that he is able to assure the House of such an eloquent record of consultation with the provinces and such unanimity in his approach to this further step in the over-all field of security. I have some reservations. The minister said he requires the assurance of the provinces that they all agree to waiving the consent provisions, but he admitted in his speech that he does not have this assurance. I hope the deliberations and discussion in this House will not be meaningless if it should happen that the provinces do not agree to waive this provision. I am also happy that this bill and the one to come are designed to restore parallelism, as the minister calls it, with the Quebec Pension Plan. That will certainly be a step in the right direction.
We are again indulging in what I am sure will be a long debate. We will be discussing a broad range of benefits, welfare matters, social matters, old age pensions, security of the underprivileged, and so on. There is, however, another segment of our society to which I should like to refer. This includes those people who formerly depended on their savings, such as perhaps housewives or persons

who were fortunate in their early years and did not fulfil the 60-year commitment to the Canadian labour force. Of course, because of the inflationary trends in our economy, the savings of such people are eroded and eventually they will have to look toward a pension plan to provide for their future.
I came across an interesting article by an illustrious Canadian economist who speaks about such savings. In one paragraph he says one should never buy government bonds. He states that the cost of government will escalate, that there is a limit to the tax burden people will carry, and thus that governments will finance to deficits through the sale of bonds to those innocents who will buy them. He says that these people will be taxed on the interest they receive and will be paid back in devalued dollars. Further, he states that the more the government borrows, the more it will contribute to inflation and the less real purchasing power it will pay back to the unhappy bondholder. He suggests the bonds should be left to people who can afford to lose money.
A previous speaker touched on these unfortunates who have lived the dream that one could accumulate some savings in this country and provide for oneself. Eventually they have to live on some kind of social assistance handed out by some form of government. This bill certainly is an improvement. I cannot argue with the legislation it provides. However, the bill, again, is designed by the same people whom I sometimes call intellectual socialists. I define these people as those who think that the provision of money is the solution, really, to all problems in Canada and in the world. They believe, in other words, that if there is a social problem, the question is how much does it cost to make people happy; or if there is any other kind of problem, how much does it cost.
We talk about old age pensions and argue whether the amount of the pension should be $95, $100 or $105 and each party takes credit for suggesting the greatest amount. I recall the other day when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said that if it were not for him and his party, the old age pensioner would still receive $35 a month. It disturbs me that we should be talking about money all the time when we also talk about a comprehensive plan such as the minister has called social security. These intellectual socialists are people who simply do not. recognize that in Canada there are such fundamental inequities as hunger, illiteracy and exposure to the elements. They refuse to believe there are small towns in Canada the economy of which is based, to the extent of from 30 per cent to 50 per cent, on some form of social assistance which its citizens receive every month.
These intellectual economists refuse to believe that one-third of our population lives on some kind of social assistance, and that we are wasting 20 per cent of our human resources by not demanding and ensuring that they achieve some stage of life in which they can be productive and make a contribution to the life style which we have established for ourselves.
If we continue to use money as a basis for a solution to our social problems, it seems to me we must motivate some more people to work, particularly the 20 per cent to which I referred a little earlier. It would seem that only if more people in Canada become productive can we generate or
October 29, 1973

can the government generate sufficient money to pay the cost of the welfare state which we are about to establish in this great land of unlimited opportunity.
There are a great number of people in Canada who are keeping us on our knees. They demand from government the right of a decent living. The right the government owes them is the right to work, a chance to participate. For some, the measures contained in this bill are totally meaningless. The steps the minister has proposed have not, and will not, solve the problem of those people unless the cheques, no matter from which department they come, are accompanied by a blueprint for living in our complex society. This should be a package of brotherly love and understanding, which is perhaps the old-fashioned way.
Perhaps the cheque should be accompanied by a commitment from the government to find a way in which we can help those citizens who are deprived, so that they may find a way in which to make a worth while contribution to the productivity and prosperity of our land. It must be a way which does not necessitate the punching of a clock, because these people would never do that or go to the trough at a given time. However, a way must be found to provide these people with an opportunity to experience the pride of accomplishment and joy of giving, instead of receiving.
When we do anything for these people, Mr. Speaker, we must consider whether there is any more horrible or disastrous situation that this 20 per cent of our citizens could live under anywhere else in the world. It is much harder to be poor in Canada than anywhere else in the world because our standard of living ranks among that of the leading nations. The potential in Canada is much higher than it is anywhere in the world. It is so much tougher to be poor in Canada, because there are so many rich people. I know the pain that a mother or a father must endure knowing that their children know their deficiency, and the pain of knowing they cannot get off the path they have made through the snow, a path that leads nowhere, a path with no purpose, no beginning and no end.
In light of that, does the bill go far enough? Perhaps the welfare cheque that we are paying out should include enough money so that the Canada Pension Plan premiums could be paid with it. Perhaps the old age security should be amalgamated with the Canada Pension Plan some day, so that when a person reaches a certain age it should not matter what kind of contribution he has made in earlier life because, again, we are basing everything on this productivity and the dollars he has earned during his productive years.
In looking at the bill, I find that the removal of the 2 per cent ceiling is certainly a step in the right direction. Our senior citizens, however, would have liked it much better if we could have found a solution to the problems posed by the ever-increasing cost of living and inflation. They would have liked it much better if we could have managed our affairs in such a way that the increase would not have been necessary.
I, too, would like to exchange ideas regarding the retirement age. The bill, of course, does not provide for the gradual reduction of the retirement age down to the age of
Adjournment Debate
60. I would like to qualify this by stating that I do not think we should make it compulsory for a person to retire at any age, but we should certainly make it possible for a person to retire at the age of 60 if he wishes it, and not penalize him for making way for a younger person who wishes to put his shoulder to the wheel.
I think that the monitoring agency should make an annual report instead of a report every five years, as is the case now. The way things are going, it is not adequate to assess the functioning of this fund every five years. I would have liked to explore the possibility of making all Canadians eligible for retirement benefits. In that respect I would like to echo what all my colleagues have said, that is, I would like to think it possible that women in our Canadian society be given an equal chance of receiving equal benefits to those received by men when they reach a certain age.
In light of that, we should not overlook the fact that this would be a saving to the fund because under the plan it would not be necessary to provide benefits to a widow who has not contributed. In 1967 we started to pay benefits to retired contributors, which are now being made to pensioners at the age of 65. As I said, we should have kept going; but it is not too late now, and I hope that the minister in the next bill he will introduce will have the foresight to consider very seriously allowing people to retire at the age of 60.
There should have been an assessment of the plan in order to find a solution to the problem which unwed mothers, and single-parent families face. We should examine the contributions which the provinces have made to the deliberations to which the minister referred earlier. People from Newfoundland, and particularly Anthony Murphy, believe that programs of this kind contribute to one's security and enhance one's sense of independence. It would be a wonderful thing if pensions and social insurance were universal and sufficiently adequate to meet the basic needs of all Canadians in their retirement or in their disability.
There are thousands of Newfoundlanders and thousands of Canadians in other parts of the country who do not contribute to the Canada Pension Plan or, indeed, to any other pension plan, and until they have the means and the opportunity to do so they will remain in a disadvantaged position. I hope we can do something to strengthen our Canada Pension Plan and other programs and make them the hub of our social security system. I take it from his statement that Anthony Murphy feels as I do, that some day we will not need many other programs if we round out the opportunities that the Canada Pension Plan provides.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
7338
[Stage Direction]
October 29, 1973
Adjournment Debate

Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to a matter which was first raised in the House on June 18. That, you will recall, was when the country discovered the Minister of State who is a little bit responsible for multiculturalism. You will recall that the minister spent about one-tenth of his total budget on an advertisement which featured a campaign picture of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and purported to advertise a program of grants which was already oversubscribed. To add to the excitement, the minister had been chastised by the assistant undersecretary of another department who, it turned out, had more authority over the minister's program than did the minister.
That storm has blown over. The minister's assistant who authorized the ads has disappeared. The assistant undersecretary has remained firmly in control. The minister has come back to the House, anxious to resume any responsibilities anyone will give him. An agency, controlled at least 50 per cent by prominent Ontario Liberals, is counting its commission on the account, and the most enduring momento of the affair is the response of the Minister of State who, having been asked why no tenders were called on the ads, said that he was "not aware of any tendering procedure for advertising programs of the federal government".
That flurry erased several important issues. One of them was the attitude the government should take toward the ethnic and periodical press of the country because, apart from patronage and politicking, the other reason for the ads was that they provided a means by which the government might provide some tangible support to the Canadian ethnic press. I want to argue their case tonight, not just in relation to the ethnic papers which generally deserve and require support, but also in relation to the community press generally in Canada which serves needs which larger media cannot meet and which has special problems, some of them caused by the government.
Government support to the community press should be open and above board-by the front door, rather than by occasional back door subsidies in the form of the extravagant and pointless advertising program we saw this June. In passing, I should also point out that even the present program of advertising in the ethnic press seems to treat some periodicals, like the Toronto Jewish press, in a less favourable way than other periodicals.


Mr. Haidasz:: That isn't true.


Charles Joseph Clark: There are two kinds of newspapers operating in Canada today, the large and the local. They are generally distinguished by their size, their wealth and by the intensity with which they serve their particular readership. The dailies might help us to understand the world; the weeklies help us to understand ourselves. They are called ethnic or community papers and they are particular to a heritage or a place. Both kinds of papers need ads to live.

At one time, governments and other advertisers treated both kinds of papers almost equally. But in the 1950s and 1960s, as our attitudes became more urban and international, the people who place and pay for ads became bemused by mass markets, and the so-called "institutional ads"-the ads an editor could get a loan on-drifted away to mass media. That was done thoughtlessly, without examination either of the relative impact of an ad in a local or a mass medium, or an examination of the effect upon the vitality of the particular communities these local papers serve. The government was as guilty as anyone.
There are signs that times are changing, and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the government for giving the community press a fair shot at the ads concerning both the new tax form and the LIP program. But those cases are exceptions; they are not a policy. I understand that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), that great progressive, has a proposal before him to gather data on the effectiveness of advertising in the community press. Member papers of the CCNA were enthusiastic about the proposed study and were geared up to co-operate, but the President of the Treasury Board is sitting on the initiative and the enthusiasm of editors is beginning to wane.
There are other problems. The Post Office has established a so-called free zone within a 40 miles radius of small communities and within that zone cheap postal rates apply to local papers. But in Ontario and British Columbia, changes in provincial law have created new local government boundaries, incorporating several towns. They change the status of a town but not its nature, and the Post Office Department, legalistic to the last, has denied free zone status to small towns so incorporated.
Again, newspaper plants which do not have a printing press are disqualified from eligibility for IDB loans, yet the offset revolution, leading to a different style of printing, means that most plants ship out their printing to a central press and so cannot go to the Industrial Development Bank. These are accidental prejudices, just as it was accidental that advertising shifted to mass markets and made survival more difficult for local papers.
We need these local papers, just as we need a multitude of strong ethnic groups and places which have a distinctive sense of community. I ask the government to recognize that need directly and to encourage the various local media of Canada at least as much as we encourage book publishing, the arts and other activities which contribute to a sense of Canadian identity.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity, replying to the hon. member this evening, to speak about certain aspects of advertising, particularly advertising by the various government departments in the ethnic press and especially as this concerns the policy and programs of multiculturalism.
As the hon. member knows, the Prime Minister's statement on October 8, 1971, announcing his government's official policy of multiculturalism revealed that a study would be undertaken to determine what more could be done to assist the ethnic press. This study was included in the survey on language retention and an evaluation of it is being conducted at the present time.
October 29, 1973

On May 17, 1973, I announced in the House that the multicultural programs are being expanded to a considerable extent. I also mentioned that we will be devoting a very substantial amount of funds to assist the ethnic press and to use the ethnic press to convey our messages and information to the Canadian people. It is, of course, of the greatest importance that an awareness of these multicultural programs and of the programs of other federal departments be extended to all citizens of Canada. An important role in this increased information program will be played by the ethnic press as well as by the weekly periodicals.
So far as advertising the program of multiculturalism is concerned, I am happy to say that we included the ethnic press which is printed in languages other than English and French, as well as Jewish newspapers, and other ethnic newspapers which are printed in English and French. All in all, about 125 newspapers were used to inform the Canadian public of the federal government's policy programs on multiculturalism. Many other federal departments and government agencies are also participating in this increased effort on the part of our government to convey essential information to our citizens. I may mention for this year in particular the extensive programs of the Department of National Revenue, the Department of Manpower and Immigration, and the Department of National Health and Welfare. The Canada Ethnic Press Federation has been assisted with federal grants in the holding of meetings and the carrying out of surveys. Recently, the Ethnic Press Club of Manitoba was assisted with a multicultural grant.
I am sure that this program of information and of special projects will facilitate our task in communicating with all Canadians, as the hon. member suggested in his remarks. It also provides increased financial assistance to the ethnic press and enables them to continue in fulfilling an important role in Canadian society. In the meantime, of course, we will be awaiting the reports and special studies being carried out at the present time. I am sure the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) and other ministers who are especially involved in matters of communication will be able to come up with improved programs.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-OPERATIONAL STATE OF AIR SQUADRON 442 BASED AT COMOX
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last, October 25, I raised a question in this House concerning the operational capability of Squadron 442 which is based at Comox and which has a large role to play with respect to search and rescue in the 690,000 square miles of British Columbia and the Yukon. My question was based on the premise that the squadron is unable to meet normal operational tasks because of worn-out aircraft and lack of parts. The question is recorded at page 7213 of Hansard. I asked: "Can the minister advise what immediate steps will be taken to correct this situation?"
The minister, who is present in the chamber this evening and who has shown us the courtesy of not asking his parliamentary secretary to reply, answered: "Mr. Speaker,
Adjournment Debate
I do not accept the premise of the question." Nothing would please me more than hearing that the premise of my question was wrong. Let me point out, however, that the premise of my question is based on a newspaper article which appeared in the Vancouver Sun. It is dated October 20, 1973, and was written by Mr. Odam. According to the article-
In two recent major air searches in B.C., 442 Squadron was unable to throw in all its resources right away . . .
The article further says:
When pilot Neil Carey of North Vancouver was reported missing September 18, one of the Buffalo aircraft was being overhauled at Comox-an overhaul that became extended because maintenance crews had to wait for parts to arrive from eastern Canada.
Another Buffalo was unserviceable in Whitehorse, where it had just come off another search. The third Buffalo was taking parts up to Whitehorse so the second could be repaired.
The next day, when the search should have been in full swing, only one Buffalo was available-the one which had been on the parts run.
Of the squadron's three helicopters, one was undergoing a routine inspection; another took the searchmaster as far as Williams Lake before having to turn back to Comox because of bad weather. The third did get into the search.
It was not until September 28-ten days after Carey went down somewhere on a flight from Quesnel to Terrace-that 442 Squadron was able to put all its six aircraft out at the same time.
Further examples are given as follows:
When a light plane with two people on board went missing last Saturday on a flight from Nelson to Edmonton, two of the three Buffalo aircraft were unserviceable and the third was engaged on a mercy flight.
Two of the three helicopters were available in Comox, the third had left for a major overhaul in the east and is not expected back for six months.	.
The following day, one of the helicopters left Comox at 1 p.m. to join in the search, which was handled initially by the rescue centre at Edmonton. One Buffalo was still being overhauled, one was unserviceable until 3 p.m. and the third was on another mercy flight.
On Monday, 442 Squadron was able to throw two Buffalo and one helicopter into the search. A second helicopter joined them the following day after crews at Comox changed an engine overnight.
By then . . .
This is important.
. . . three days had gone by since the light plane disappeared in bad weather in the East Kootenays.
Further examples are given. I again quote from the article:
For three days at the beginning of September, 442 Squadron had none of its Buffalo aircraft available to fly . . .
It goes on to describe why that happened. If we look into . the records that are contained in this article, between April 1 and October 15, a period of 198 days, one Buffalo aircraft was unserviceable for 74 complete days and 46 part days. The article continues:
The second buffalo was unserviceable 46 whole days and 38 part days; the third, 58 full days and 44 part days.
Of the three helicopters, one was unserviceable 30 full and 23 part days; one, 61 full days and 18 part days, and the third for 40 full days and 25 part days.
26635-34:.

October 29, 1973
Adjournment Debate
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) said he rejected the premise on which I asked the question. I think it is very important that the minister, who is in the House tonight, completely answer the charges that have been made in this article. They were obviously made by somebody who was able to look at the logs and records of this particular squadron.
I want to make it perfectly clear that in no way do I criticize the personnel, the squadron leader, the efficiency or the effectiveness of the people in that squadron. As a matter of fact, in the article that drew this to the attention of the public in the province of British Columbia there is no suggestion that anyone in our armed forces in that particular squadron was not doing everything he could to make the squadron as operational as possible.
The fact of the matter is that because of apparent budget savings the spare parts are kept in Toronto. There are long delays in bringing them from Toronto to Vancouver. There are further difficulties getting them into commercial aircraft to fly them to Comox. The budget saving means we have limited the number of aircraft available for search and rescue in this area.
The minister says the record of the squadron and Canadian armed forces' squadrons generally is very good in terms of search and rescue. But the question is, what is the minister now going to do about these allegations? Has the minister looked into them? Is the minister going to give an answer which will satisfy the public as to the competency of this particular squadron in terms of materiel to carry out its allotted task? I think we are entitled to the minister's answer. He has had time to look into this matter.
I think the minister ought to advise us tonight whether similar situations exist anywhere else in the country. I am sure the minister realizes that this is a serious matter; I gather so from his presence in the House. It is indeed a matter of life or death for lost pilots.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) may I first of all say I am always pleased to learn of the interest of any member of the House in the very important subject of search and rescue.
This is an area of our work to which the Canadian forces are particularly dedicated, and I believe also an area in which they are particularly proficient. Some of the search and rescue operations in which Canadian forces personnel have been involved are among the most heroic and the most selfless passages in our national life.
As this may perhaps seem to be an overstatement, let me provide some facts. I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver South will be encouraged to learn that out of a total of 130 aircraft searches last year, only four aircraft were not found. This outstanding record is even more impressive when we realize that unfortunately some aircraft go down and disappear into lakes and rivers and are beyond the technical capability of even the most dedicated and efficient search teams. During the same year, the Canadian forces flew a total of 5,230 hours in search and rescue work and contributed either directly or indirectly in the rescue of 122 people.
(Mr. Fraser.]
In this respect I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the outstanding support contributed by civilian flyers who participate enthusiastically and effectively in search operations. As evidence of their contribution, let me say that of a total of 126 aircraft successfully located in 1972, 40 were located by civilian aircraft participating in the search.
As to the serviceability of the aircraft employed, the question the hon. member raised in connection with 442 Squadron, I am able to confirm that the serviceability of the Labrador helicopters belonging to the squadron averaged 73.7 per cent, and that during some period serviceability of up to 90 per cent was achieved. For a complex, rotary-wing aircraft this is a good serviceability ratio by any standards, military or civilian. The serviceability ratio of the Buffalo aircraft went up from 45 per cent in 1971 to a current level of 63.1 per cent. This is an availability factor almost 10 per cent higher than is set for this aircraft by Air Transport Command.
I believe these figures demonstrate not only a standard of serviceability but also a level of efficiency which is a credit to 442 Squadron and to the aircraft and the service personnel of this west coast unit.


AGRICULTURE-SHIPMENT OF HORSES TO EUROPE FOR SLAUGHTER
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, on May 30, 1973, I asked the House for unanimous consent to amend the Criminal Code, asking that all horses shipped to Europe be first inspected under the terms of the Canada Shipping Act. I was very sorry to see that several hon. members left the impression of being inhumane.
On June 6, the Prime Minister's office sent a letter to a woman in Ottawa stating that as of June, 1971, all shipment of horses to Europe by sea were banned: following a review by officials of the Department of Transport and the Department of Agriculture and the adoption of a special code for shipboard transportation of horses, shipment was again permitted in 1972. The code states that horses must be in good health and not older than 16 years before being transported. Veterinarian officials must be present during the marshalling to examine them with respect to age and fitness to travel.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), in a letter to the Ontario Humane Society, also stated that it was the policy of the government of Canada that horses would only be allowed to be exported for work or breeding purposes. Yet everyone in the business knows that most of the animals go directly to the slaughterhouses. The cruelty lies in what the horses have to go through to get there. They have to be trucked in, branded, haltered, loaded on trucks or trains, unloaded, then reloaded on a boat with whips or cranes. From the time a horse leaves its home, it never eats the same again. It gets homesick and fevered up. It cannot stand long trips. Some of the horses brought from the United States to Canada for slaughter barely make it to the plant. Just think what they go through, Mr. Speaker, to get to Europe.
October 29, 1973

It is illegal to send live horses from the United States to France, so they are brought to Canada, mostly to the province of Quebec, and after a couple of weeks are certified as Canadian horses and shipped off. When a horse is shipped live, it must have a certificate of health for a preceding period. But how can anyone tell, when the horse has been in the United States for most of the time? It is a tragic joke.
The inspectors of the last shipment of horses were representatives of the Ontario Humane Society and the Canadian Wild Horse Society. These inspections and observations were carried out independently and proved beyond all doubt that the majority of the horses that were shipped from Canada on the steamship Athene were in fact slaughtered immediately upon arrival in Europe.
How much longer are we going to accept trade in horses across the Atlantic? The Government of Canada has defended the trade by stating that they see nothing wrong in the principle involved so long as the animals are in satisfactory condition to ship. Obviously, the Government of Canada is not concerned with the welfare of the animals after they arrive at their destination. With the modern processing methods that we have today, it is most inhumane to ship slaughter horses live to Europe.
With unemployment running rampant as it is today, we could very easily set up another industry in Canada; we could have our own plants that could ship dressed meat to Europe. I would have no reservations about suggesting that this would take some people off the already confused and blinded unemployment insurance rolls. As a man who has shipped thousands of head of livestock to eastern Canada, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you it is bad enough shipping to eastern Canada, let alone shipping to Europe.
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this is a topic which was debated once before in this House not too long ago. I draw the hon. member's attention to the parliamentary secretary's statement on this matter which can be found on page 4926 of Hansard.
I have stated that I, too, share the concern of all hon. members with regard to the humane treatment of animals. With respect to the shipment of horses to Europe, the Department of Agriculture has instituted a program designed to ensure the humane treatment of horses shipped by sea. This program, which began in the fall of 1970, consists of a seven to ten-day preconditioning period around the port of loading and requires that the horses be less than 11 years old, in good condition and free from sickness, that mares not be in a state of advanced pregnancy and that a veterinarian accompany any shipment of more than 25 horses.
The hon. member also spoke of the Canadian processing industry. As I have said before in this House, Canada's trade in horsemeat to Europe has increased dramatically in recent years, and appears to be growing. The movement of live horses has not increased by the same amount. For the information of hon. members, 5.3 million pounds of horsemeat were exported to Europe in 1969-70, whereas in the 1972-73 fiscal year 19.1 million pounds were exported. During the same period the number of horses shipped declined.
It is our position that the livestock trade is an important part of Canadian agriculture. Rather than ban the movement of any type of livestock, we feel it is in the best interests of Canada's farmers to do everything possible to make certain that shipments are efficient and humane.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

Tuesday, October 30, 1973