1973-10-24

BROADCASTING


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the sixth report of the Clerk of Petitions.
The report was then read by the Clerk, as follows:
The Clerk of Petitions has the honour to report that he has examined the petition of Mrs. Ann Young, Mrs. Marilyn Lister and Mrs. Natalie MacPhee, all of the city of Ottawa, Ontario, in relation to broadcast advertising directed exclusively to children and advertising directed to children from American programming distributed on the Canadian cable systems, presented by Mr. James A. McGrath, Member of Parliament, on Tuesday, October 23, 1973, and finds that the petition meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members have heard, the Clerk has read the report of the Clerk of Petitions which indicates that the petition in question, presented to the House by Mrs. Marilyn Lister, Mrs. Natalie MacPhee and Mrs. Ann Young, in relation to broadcast advertising meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
I owe it to the hon. member for St. John's East and to the House to indicate that I have strong reservations as to the acceptability of the petition on substantive grounds. As I am sure the hon. member knows, there are precedents to the effect that the House should not interfere by way of petition in a matter in which jurisdiction has been assigned by parliament to another body. If the hon. member has any comments to make for the guidance of the Chair I would be pleased to hear him.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of Bill C-22, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act, was referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. That committee reported a list of five recommendations to the House on July 16. Two of the recommendations are set out in the body of the petition. These recommendations were that the Canadian Radio-Television Commission should pass certain regulations.
Section 16(1) of the Broadcasting Act states in part:
In furtherance of its objects, the Commission, on the recommendation of the Executive Committee, may ...
(b) make regulations applicable to all persons holding broadcasting licences ...
(ii) respecting the character of advertising and the amount of time that may be devoted to advertising-
So, Mr. Speaker, the House by way of legislation has already given this power to the Canadian Radio-Television Commission. The chairman of that commission said, when he appeared before the Standing Committee:
If parliament, as a result of the studies of the committee, comes to the conclusion that a fundamental principle is involved and that, no matter what the other circumstances may be, the basic objectives of Canadian broadcasting should preclude children's advertising, the commission will, as it should, implement this objective as it has to implement other fundamental objectives contained in the Broadcasting Act.
The first recommendation of the committee was that the CRTC should pass regulations which would provide that advertising must not be directed exclusively to children.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the committee stated in its report:
However, it is the opinion of your committee that any code, regardless how excellent in itself, would need a much tougher enforcement system . . . your committee feels . . . that a CRTC regulation should be brought into effect in order to enforce a new and more restrictive code.
There is no other recourse but by way of petition to this House to bring to the attention of the House that the CRTC, which draws its authority from parliament, not from the government, and answers to parliament, is ignoring the unanimous recommendations of parliament because, Mr. Speaker, the report of the broadcasting committee, with the five recommendations contained therein, was concurred in by the House on July 24.
On October 16 the commission made a statement in which it said it would not proceed by way of regulations but would rely entirely on the broadcasting code. Furthermore, the commission in its statement of October 16 ignored the second most important recommendation of the committee, that dealing with American television advertising directed at children and coming into Canada under the cable system.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Radio-Television Commission has the authority given to it by parliament under the Broadcasting Act in section 16, as I have already set out. The House of Commons, by way of concurrence in the committee's report, recommends to the commission that it proceed to implement regulations under the Broadcasting Act. The commission, for reasons unknown, ignores the recommendation of the House.
I am hoping that somehow Your Honour will find this petition in order and that the House will be disposed to consent to have this matter referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts where Mr. Juneau, the chairman of the commission, can appear and explain to the committee why he chose to ignore the unanimous recommendation of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Broadcasting


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his comments but, with respect, perhaps I should point out to him that they did not refer very much to the procedural difficulty with which I am faced. In fact, it may be that the comments of the hon. member substantiate the suggestion I have made that it is difficult for the House to consider by way of petition a matter over which jurisdiction has specifically been referred by parliament to another body.
These are the precedents which have been quoted from time to time in the House in similar circumstances in the past. I am sure hon. members will appreciate that in relation to petitions, which is a very ancient and historical right, the Chair must exercise all care and attention to ensure that petitions, when they are in order and acceptable from a procedural standpoint, should be given an opportunity to be considered and referred, if necessary, to the appropriate committee. But I must tell the hon. member, with the greatest respect, that I do not see how I can overlook the precedents, to which I should like to refer briefly.
I refer hon. members to a precedent reported on page 163 of the Journals of the House for Thursday, February 16, 1956. It was ruled that the petition was irregular in that it did not set forth a case in which the House had jurisdiction to interfere, since parliament had vested in the Governor in Council and in the Minister of Transport the exclusive authority to approve and issue licences for the operation of private television stations. That ruling also referred to a citation from May's Parliamentary Practice, 15th edition, at page 814. That citation is brought forward into the 18th edition at page 795.
A more recent precedent is recorded on page 2921 of Hansard for June 7, 1972. I would also refer hon. members to Dawson's Procedure in the Canadian House of Commons, page 241, which I might read briefly:
A petition must, of course, relate to a matter over which parliament has control. In a federal country this stipulation limits at once the range of subjects which may be raised. The House will not receive a petition relating to a matter which has been delegated to another body. Ever since 1874 when it gave the courts its privilege of judging controverted elections, the Commons has refused to receive petitions which related to such electoral problems. On a more recent occasion a matter which had, by statute, been allocated to a public corporation was judged to be beyond the authority of the House and a petition which requested interference by the House was rejected.
In the petition now before us the petitioners complain that certain recommendations of the House were not implemented by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission. The recommendations in question are contained in the second report of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts presented to the House on July 16, 1973. The report recommended that consideration be given to the advisability of certain action being taken by the CRTC. It seems clear to me that the grievance has reference to a matter over which jurisdiction has been delegated by parliament to the CRTC. In this respect I suggest it is not open to the Chair to disregard the well established practice of the House and the precedents to which I have referred.
I appreciate the position of the hon. member and his suggestion that this is a matter which ought to be considered either by the House or by a committee of the House. I respectfully suggest to him, however, that the procedure

which should be adopted should be some procedure other than a petition. With regret, I can assure the hon. member, after having given the matter much thought and consideration I find I have to rule that the petition cannot be considered.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the petition, not with respect to your ruling. Standing Order 67(8) says:
No debate shall be permitted on the report but a petition referred to therein may be read by the Clerk of the House at the Table, if required.
I suggest, in view of the discussion of this petition that has taken place and in view of the general interest in it, that its full text should be placed on the pages of Hansard. If the Clerk of the House will read the petition, that will put it on Hansard, or perhaps the House might consent to it being inserted in Hansard as if the Clerk had read it to us.


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre may be acceptable to the House by consent. It must be appreciated, however, that, in view of the ruling of the Chair the petition is not before the House. It has not been received and, therefore, if it has not been received it cannot be read. There are precedents to support this suggestion. At the same time, I understand that there is general interest in the matter. I judge this to be so from the questions that have been asked and the debate that has taken place in past days and weeks. If there is consent, I am sure that from the point of view of the Chair there would be no difficulty about requesting the unanimous consent of the House to have the petition inserted in Hansard as though it had been read. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The petition referred to above follows.]
TO THE HONOURABLE THE COMMONS OF CANADA IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED THE HUMBLE PETITION of the undersigned Canadians, resident in Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable house will therefor provide a remedy,
SHEWETH:
THAT, on the 24th July 1973, your honourable house was pleased to concur in the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, presented to your honourable house on the 16th July 1973, as by reference to the Journals of your honourable house will more fully appear;
THAT your honourable house, in so concurring, recommended that consideration be given to the advisability of taking whatever action is necessary to accomplish, inter alia, the following objectives:
(a)	that the Canadian Radio-Television Commission pass regulations which will provide that advertising must not be directed exclusively to children; and
(b)	that the Canadian Radio-Television Commission require the deletion of advertising directed to children from American programming distributed on the Canadian cable systems.
THAT, on the 16th October 1973, the Canadian Radio-Television Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "CRTC") publicly announced that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters had amended, effective the 1st October 1973, the Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children, and that


(i)	the Code, as so amended, meets the requirements and preoccupations of the CRTC concerning advertising to children;
(ii)	the CRTC will ensure that the methods and procedures used to enforce the Code are effective; and
(iii)	if it should become evident during the coming months that the Code is not providing satisfactory control, the CRTC will take regulatory action.
THAT your honourable house did concur in the recommendations hereinbefore recited knowing of, despite and notwithstanding the said Code, as so amended, as the following comment extracted from the said Second Report confirms:
"Irr-the wake of your Committee's study . . . The Canadian Association of Broadcasters, by its own volition, tightened up their Code;
"However, it is the opinion of your Committee that any Code, regardless how excellent in itself, would need a much tougher enforcement system . . . your Committee feels . . . that a CRTC regulation (should) be brought into effect in order to enforce a new and more restricting Code.";
THAT the public announcement of the CRTC, hereinbefore cited, makes no reference whatsoever to action taken or abstained from by the CRTC with respect to advertising directed to children from American programming distributed on the Canadian cable systems;
THAT it appears from the matters hereinbefore recited and set out that the CRTC has wilfully failed to implement the aforesaid recommendations of your honourable house and has wilfully pursued a course that has been explicitly rejected by your honourable house;
THAT your petitioners, as well for themselves as for other Canadians resident in Canada, are personally aggrieved thereby by reason that they and each of them are interfered with and are prejudiced in their and each of their private enjoyment of a public right;
THAT this grievance, so caused, presently exists and will continue to exist for so long as the recommendations of your honourable house are not implemented by the CRTC and, moreover, is a grievance that is aggravated during this pre-Christmas season;
THAT therefore the grievance of your petitioners is a present personal grievance requiring an immediate remedy;
THAT except by petition to your honourable house no remedy is available to your petitioners whereby they may obtain relief from this grievance;
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable house will find means of prevailing upon the CRTC:
1.	forthwith to make regulations to provide that broadcast advertising must not be directed exclusively to children; and
2.	forthwith to make regulations to require the deletion of advertising directed to children from American programming distributed on the Canadian cable systems;
and that your honourable house will provide such further and other relief in the premises as to your honourable house seems just and meet.
AND your petitioners, as in duty bound, now prayeth and will ever pray.
AND your petitioners have, and each of them hath, signed at the City of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario, this 23rd day of October, in the year of Our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy-Three.
Oil



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Herbert.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table in both official languages the Federal background papers and statements from the second national tri-level conference held in Edmonton this week relating to the management of growth, housing and land strategy, urban transportation and public finance.


ALLEGED DIVERSION OF OIL SHIPMENTS DESTINED TO CANADA-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a motion of national importance. In view of the fact that multinational oil companies are diverting to the United States shipments of Middle East oil and also as of today, according to my understanding, Venezuelan oil originally destined for eastern Canada, and in view of Venezuela's reported desire to deal directly with the Canadian government on oil matters, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House instructs the government to introduce legislation as soon as possible to establish a publicly-owned Canada Petroleum Corporation which would have, among other powers, exclusive jurisdiction over the importation of crude oil into Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 requires unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Ann Young Marilyn Lister Natalie MacPhee J. A. McGrath, M.P. St. John's East


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Public Service



JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity relating to continued delays in the calling of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to deal with the wiretapping bill.
My motion has been made necessary as a result of the refusal since October 15 of the committee chairman and vice-chairman to call a meeting of the committee despite requests from the opposition parties. This delay has been brought about apparently with the concurrence of the government, which may now have reservations about proceeding-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member was recognized for the purpose of indicating which motion he would like considered by unanimous consent. He is not allowed to submit argument in support of the motion.


Ronald George Atkey: In view of recent unfortunate events involving unauthorized illegal electronic surveillance, I move seconded by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. O'Connor):
That this House request the chairman or vice-chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to call a meeting of that committee at the earliest opportunity to complete consideration of Bill C-176 as a matter of urgency.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member proposes a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43. It requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion, therefore, cannot be put.
*
* *
[ Translation]



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an urgent situation, namely the ridiculous wage offers made by Treasury Board to clerical employees of the Public Service of Canada who earn about $5,000 a year and, consequently, cannot make both ends meet.
I move therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That the House request of the government, through Treasury Board, an order that the senior officials involved show judgment and realism in the division of the CR group wages so as to grant

increases similar to those received by most civil servants and thus consistent with cost of living increases.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion of the hon. member cannot therefore be put.



PROPOSED MOVEMENT OF ALASKAN OIL THROUGH JUAN DE FUCA STRAIT-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION

Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the announcement yesterday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) of the establishment of a Canada-United States joint committee to exchange information on national energy and planning and the co-ordination of energy resources, and in view of the present government's failure to obtain any agreement which would avoid movement of tanker traffic through the Strait of Juan de Fuca to Cherry Point, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources withdraw from negotiations on all matters of energy planning with the United States until we receive assurance and agreement that Alaskan oil will not be transported through the Strait of Juan de Fuca.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.



RAILWAY ACT


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-225, to amend the Railway Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to permit applications in accordance with subsections 2 to 7


of Section 261 of the Railway Act with respect to commuter train services. The bill is designed to encourage the provinces to develop satisfactory commuter rail services in order to humanize the business of getting to work and to relieve some of the pressure on our environment.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills:
September 5, 1973-Mr. Reynolds-Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Income Tax Act".
Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member is aware, the Chair has serious reservations about the procedural acceptability of the hon. member's bill. I gather he would like to submit argument at this time and perhaps he could be heard for that purpose. I would remind hon. members, however, that we shall have to ring the bells for the division on the motion under the special order in about three minutes.


Mr. Reynolds:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I shall not take much time. I presented my argument to you in writing and I do not wish to take up the time of the House now by reading that argument, because it is quite lengthy. I am quite prepared to let my argument stand and perhaps resubmit the matter in the form of a motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I have given serious thought to the argument submitted by the hon. member. I believe it should be sufficient to indicate to him that in 100 years or more of practice in the House of Commons there has never been a bill accepted similar to the one put forward by the hon. member. There is one instance when an attempt was made to propose such a bill and it was ruled out of order on the ground I have mentioned previously. The Chair appreciates the hon. member's co-operation and his suggestion that the subject matter might be presented to the House by way of a motion rather than a bill.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[ Text]

Mr. Boisvert: Does Bell Canada receive money from the government under any scheme?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: No.
Order Paper Questions PRIVY COUNCIL


Mr. Alexander: 1.	Who are the present members of the Privy Council?
2.	How many times has the Privy Council met since, and including, 1967?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1. Members of the Privy Council include all Cabinet Ministers and former Ministers, ex-Speakers of both Houses, the Chief Justice, ex-Chief Justices, and various distinguished citizens who have been appointed to it. Membership is for life. The members of the Privy Council are listed in the 1973 edition of the Parliamentary Guide at pp. 29-31. Since the time of publication, the following Privy Councillors have died: the Hon. Henry Herbert Stevens, the Rt. Hon. Louis Stephen St. Laurent, the Hon. Joseph Jean, the Hon. James M. Macdonnell, the Hon. Leslie M. Frost. There have been no appointments to the Privy Council since the publication of the 1973 Parliamentary Guide.
2.	The British North America Act provides for a "Queen's Privy Council for Canada", appointed by the Governor-General to "aid and advise" him. In fact, this body as such seldom meets, and then only on very special occasions. For example in 1947 a formal meeting of the Privy Council was held to hear the King's message giving consent to the marriage of Princess Elizabeth. In 1952 a meeting was held to hear the proclamation consequent on the death of George VI and the accession of Queen Elizabeth. In 1952 the Privy Council met, with the Administrator presiding, for the induction of the former Governor General, Lord Alexander, as a Privy Councillor. In 1959 the Queen held a Council in Halifax attended by Privy Councillors in the government where Prince Philip was also present. The cabinet, which is a "Committee of the Privy Council", normally meets once a week. From the beginning of 1967 to the end of June 1973, it met 535 times. There are several cabinet committees which also meet frequently. A "Special Committee of the Privy Council" meets to adopt Orders in Council and it has met 486 times between the beginning of 1967 and the end of June 1973.


INTERCONNECTION BETWEEN TELEX AND TWX IN CANADA
Mr. Bawden: Is it the intention of the Minister of Communications to consider a requirement that Telex and TWX in Canada provide interconnection between their systems, in view of the fact that this has been done in the United States and that Canada has in fact two major communications networks which cannot contact each other?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: The government is currently formulating a communications policy for Canada, based upon consideration and discussion of the proposals outlined in the Position Paper of March 1973. The issue of interconnection between Telex and TWX networks in Canada is being examined within the framework of this process. In this respect there has to be recognized an interest on the part of the provinces, particularly those having jurisdiction over telephone companies offering TWX service.
26635- 24


Order Paper Questions


GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO MEMBERS OF CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Forrestall: What steps are being taken by the government to provide a measure of protection and assistance to members of the Canadian Armed Forces stationed in the Federal Republic of Germany, who face not only inflation in basic living costs, but who have also seen a reduction of the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar, in which they are paid, due to the revaluations of the mark?


Hon. James A. Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: The steps taken by the government to provide protection and assistance to members of the Canadian Armed Forces stationed in Germany against the combined effects of inflation and currency revaluation are as follows: (a) An index was established to measure the relationship between price levels in Ottawa, and price levels in Lahr, and Baden-Baden, Germany, (b) This index is computed each month, (c) A variation of the index by five points results in an immediate payment of a salary equalization adjustment to personnel stationed in Germany. For those personnel not living in married quarters an additional equalization adjustment is made to their living-out allowances. From May to August 1973 the index increased thirty points and salary equalization adjustments were increased progressively to a current level of $107.70 per month for a corporal and by $255 per month for a lieutenant-colonel. From January to August 1973, the living-out allowance adjustment increased from $50 per month to $105 for a corporal, and from $76 per month to $158 for a lieutenant-colonel.


GOVERNMENT POLICY OF PLACING HARDENED CRIMINALS IN MINIMUM SECURITY
Mr. Reynolds: Does the government intend to continue to maintain its policy of placing hardened criminals, particularly those on the RCMP most wanted list, in minimum security institutions and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: It was never the policy of the Canadian Penitentiary Service to initially place the type of person alluded to above in a minimum security institution. Individuals who at any time have been on the RCMP most wanted list, are, upon admission to a penitentiary, incarcerated in maximum security institutions. Transfers to reduced security are only effected where there is sufficient evidence to support the probability that the individual concerned will function satisfactorily in a reduced security institution, coupled with due consideration of the security risk involved in all such transfers. The Classification Staff, in considering inmates for transfer to medium security from maximum security, weigh carefully all facets of the individual inmate's character. The inmate must be considered to be unlikely to make an active attempt to escape, to pose little threat to the community should he escape, and that he would benefit from the program of a medium security institution. In considering an inmate for transfer to minimum security, he must be judged as presenting little likelihood of attempting to escape, pose no threat to the community in the event he does escape and is capable of benefiting from the program of the minimum security institution for which he is being considered.


TECHNICAL AID TO CUBA
Mr. Dick: With respect to the announcement by the government in January, 1973 of its intention to invest one million dollars in a program of technical aid to Cuba (a) from what source of funds will the moneys be made available to send professors to Cuba (b) what will be the specific functions of these professors in Cuba (c) will the government of Cuba be sending professors to Canada as part of the same program?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: (a) The sources of funds for the program of technical co-operation with Cuba are the parliamentary appropriations Vote 30 for fiscal year 1972/73 and Vote 25 for fiscal year 1973/74. (b) Canadian engineering professors will be teaching approximately 118 short-term courses, of four to six weeks duration, during the three-year life of the project. These courses are part of a program leading to the MSc (Eng.) in the fields of Civil, Electrical Industrial, Mechanical and Chemical engineering. (c) The government of Cuba will be sending approximately 90 Cuban students for short-term training (periods of four to six weeks), to consult on research work and thesis matters as part of this program. Cuba will not send professors to Canada.


CONFEDERATION BUILDING-COST OF REFURNISHING
Mr. Stevens: 1.	What was the total cost of refurnishing the Confederation Building?
2.	To whom and for what amount were contracts signed for such furnishings?
3.	To what extent, if any, were amounts finally paid or payable in excess of the initial contract prices and to whom were the amounts paid or payable?
4.	For what reasons was the work not put out to tender?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: 1. The total cost of refurnishing the Confederation Building was $607,407.47.
2. The following firms were awarded furnishings contracts for the total amounts indicated:
Metalsmiths Co. Ltd., Don Mills, Ontario	 $ 70,429.05
Sunar Industries Ltd., Toronto, Ontario	 2,739.60
Taylor-Evans Ltd., Montreal, Quebec	 4,050.00
Foto Blohm Assoc. Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario	 291.70
Anna Warner Lamp Co., Toronto, Ontario	 3,426.00
Central Marketing Services, Ottawa, Ontario	 1,715.00
Interiors International, Toronto, Ontario	 81,063.33
Eric Jensen Greenhouse, Agincourt, Ontario	 19,403.00
Craftwood Products, Scarborough, Ontario	 18,625.60
Bostlund Industries Ltd., Oak Ridges, Ontario	 640.30
Office Specialty Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario	 1,854.00
Canadian Guild of Potters, Toronto, Ontario	 948.00
Sunar Industries Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario	 1,237.20
Taevan International, Toronto, Ontario	 3,306.00
G. W. Furniture Ltd., Montreal, Quebec	 40,139.76
Leif Jacobsen Limited, Willowdale, Ontario	 10,533.48
Sunar Industries Limited, Montreal, Quebec	 41,099.40
Klaus Nienkamper Ltd., Toronto, Ontario	 7,050.00
Business Accessories Ltd., Toronto, Ontario	 4,230.00
Steelcase Canada Ltd., Don Mills, Ontario	 68,171.60
Du Barry Furniture Ltd., Toronto, Ontario	 5,426.40
Concept Furniture International Ltd., Toronto, Ontario..	47,512.32


Furniture Forum Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario	 652.00
Standard Desk Ltd., Laval, Quebec	 19,293.79
Office Specialty Ltd., Toronto, Ontario	:	 61,268.00
Primavera Interior Accessories Ltd., Toronto, Ontario. .	950.40
Gabriel Textiles Ltd., Montreal, Quebec	 20,863.55
Supply and Services-modular stock items + 5,903.99 .. 70,487.99

3.	A contract with Craftwood Products of Scarborough at the initial price of $17,227.60 was increased by $1,398, for a revised price of $18,625.60, to provide for installation and transportation charges originally omitted.
4.	Tenders were not called for the furnishings because of the limited time available between the date of the treasury board decision of May 18, 1972 to renovate the Confederation Building for House of Commons accommodation and the proposal for occupancy in October 1972. It was not possible to determine requirements, call public tenders and achieve delivery of the furnishings by that date. Following consultation with the Department of Supply and Services it was agreed that furniture selections should be made on the basis of the capability of individual firms to meet the delivery schedule at competitive market prices.


IMMIGRATION-MR. JOGINDER SINGH SANDHU AND MR. LEHMBER SINGH BHANGAL
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Would Mr. Joginder Singh Sandhu and Mr. Lehmber Singh Bhangal, citizens of India, deported as illegal immigrants on December 17, 1972, be eligible under the amended immigration regulations to come forward and apply for landed immigrant status?
2.	Will the government agree to reconsider its refusal to refund the $2,000 bond posted by Mr. Ajit Singh Gill of Smiths Falls, Ontario on behalf of Mr. Joginder Singh Sandhu and Mr. Lehmber Singh Bhangal when they first entered Canada as tourists and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Presuming that the reference to amended immigration regulations relates to the current adjustment of status program, the answer is no. This program is applicable only to individuals who were in Canada on November 30, 1972 and have remained in this country continuously since that date. However, the men in question may apply for immigrant visas at a Canadian Immigration office abroad but would have to meet the normal immigrant requirements. They would also require ministerial consent to their return under section 35 of the Immigration Act.
2. No. Messrs. Sandhu and Bhangal were allowed into Canada as tourists provided that they deposited a cash bond of $1,000 each to ensure that they would leave Canada on or before a specified date. Both men were fully aware that failure to leave by that date would result in estreatment of the bonds. They both failed to fulfil this condition and the bonds were estreated.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): 1. What are the names of the directors of Statistics Canada?
Order Paper Questions
2. What are the names and addresses of the investigators of Statistics Canada assigned to projects in the constituency of Roberval?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports that: 1. The names and titles of the members of the Statistics Canada Executive are as follows: Dr. Sylvia Ostry, Chief Statistician of Canada; Mr. V. R. Berlin-guette, Assistant Chief Statistician of Canada, (Business Statistics); Mr. A. Boisvert, Assistant Chief Statistician of Canada, (Marketing Services); Dr. I. P. Fellegi, Assistant Chief Statistician of Canada, (Statistical Services); Dr. P. G. Kirkham, Assistant Chief Statistician of Canada, (Economic Accounts and Integration); Mr. R. A. Wallace, Assistant Chief Statistician of Canada, (Census); Mr. L. E. Rowebottom, Assistant Chief Statistician of Canada, (Household and Institutional Statistics); Mr. G. R. Labos-siere, Director General, (Administration); Mr. D. A. Worton, Director General, (Policy, Planning and Control).
2. The names and addresses of Statistics Canada interviewers in the constituency of Roberval, as of September 18, 1973 are: Mrs. G. Boivin, 455 St. Cyrille St., Normandin, Que.; Mrs. C. Lavoie, Rang 6, St. Prime, Que.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Forrestall: Is the government currently undertaking any definitive studies of the advantages or otherwise in terms of cost-benefit analysis of nuclear energy for industrial and municipal use and, if so (a) to what level has funding been appropriated for this fiscal year (b) what is the present status of such studies (c) on what date can they be expected to be made public?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: A study is being undertaken by the Ministry of State for Science and Technology, in collaboration with other interested departments, to assess the impact of certain industrial and municipal uses of nuclear energy, (a) The ministry has appropriated $16,000 for this fiscal year, (b) A preliminary report is currently being prepared with the final report to be completed by the end of fiscal year 1973-74. (c) The findings of this study can be expected to be made public during the fiscal year 1974-75.


COST OF PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT TO CHINA
Mr. Stackhouse: What is the total cost of the Prime Minister's tour and visit to the People's Republic of China, including the costs of all those travelling with him?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The actual costs which would include the return expenses are not known at this time.
26635-24J


Orders for Returns


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What was the value of the PAIT grant to Collins Radio Canada Ltd. of Toronto, Ontario to develop single side band marine radio?
2.	Is Collins Radio Canada Ltd. controlled by shareholders in the United States?
3.	Is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce aware that the same radio mentioned in Part 1 was already developed and in production by Triton Industries Ltd. of Richmond, British Columbia, a wholly-owned Canadian company?
4.	Was one of the reasons Collins Radio Canada Ltd. received their PAIT grant because they have received a Canadian Coast Guard contract from the Department of Transport for approximately two million dollars?
5.	For what reason did the government award a contract to Collins Radio Canada Ltd., of Toronto for the single side band marine radio when Collins had not developed the radio while a Canadian company already had the item ready for sale?
6.	(a) Was a letter dated January 31, 1972 sent by Mr. J. C. Dobby, Engineering Procurement Officer, Electrical and Electronics Branch, Division No. 1, Department of Supply and Services to Mr. W. Courage, Director of Marketing, Triton Industries Ltd. and, if so, what information was provided concerning the listing of Triton Industries Ltd. as a potential source of SSB communications equipment (b) was Triton Industries Ltd. allowed to tender and, if not, for what reason?
7.	Was a letter dated April 23, 1971, sent by Mr. R. J. D. Brown, Acting Chief, Purchases and Contracts, Department of Transport to Mr. W. Courage and, if so, what information was provided concerning the listing of Triton Industries Ltd. as a potential supplier of SSB communications equipment?
8.	Is this a violation of the government tendering process and, if so, for what reason?
9.	Will the Minister cancel the original tender and re-submit it for bidding?
Return tabled.
Return tabled.


EXTERNAL AID OFFICE AND CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Mr. Stevens: 1.	For each year, from 1960 to 1968, how many persons were on the staff of the External Aid Office?
2.	For each year, from 1968 to 1973, how many persons were or are on the staff of the Canadian International Development Agency?
3.	For each fiscal year, from 1960-61 to 1971-72, what were the total expenditures of the External Aid Office or the Canadian International Development Agency (as applicable) on the administration of its aid, and what is the breakdown of these year by year totals into categories of (a) staff salaries (b) overhead expenditures relating to CIDA space in the Jackson Building (c) overhead expenditures relating to space rented for CIDA overseas operations (d) office equipment (e) building renovation expenditures?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, October 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Speaker:: It being two thirty o'clock, pursuant to the special order of Monday, October 22, 1973, it is my duty to interrupt proceedings now before the House and put forthwith the question on the motion for third reading of Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Allmand) which was agreed to on the following division:


OFFICIALS OF CERTAIN DEPARTMENTS AND GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS-DATE AND TERM OF APPOINTMENT
Mr. Horner (Crowfoot): What are the names of (a) Governor, Bank of Canada (b) Chairman, Economic Council of Canada (c) Chairman, Polymer Corporation (d) Chairman, Air Canada (e) Chairman, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (f) Chairman, St. Lawrence Seaway Authority (g) Chairman, CNR (on what date is he up for retirement) (h) Chairman and Vice-Chairman, National Harbours Board (i) Chairman and Vice-Chairman, CBC (j) Chairman and Vice-Chairman, CRTC (k) Deputy Minister of Manpower and Immigration (1) Deputy Minister of National Defence (m) Chief of Defence Staff (n) Deputy Minister of National Revenue (o) Director General, Citizenship Branch (p) Director, Statistics Canada (q) Deputy Minister, Supply and Services (r) Chairman and Vice-Chairman, CTC and on what date were they appointed and for how long?

Alexander
Allmand
Andras
Atkey
Baker
Baldwin
Barnett
Basford
Beatty
(Wellington-Grey -Duff erin-Waterloo)
(Division No. 43)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Bdgin (Miss)
Blackburn
Blais
Blaker
Boulanger
Breau
Brewtn
Broadbent
Buchanan
Caccia
Cafik
Carter
Chretien
Clark
(Rocky Mountain) Corbin C6te Danson De Band Demers Diefenbaker Douglas Drury Dube

Dupont
Ethier
Faulkner
Firth
Fleming
Foster
Fox
Gauthier
(Ottawa East) Gilbert Gillies Goyer Grafftey Gray Grier Guilbault Haidasz Harding Harney Hellyer Holmes Howard Jamieson Knight Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Lajoie Lalonde Lang Laniel LeBlanc
(Westmorland-
Kent)
Lefebvre
Leggatt
MacDonald
(Cardigan)
Alkenbrack
Allard
Andre
Arrol
Balfour
Beattie
(Hamilton
Mountain)
Beaudoin
Bell
Blenkarn
Boisvert
Campbell
Caouette
(Charlevoix)
Caouette
(Tomiscamingue) ClaTke
(Vancouver
Quadra)
Coates
Comtois
Cossitt
Crouse
Danforth
Darling
Dick
Dinsdale
Dionne
Dupras
Messrs.
MacDonald (Egmont) Macdonald (Rosedale) MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands) MacEachen MacGuigan Maclnnis (Mrs.) (Vancouver Kingsway) Mackasey Maoquarrie Marceau Marchand (Langelier) Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo) Marshall McGrath McRae Morgan Munro
(Hamilton East) Neale
(Vancouver
East)
Nelson
Nesdoly
Ny strom
O'Connor
Olaussen
Olivier
Orlikow
Ouellet
++NAYS
Messrs.
Ellis
Epp
Fortin
Frank
Fraser
Gauthier
(Roberval)
Godin
Guay
(St. Boniface) Hales
Haliburton
Herbert
Higson
Hollands
Hopkins
Horner
(Crowfoot)
Horner
(Battleford-Kindersley) Howie Hueglin Hurlburt Jarvis J elinek Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand) Korchinski
Pelletier
(Hochelaga)
Pelletier
(Sherbrooke)
Penner
Peters
Poulin
Prud'homme
Railton
Reid
Reilly
Richardson
Roche
Rodriguez
Rompkey
Rooney
Rose
Rowland
Roy
(Timmins)
Roy
(Laval)
Saltsman Sauv6 (Mrs.)
Sharp
Smith
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Stanbury
Stanfield
Stollery
Symes
Trudeau
Turner
(Ottawa-
Carleton)
Walker Whelan-119.
Lambert
(Edmonton West) Laprise La Salle Latulippe Lawrence Leblanc (Laurier)
Lessard
L'Heureux
Loiselle
Lundrigan
MacKay
MacLean
Madill
Masniuk
Mather
Matte
Mazankowski
McCain
McCleave
McKenzie
McKinley
McKinnon
Mitges
Morin (Mrs.)
Muir
Munro
(Esquimalt-
Saanich)
Capital Punishment
Messrs.
Murta	Rynard	ThomasNeil	Schellenberger	(Moncton)(Moose Jaw)	Schumacher	TowersNesbitt	Scott	TrudelNielsen	Skoreyko	TurnerNowlan	Smith	(LondonOberle	(Saint-Jean)	East)O'Sullivan	Stackhouse	WhicherPaproski	Stevens	WhittakerPatterson	Taylor	WisePortelance	Thomas	WoolliamsReynolds	(Maison-	YanakisRitchie	neuve-Rosemont)	Yewchuk-106.Rondeau	# (1450)	
And the Clerk proceeding to announce the result of the division:


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 intended to vote the other way but in the confusion of the free vote I misplaced my vote.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might allow the Chair first to hear the result of the division and then, with the consent of the House, we will see what can be done to correct the record.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully suggest that if the results are announced and we then go back to change the votes cast confusion might result. It would be more desirable to make the changes first. This is an entirely new procedure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we might consider one point of order at a time. I think hon. members know there is a considerable body of precedents to indicate that once a vote is cast it should not be changed unless with the consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I know that this is a very important vote and all hon. members, individually, on both sides of the House are anxious to ensure that they have an opportunity to register their votes in the way they intended to. It is perhaps as a result of confusion in this type of voting that a mistake can be made. If it is the wish of hon. members that the record be corrected immediately, certainly the Chair has no objection.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that in fairness to all hon. members this is what should be done because hon. members will notice that it is at the start of recording votes to the left of the Chair that this mistake occurred in the case of three hon. members.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish my vote to be recorded as against the bill.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Speaker, I wish my vote to be recorded as against the bill.


Motions for Papers
And the Clerk having announced the result of the division:


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe that when we interrupted the proceedings at 2.30 p.m. we had reached the item, notices of motions for the production of papers.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, when the bells rang I was about to rise on a point of order in connection with question No. 2425 which has been on the order paper since June 28 and has not yet been answered. I appeal to the minister responsible to have the officials of his department prepare the required answer at an early date.


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Speaker, on July 19 I placed starred question No. 2543 on the order paper, with regard to Air Canada centralizing its computer services at Dorval. I believe that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Guay) have an obligation to see to it that Air Canada provides an answer to this very important question. It is almost four months since I placed the question on the order paper. We are entitled to a firm answer from Air Canada on this matter.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I ask that notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, while these notices have been allowed to stand, I would like to point to two motions I have placed before the House, Nos. 241 and 242, on September 12, almost a month and a half ago. The first was:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the guest list for the Prime Minister's reception on August 7, 1973, at the National Arts Centre in honour of Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh.
The second was for an order of the House for the guest list for a dinner given by the government in Calgary in honour of Her Majesty the Queen.
I am not affected by either one, but the government has the record. It knows exactly who were present. It is hold-

ing back the answer. I would like to know who are the politically select and who are the rejected.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has he been able to confirm that oil tankers destined for eastern Canada have recently been diverted and, if so, whether these tankers are now on their way to eastern Canadian ports or are still being diverted to other ports?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, further to my telegram yesterday I have had replies from Canadian refiners, particularly the two refiners mentioned by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville yesterday. In both cases the Canadian firms categorically deny that there was any diversion of tankers, saying that in both cases if it had been done by their affiliated companies they would have been advised, and that there has been no interruption in shipments. In relation to the allegation by the hon. member in regard to Imperial Oil, and his suggestion that a shipment from the Arab states was diverted, I should say that in fact Imperial advises that all of its oil stock comes from Venezuela.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, last week the minister met with representatives of the major oil companies. At that meeting did he seek any assurance and, if so, did he receive any assurance that tankers destined for Canada would not be diverted? I ask this particularly in the context of the Arab states in the Middle East having cut their deliveries to the United States.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Sir, I sought that assurance. The companies in question indicated that, of course, this would be subject to whatever sanctions might apply at the point of shipment. I have since been advised that a shipment to one company at least, to Portland for transit to Montreal, has been held up by the Arab states.


OIL-POSSIBLE INCLUSION OF CANADA IN CURTAILMENT OF DELIVERIES BY ARAB STATES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand from this reply that the Arab oil states are now reducing deliveries of oil to Canada and that Canada is now definitely included in the list of countries to which deliveries from the Arab states are being reduced as a matter of government policy in those states?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated we have heard


of one shipment that has been interrupted. Through diplomatic means we are trying to define with a little more clarity the positions of the various shipping states with regard to Canada.


OIL-ALLEGED DIVERSION FROM CANADA OF TANKER BY EXXON-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of more information I received this afternoon from officials within Imperial Oil that Exxon is buying Venezuelan oil on Canadian accounts and then diverting that oil, with their own marine tankers, to American ports, can the minister say whether or not he is carrying out an independent investigation personally or whether he is just relying on the telegram to the particular oil company?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any way in which I could have access to Exxon's accounts. I would have to say that Imperial Oil Company assures me that there have not been any diversions from their account and that all shipments are coming to Canada from Venezuela.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact I have information from officials of the company that a confidential memo was sent from Exxon in New York, and also from Texaco, New York, to their Toronto based companies referring to some of these issues, and also in light of the fact I am informed that Texaco is prepared or almost prepared to admit diverting at least one oil tanker, can the minister say what sanctions or other action he has in mind to prevent any diversion of this sort, be it by Exxon or by a Canadian subsidiary?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, at a time when we are pushing to get the maximum number of shipments into the Canadian market, I am not sure that sanctions against a particular company would be effective. I am faced really with a conflict of credibility between the source that the hon. member is relying on and the assurance given to me directly. All I can say at this stage is that I will repeat his allegation to the company.


POSSIBLE LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH PUBLICLY OWNED PETROLEUM CORPORATION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I would like to ask the minister whether or not, in view of the present crisis in oil internationally, he is considering introducing legislation to establish a publicly owned petroleum corporation that would have, among other powers, jurisdiction over imports of crude oil into this country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is a question under consideration


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -although I cannot see any way in which such legislation would be available at this time. It is not so much the ingress of the commodity into
Oral Questions
Canada as its egress from the supplying states that is the problem.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the hon. President of the Treasury Board.	J
In view of the fact that his department has granted $3,000 and $4,000 increases to hundreds of executives in the Public Service, can the hon. minister tell us whether he intends to seriously consider the 12 per cent salary increase requested by the 40,000 CR employees who are unable to balance their budgets with a salary of $5,000 a year?


Hon. Charles M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are negotiating with several groups of these employees in order to sign collective agreements.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, would the minister consider cutting out some of the fat and waste in the upper echelons of the public service so there would be more money available for these clerks?


ELIMINATION OF TARIFF ON PETROLEUM PRODUCTS- ASSURANCE THAT SAVINGS WILL BE PASSED ON TO CONSUMER
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the fact that elimination of customs duty will mean a cut of one-third to one cent per gallon on certain petroleum products, what measures is the minister taking to ensure that these savings will be passed on to consumers?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As the hon. gentleman knows, Mr. Speaker, we are in close contact with the industry, particularly in eastern Canada, with regard to its products, and we will make a point of making certain that the reduction in the cost of any shipments coming in after this point will be reflected in the price.


OIL EXPORT TAX-POSSIBILITY OF SIMILAR LEVY ON OTHER FORMS OF ENERGY
William Gordon Ritchie: In view of the export tax on oil, is the government considering implementing an export tax on electricity, coal and other forms of energy?


Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, with the other forms of energy we have not had the dramatic increase in price due to international events that has occurred with petroleum.


EMERGENCY MEASURES ORGANIZATION
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of National Defence concerns the recent declaration in the rather jigsaw defence policy announced by the minister of a reduction in the Emergency Measures Organization which was set up under my administration. Was that done after consultation with the provinces? Why was this cut made in this organization that has brought together people in all parts of the country whose devotion to the public good has been excellent, as shown recently in connection with the floods in New Brunswick and the gas leak in Alberta?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, there will be no cut until the next fiscal year and therefore there will be plenty of opportunity for consultation with the provinces.


John George Diefenbaker: I am simply asking about what was in the report given by the minister. Is there not to be any cut? Is that the answer? If so, then it is the very reverse of what the minister announced so flagrantly when he said what the new defence policy was going to be. I simply ask this: is it a fact that there will be no reduction?


James Armstrong Richardson: No, Mr. Speaker. The program I announced envisaged a cut beginning in the next fiscal year in emergency measures payments from the federal government to the provinces, but as I have just indicated we will have plenty of opportunity to discuss that with the provincial governments in the intervening months.


John George Diefenbaker: In the intervening months will the minister put an end to this suggestion which has no justification whatsoever?


COMBINES
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can the minister inform the House when the inquiry will be completed by the Combines Branch into the oil industry and particularly the pricing of gasoline in this country?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to check with the acting director and see what information I can give the hon. member.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: In view of the urgency of the matter and in view of the fact that on February 15 the minister assured the House that it had top priority, can the minister not do better than that and can he also assure the House that the public will be informed of the contents of the report when it is made?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, it is the practice of the Combines Branch to inform the public of the results of their investigation either through the director's annual report or action in the courts. With respect to the first part of the question, the director, an official with a high degree of autonomy, is aware of the interest of the House and the public in completing this inquiry at the earliest possible date. I will ensure that he continues to be aware of this interest.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the assurance given by the minister that the benefits from corporate tax reductions and capital cost reductions would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices, is the minister now in a position to provide that evidence to the House from the results of the questionnaire he sent to manufacturers?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the questionnaire has not been completed but it is furnishing the information that will form the substance of the report which I gave an undertaking to the House to table before the end of March.


Max Saltsman: May I ask the minister whether the information that will be provided by the questionnaire will distinguish between capital cost allowances and corporate tax reductions? Also, can the minister tell the House whether the information was requested on a voluntary or compulsory basis and whether the information that is to be provided was under the condition of truth as outlined in the Statistics Act?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the questionnaire was prepared by Statistics Canada and of course is being requested on a voluntary basis. There is nothing in the law to compel a reply. I am assured, however, that the questionnaires will constitute a very valid survey of the effects of these corporate tax reductions.


Some hon. Members:: Rubbish!


TRANSPORT
Mr. Charles E. Haliburton (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and had given him notice. In his absence perhaps I might address it to the Prime Minister. There is a matter of urgency in southwestern Nova Scotia with regard to the forthcoming cancellation of trips of the Princess of Acadia, the ferry running from Digby to Saint John, with substantial losses to the economy of southwestern Nova Scotia and Saint John. Would the Prime Minister undertake to give the House a statement or have the Minister of Transport give the House a statement on what program the government has to ensure continuation of that ferry service?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to draw the hon. member's question to the attention of the minister.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs concerning the national tri-level meeting. In view of the fact the representatives of 4,500 municipalities of Canada, supported by the governments of Ontario and Alberta, wanted a study of the feasibility of local governments sharing in federally raised taxes, would the minister explain why he opposed even a study of this critical financial problem, and how will it be solved if it is not at least studied?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has serious doubts about a question asked in those terms. When a member asks a minister to explain why a certain action was taken, that is debate. Perhaps the question might be asked in other words, or a supplementary might be asked.


Douglas Roche: Will the minister tell the House how many provinces will be required to approve the task force that has been recommended by the tri-level meeting to study public financing without any reference to tax sharing throughout the various levels of government?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to speak for the provinces here. The proposal for a study of the creation of an in-depth analysis of local government finances was the consensus of the conference and was the position put forward by myself. I would hope that all provinces would agree to an appointment of that kind of task force to examine the development of common data bases with respect to the comparative revenue and expenditure flows of each level of government and rising and emerging trends. I could go on and would be happy to table the statement that was agreed to as a consensus which will
Oral Questions
allow for an extremely useful analysis of the financial needs of local governments and from which, hopefully, progress can be made in the solution of financial problems at all levels of government.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary and then the hon. member for Kent-Essex.


Douglas Roche: In view of the fact the consensus was arrived at as a result of a compromise to save future tri-level meetings, would the minister tell the House why he opposed a study on public financing and revenue sharing?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are back where we started. I suggest to the hon. member that a question asked in those terms is inviting debate and should not be accepted by the Chair.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Can the minister say if he has had representations from the Minister of Agriculture and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association regarding the chaotic condition of the Canadian market for beef, and can he state if a decision has been made on their request for a temporary surcharge to be placed on imports of live and dressed beef? If not, can the minister tell the House when a decision might be expected?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to accept all the premises of the question. I received a copy of the telegram to my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, from the cattlemen. I am in communication with him and a decision will be made shortly one way or the other because of the importance of the question.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has a supplementary to the previous question following which I will recognize the hon. member for Joliette.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact the governments of British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba support the principle that municipalities should obtain a share of corporate and other income taxes and, indeed, the government of Manitoba as of this year has implemented such a policy, can the minister assure the House that the federal


Oral Questions
government is committed to the principle of urban areas sharing in such taxes?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the position is that we are sharing a very substantial portion of income taxes with the provinces and they are free, under the constitution, to make what arrangements they wish with their municipalities. The province of Ontario, for example, which takes the lowest percentage of any province in Canada of the personal income tax, could by bringing that percentage up to the national average of the other provinces raise by that one simple step $300 million for its municipalities.

[ Translation]


PROVISION OF RIDING SECRETARIATS FOR MEMBERS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Last spring, the parties negotiated for a supplementary credit in order to set up secretaryships in each constituency. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether his government is still in favour of such a measure and how the negotiations with the political parties are going?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The government has kept its promise as the hon. member will see in the next supplementary budget estimates which will be submitted very shortly.


FINANCE
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. As I brought to the minister's attention about a month ago the fact that banks were overcharging fishermen with respect to fisheries improvement loans and as the answer of his own department confirmed that the banks are overcharging fishermen on such loans, can the minister indicate what action he will take against the banks for deluding fishermen who are trying to get ahead in the fishery?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to examine that premise again and communicate directly with the hon. gentleman.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Would the minister investigate the facts which show that banks are charging fishermen a greater rate of interest than guaranteed by the government purposely, thus deluding fishermen who are trying to get ahead?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to look into the matter in so far as it comes within my department's jurisdiction.


NATIONAL CAPITAL
Mr. Hugh Poulin (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the zoning freeze that was imposed or voted upon by the city of Ottawa in the early hours yesterday, as this area forms the real heart of the national capital and as the freeze is for a period of 12 months, I would ask the minister if, in the interests of the national capital area, in the interests of all those persons who wish to have a better place in which to live and in the interests of the orderly development of the community, he will consider providing direct financial support to the city of Ottawa so that it can retain adequate additional planners-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, quite some time ago there were negotiations between the National Capital Commission and the city of Ottawa along those lines, which came to no result. I think the idea put forward is an exceedingly good one. I have asked the chairman of the National Capital Commission to meet the mayor of Ottawa and see whether some joint planning process can be established.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and arises out of the information given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources about our present position vis-a-vis oil shipments from the Middle East. Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate what country diverted a vessel destined for Canada and what he is doing, through diplomatic channels, as indicated by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, to determine what the policy of the Arab oil producing countries is toward Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources gave me this information just a very short time before the House assembled at two o'clock. He informed me that it was a shipment which had been held up by Saudi Arabia. We are not sure yet what the significance of this action may have been. I have given instructions to my department to ask the ambassadors from all the Arab states who are accredited and resident in Ottawa to call on me. I have also given instructions that the same questions


are to be raised in the capitals of the countries where we have representation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Am I to understand that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has issued these invitations, these instructions, today? Is there any explanation as to what the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Department of External Affairs have been doing for the past week since the Arab countries announced their cuts? What has he been doing to find out whether this policy applies to Canada? We have been asking questions in the House about it.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, until we received this news today, this was the first indication we have had that this policy would apply to Canada in any way, and we are not even sure whether it is a policy or whether there is some other explanation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is now Acting Prime Minister, explain to the House what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources meant when he said that Canada was trying to find out from the international community-he said this one week ago-whether this applied to Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, needless to say, I do not have to answer for my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I can assure the hon. gentleman that this is the first indication we have had from any source whatever that Canada might be included. Perhaps my hon. friend wants Canada to be included; we do not.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: Therefore, we are not taking the position that any decision-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You have just begun to fight.


Mitchell William Sharp: We are not taking the position that the Arab countries have made such a decision. We hope that is not the case, and we believe this is the best way of pursuing the matter. We do not believe that there should be any policy of confrontation, no matter what the hon. member suggests.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, if, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs today has suggested, the best policy was to ask no questions, what did the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources mean by indicating to the House several times last week that the government was trying to find out from the international community what the position was?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


SUGGESTED CONSULTATION WITH INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS TO DETERMINE OIL DELIVERY POLICY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of
Oral Questions
State for External Affairs in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister. As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources referred merely to contacting Canadian companies and Canadian refineries, while in fact it is international corporations that decide where oil supplies are to come from and where they are to be delivered, will the Acting Prime Minister contact directly the head offices of multinational corporations such as Exxon, where these decisions are made?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if that is necessary, we will do so, but I believe that the Canadian government should deal with Canadian companies. We certainly object when foreign governments deal with Canadian companies directly. This is the policy that has received widespread support throughout Canada, and still continues to do so. We will act here as the government of Canada dealing with Canadian companies.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Yesterday, in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for York East, the President of the Privy Council agreed to give consideration to the introduction of legislation with respect to the tightening up of unemployment insurance. Can the Minister of Manpower and Immigration now tell the House what plans he has to loosen up the regulations which apply to Newfoundland fishermen?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would be interested in getting the hon. member's recommendation. If he can bring forward specific cases in which he feels that my people are being unfair in dealing with claims involving Newfoundland fishermen, I will be glad to look into them. Generally speaking, my understanding is that that is not the case, but I will be glad to consider specific cases.


Walter C. Carter: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What action has the minister taken on the recommendations of the President of the Newfoundland Fishermen, Food and Allied Workers Union in that regard?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, consultations have been taking place and there has been consideration and examination of the benefit policy relating to fishermen which, as you know and as the hon. member knows, is quite separate, and was intended to be separate at the beginning, from the general Unemployment Insurance Act. This is being examined. If and when a new policy is determined, it will be announced in the usual manner.


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary, and then the hon. member for Elgin.


Oral Questions


POSITION OF FUND-REASON FOR DELAY IN REPORT OF ADVISORY COUNCIL-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, if I may ask a general question about unemployment insurance in order to elicit some information from the minister. I wonder if the minister can advise the House whether the fund to which employers and employees contribute is running at a deficit and, if so, by how much?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, these figures will be available to all hon. members in due course. I will be making a statement on this matter in the not too distant future.


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


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Can the minister assure the House-


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. The Chair undertook a moment ago to recognize the hon. member for Elgin, which I have done. I will return to the hon. member in a moment if he will allow me to do so.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Can the Minister of Manpower and Immigration inform the House when he will be making the statement? I hope it will be in the not too distant future. Will he touch on the entire cost, including the administrative cost of the fund? Also, will he touch on the fact that, as he indicated before, the administrative cost will not exceed $145 million? Will he give some reason why the advisory council has not submitted its second report as it is certainly very instrumental in seeing what happened with the Unemployment Insurance Commission? Can he give us that assurance so that he will make a clean breast-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: This is an extremely important matter. The minister was about to stand and answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member please resume his seat. The minister will be recognized for the purpose of answering the question.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to examine all facets of the hon. member's representations and do my best, as the hon. member says, to carry out what I hope I have always carried out, that is making a clean breast of things.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Will the minister inform the House as to the date on which he intends or will be able to introduce his bill to provide financial assistance to urban municipalities for railroad relocations?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister of Transport will be able to introduce that bill some time in the month of November. We have completed all of the processes required for introduction of the bill and we are simply waiting for the drafting to be completed.


LAND ASSEMBLY PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE NO WINDFALL PROFITS FOR PRIVATE SPECULATION AND NO RESALE TO PRIVATE SECTOR
Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs arising out of the tri-level conference in Edmonton and the emphasis given to the federal government's land assembly program. What arrangements will be made in establishing the purchase price of land assembled under the program to ensure that federal funds for land assembly will not simply amount to windfall profits for private speculators at the expense of taxpayers?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I certainly give the hon. member that assurance. That, of course, is obviously not the purpose of public intervention in land assembly. The proposal will be to dispose of the land in public land assemblies, either by way of sale or lease at below market rates and assign certain parts of it to low income housing. If lands are sold at market or close to market prices, that element of profit will not be returned to the government, as has been the case in the past. It will be applied within the land assembly for the provision of municipal community services, taking that cost off the municipality involved and thereby making public land assembly more attractive to municipalities.


Nels Edwin Nelson: Can the minister assure the House that land acquired under the program will not be sold back to the private sector, but will be held or made available for leasehold arrangements?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the land will be disposed of by either sale or lease. I am hopeful we can do a good deal of leasing to show the value of that technique in lowering the price of land and housing. However, I think it would be unwise, especially because these are federal-provincial relationships, to make an unequivocal commitment that there will be no sales.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that directed to the Minister of Finance by the hon. member for Kent-Essex. I direct it to the Minister of Agriculture. As a result of the abnormally high import of United States cattle into Canada, Ontario in particular, which is graded under U.S. standards as No. 3 and No. 4 but has been railgraded in Canada as No. 1 and No. 2, does the minister have any definite plans to immediately offset this practice which is further jeopardizing our Canadian beef market price structure?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that cattle from the United States being brought here for slaughter do not meet the high quality standards we have set. They are of an inferior quality to Canadian beef. I just received the final reports on grading in Canada. When buying American beef, people are buying a lot of fat; I can tell you that. I have submitted a paper to my colleague to be considered tomorrow.


HIGH WATER LEVELS OF GREAT LAKES-SUGGESTED ASSISTANCE OF ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Defence. It concerns the continuing hardship faced by residents along the shore of the Great Lakes as a result of high water levels. Has the minister followed up his commitment to consider the use of technical and personnel facilities of his department to assist municipalities and individuals who will be facing renewed difficulties this approaching winter? In short, will the federal government at this late date finally step in to assist those residents facing this difficulty?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, as I have explained before, and I think the hon. member knows this, I cannot move National Defence personnel in to correct a flood problem without an invitation and request from the provincial authorities. We have had no such request, although we have been in contact through the Emergency Measures Organization with the province of Ontario.


MANPOWER
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. What formula will be used in the allocation of funds to each constituency under the current LIP program?
Oral Questions


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the allocation between provinces is based on a formula reflecting unemployment, with an adjustment for native people who may not be in the labour force. As between constituencies, the allocations are based on a similar formula adjusted as a result of consultation with the provincial governments.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Can the minister advise when the
announcement will be made as to the allocation of funds for the LIP program?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we will be dealing with allocations within the next few days. I will let the hon. member know shortly what his constituency can expect.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Justice. There have been vacancies in the county courts of British Columbia for a number of months resulting in a situation where cases set down for trial this month will not be reached until May or June. Will the minister advise when the appointments will be made to fill the three vacancies so the work in that court can continue?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, a number of appointments, including some to the county courts, were made last week in the province of British Columbia. We are very energetically continuing our now common practice of trying to seek out the best possible candidates for the available positions. As soon as these can be put in place, appointments will be made.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I understood the minister to say a number of appointments had been to the county courts in British Columbia last week. I would ask the minister to check his information and advise me.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to send the information to the hon. member.


SUPPLYING OF CANADIAN OIL TO CHERRY POINT AS ALTERNATIVE TO ALASKAN OIL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the statement made to the House that the government is now reconsidering the guarantee of supplies to the Cherry Point oil refinery as an alternative to the Juan de Fuca Strait route for Alaska oil, will the minister advise specifically the alternate proposal of the government in order to avoid the consequences of that? In

Oral Questions
other words, we not only want to know when we are going to fight, but how we are going to fight.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, following up my answer in the House on October 22, my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources made an offer yesterday to supply oil to Cherry Point. The United States said it was not at all interested.


SUPPLYING OF CANADIAN OIL TO CHERRY POINT AS ALTERNATIVE TO ALASKAN OIL-ALLEGED CHANGE IN POLICY-DISCUSSION WITH DR. KISSINGER
John Allen Fraser: Could I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs how it is that earlier this week, on October 22, our policy was not to supply, yet, yesterday, we offered the Americans the oil?


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. member says that is what I stated in the House, but if he would look at the record he would find I said our policy was under consideration and reconsideration. I did not say we had decided not to do that.


An hon. Member:: Known as the revolving door policy.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Can the minister assure the House that this matter will be given top priority when Dr. Kissinger visits this country in November?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is one of the first items on our program.


FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the statement made yesterday by the Chairman of the Food Prices Review Board that she was "naked of protection" because she has no minister to whom to report, I ask the hon. gentleman if he is prepared to be a modern Sir Gallahad and provide this modern-day Lady Godiva with legislative clothing?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The lady already has an important legislative garment given by parliament in the form of the Inquiries Act. I understand the board is meeting with the food prices committee next week. The hon. member would then have an opportunity to discuss directly with the chairman the need for additional couture.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the minister whether he shares the view expressed by the lady yesterday when she said she did not anticipate any decrease in food prices? Does the minister subscribe to that view?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question asked in those terms is irregular.


PENITENTIARIES
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of continued tension at British Columbia Penitentiary, and in view of the request of inmates and of the guards for an independent inquiry to be made, will the minister now reconsider the position he has previously taken and appoint an independent inquiry into the circumstances of the riot at the penitentiary?


William Warren Allmand: I must point out to the hon. member that we did hold an inquiry by a management review group in September, and yesterday I asked the correctional investigator, the ombudsman, to conduct an inquiry at the B.C. Penitentiary also, and I will await her report. I must repeat that I do not think the answer to the problems at the B.C. Penitentiary is another inquiry.


POSSIBILITY OF INTERIM PAYMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. It follows from one I asked on October 16. Since western grain farmers are receiving approximately 45 per cent of the expected final payment, can the minister assure the House that no later than the first month of the new year, that is, January, we can expect to see an interim payment made to farmers who have delivered grain to the Canadian Wheat Board?


Otto Emil Lang: Under the Wheat Board act, the question of a recommendation as to an interim payment and, thus, the initiative, is one for the Canadian Wheat Board. I know the Board has very much in mind the question whether a payment should be made. The Board is receiving recommendations that it not be made until the end of the year. I am sure they would, at that time, reconsider the position in accordance with the circumstances then prevailing.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that in March of this year the CBC



finalised its five-year accelerated coverage plan whose object is to bring radio and television coverage to all unserved communities in Canada with populations of 500 or more, may I ask whether this plan has been submitted to the Secretary of State and to the cabinet for consideration and approval?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: It has
been submitted to me, but it has not yet been submitted to Cabinet.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: Bearing in mind the fact that many urban areas are getting all kinds of media coverage, including a planned extension of FM radio and the CBC, may I ask when the people who live in the rural areas, especially of the north, can expect a decision to be reached on this matter, one which has been hanging fire for the last six or eight months while the government has been sitting on its fanny?


James Hugh Faulkner: That is a lot of nonsense, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that as the hon. member will see, when we come forward with the accelerated coverage plan, there are inherent problems in it. I attach a great deal of importance to this undertaking. I have said so in the hon. member's constituency, and I am proceeding with it as rapidly as possible.


HIGH WATER LEVELS ON GREAT LAKES-CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR USE OF ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL-NEED FOR REQUEST FROM PROVINCE
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, I should like to return to the Minister of National Defence for the purpose of clarifying one of his earlier answers. The minister told us he had been in touch with officials of the Emergency Measures Organization of the Province of Ontario. Can he tell us whether there are contingency plans for the use of the forces available to the Department of National Defence, and of expert services, and that the only thing needed to put those plans into operation is a formal request from the Province of Ontario?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is correct.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as minister of health for the Yukon, a question which also affects him in his capacity as minister of health for the Northwest Territories. Has he today received a telegram from various nursing stations, hospitals and health centres throughout the Yukon
Canada Pension Plan
requesting negotiations for the purpose of relieving the nurses from the imposition of the disgustingly low arbitral award they have received under his department?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I have received various telegrams in the course of the last week but I have not seen the telegrams received today.


Erik Nielsen: Will the minister assure the nurses and their organizations in these northern communities that negotiations will be recommenced for the purpose of coming to a more realistic settlement?


Marc Lalonde: I will assure the nurses and the hon. member that my department is greatly concerned about the welfare and health of all the people in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. We hope that the laws of parliament and Canada will be obeyed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There are a number of members wishing to ask supplementaries. We have reached the end of the question period, but perhaps the House might allow the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands to ask her supplementary before Orders of the Day are called.


ARBITRATION AWARD TO NURSES-REQUEST FOR MEETING WITH MINISTERS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: In
view of the current salary crisis affecting nurses throughout the whole of the federal civil service, would the minister undertake, along with his colleagues, the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Solicitor General, to meet personally with representatives of these nurses to discuss the arbital award and the salaries paid to them which placed them in a lower salary bracket than their counterparts outside the federal service?


Marc Lalonde: I will check as to whether I have received such a request. I am sure my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs and I, myself, will be available, as usual, to all groups for whom we are responsible and who want to see us. I wish to stress, however, that the level of remuneration and the question of salaries is not my responsibility, nor is it that of the Minister of Veterans Affairs.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-190, to amend the Canada Pension Plan, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
[Stage Direction]
Canada Pension Plan
Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before putting the motions which a^e before the House at the present time, I think I should refer, first of all, to two of them, motions one and two in the name of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). The Chair has studied these motions and has some reservations as to their procedural acceptability. There is, to my way of thinking, a distinct possibility that these motions are beyond the scope of clause one which they seek to amend. I would be pleased to hear whether hon. members wish to enlighten and guide the Chair as to the acceptability or regularity of these two motions. If after hearing hon. members my judgment is confirmed, then these two motions cannot be put, in which case I suggest we proceed with motion No. 3, which I believe also stands in the name of the hon. member for Crowfoot.


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise to speak to your point of order in which you suggested that you are, if I understood you correctly, in doubt as to whether motions Nos. 1 and 2 are in fact in order. Basically, motion No. 1 provides for the deletion of provisions relating to certain tenets and teachings, and substitutes the provision that anyone who can prove that he or she has an assured income and can look after themselves in their later years should be given the same opportunity as those of certain religious faiths. I really do not see how this is beyond the scope of the bill; it makes the bill applicable to all Canadians.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I take it that at this moment we are discussing the procedural acceptability of motion No. 1.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, as I suggested a moment ago to the hon. member for Crowfoot, that motions Nos. 1 and 2 appear to be in doubt for the same reason. This is why I mentioned both. If the hon. member wants to argue separately the two proposed motions, I am prepared to allow him to do so; but what I suggested was that if these two amendments were found to be out of order, we then proceed with motion No. 3, which appears to be in order, at least as far as the Chair is concerned and unless arguments are submitted to the contrary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to make my brief remarks respecting motions Nos. 1 and 2 at the same time. My previous comment was simply that I thought we were dealing with No. 1 only.
It seems to me that both these amendments, Nos. 1 and 2, are in effect amendments to the original act rather than to the amending bill. They propose to introduce into the Canada Pension Plan, the original act, conditions that are not there, namely the requirement of Canadian citizenship and the making of certain insurance or annuity arrangements. It is for that reason that I support Your Honour's view that both these amendments are not in order.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, without discussing the merits of these amendments in any way, I must say I find the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rather strange. The object of Bill

C-190 is to introduce an exception to the general category of persons who shall pay premiums to the Canada Pension Plan. It categorizes certain people who shall not pay. The hon. member for Crowfoot has merely introduced a restriction, and if there is to be a limitation on, or a closer definition of, those people who are going to be excepted, then it has to be introduced by way of an amendment at this stage. It certainly could not be introduced as an amendment to the original act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is not a restriction. It goes further.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is a restriction on the category of people who are going to be exempted from the provisions of the act by Bill C-190. In essence, the hon. member for Crowfoot is simply saying that these people have to be more closely defined by the minister by the introduction of a restriction on those exempted. With the greatest respect, in all logic I cannot see how an amendment can be introduced other than at this time. I am not saying one way or the other whether the exemption of the hon. member for Crowfoot is a right one, but procedurally I cannot fault him.
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I should like merely to say a few words on the procedural aspects of the first two motions. It seems to me that the motions named by the hon. member considerably extend the very narrow limits set in this bill whose subject matter is to restrict it to certain religious groups whose some tenet of their faith prohibit them from contributing to group insurance plans.
As drafted, the hon. member's amendment would considerably extend those limits, not only to groups but especially to individuals, and also greatly expand the scope of the bill.
Indeed, the subject matter of the bill is so much extended that it seems to be effectively altered and that we are now moving a proposal which is, for all practical purposes, entirely different from the subject matter of the bill already considered by the House. Consequently, I feel that such an amendment should rather be moved as a private bill.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Crowfoot has already submitted his argument.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have an additional argument.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to be unfair to him, but having given the matter serious thought before suggesting at this time that I had some reservations procedurally in relation to these two amendments, I am sure the hon. member will appreciate I would not have made this suggestion unless I had felt we should take another very close look at them.
I think the point made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare is worth considering. I have looked at motions Nos. 1 and 2 and to me they appear to be defective in that they purport to substitute a financial qualification in lieu of a requirement of a religious nature, as set out in


the bill and passed on second reading. It seems to me that the amendments proposed by the hon. member go beyond the scope of the clause under consideration. I think they are a new proposition.
I think there is merit in the comment of the minister that this proposal is so different that perhaps it should be brought forward in an entirely new legislative measure. I think the House would expect the Chair to look at a matter such as this as subjectively as possible, which is what I have done, and I cannot see how procedurally I can accept the motions and put them to the House. I, therefore, suggest at this time that we put motion No. 3 and postpone any procedural debate on other possible difficulties until later. With the consent of the House, the Chair will at this time put motion No. 3, in the name of the hon. member for Crowfoot.
Mir. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot) moved:
That Bill C-190, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, be amended in clause 1 by deleting the words "general level" in line 13 at page 3 and substituting therefor the words:
"Canadian standard".
He said: It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that we are dealing with the motion listed as No. 3, which deals particularly with Clause 1 appearing at page 3 of the bill relating to the general level of living.
The bill sets out an exemption in respect of certain members of the Canadian community who will not be paying into the Canada pension plan and will not be drawing pensions when they become pensionable, that is widows, disabled or those of retirement age. It sets certain members of the Canadian community aside and says they no longer have to make contributions so, naturally, they will no longer receive pensions.
The minister has to satisfy himself that these people belong to certain religious organizations which have certain tenets and teachings. I understand in this case it is the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) rather than the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) who must be satisfied that the dependents of these people will be supported to their general level of living.
Surely, there is not a member of this House who would like to see the establishment of certain ghettos in our Canadian community which would be reduced to living on a lower standard than other Canadians, but surely this is the danger we are facing. Certain people provide for themselves in a very meagre manner. They live a very plain and simple life as their teaching instructs them. What this bill provides is that they must maintain the general level of living to which they are accustomed.
We in our society continually boast that our standard of living is improving, and that we are now second to the United States or perhaps second to Sweden, but we continue to hope that our standard of living will continue to improve. I have been trying to equate our standard of living with something that can be easily understood, but I think it is something different to different people. By this bill, we are suggesting that these people can continue to exist at the level to which they have been accustomed as
Canada Pension Plan
far back as their beginnings in the early 1500's in Czechoslovakia.
To my way of thinking, we will be creating, by the adoption of this bill, ghettos with a lower standard of living for certain segments of our Canadian population, and I believe this is a mistake. The amendment substitutes certain things for what is referred to here as "their general level of living". What is meant in Canada by "the standard of living"? I suggest it has something to do with education, something to do with our birth rate, something to do with the number of deaths per thousand births and so on. I suggest it also has something to do with the wellbeing of the individuals of our society. Are they free to do what they want or are they contained by certain strict laws or regulations?
If we pass this bill in its present form, I suggest we will be turning a blind eye to what might well become a serious problem in years ahead. I was disappointed that representatives of a second group of people in Canada were not asked to appear before the committee considering this matter. There are two obvious groups which will seek exemption under this clause. One of the groups is the Old Mennonite Order in Ontario, representatives of which did appear before the committee. The other group which will seek exemption is that group of Hutterites in western Canada. There are more than 30 colonies in the province of Alberta, some 20 colonies in the province of Manitoba and probably in excess of 10 colonies in the province of Saskatchewan.
I would like to examine representatives of those groups to find out exactly what is their general level of living and what is meant by this term. I think this is important because those who belong to the Old Order of Mennonites live as individuals farming their own lands, whereas those who belong to the Hutterian Brethren on the Prairies live in a communal way, and they are strictly confined to living in those communes. Their education is confined to that provided by the commune. I was disappointed that the acting chairman of the committee did not feel obliged to call representatives of that group before the committee, and I was disappointed that I was called away from the committee to make a speech in the House on the matter of CNR financing. I feel that, in a way, the committee members were not very diligent in their duties in not asking that representatives of that group be called before the committee to justify this request for exemption.
The argument has been advanced that their standard of living has been good enough for them and, therefore, we as parliamentarians should not interfere. I wonder if this attitude would have been all right 100 years ago in respect of our Indians, and whether it would be all right today in respect to the Canadian Eskimo in the north. I suggest that we say it is not all right and that we must show these people the modern white man's way of living today. We suggest that we will take away their dogs and give them ski-doos, and that our ways are better. On the other hand, we are saying to these groups that their standard of living is good enough as long as they do not interfere with us.
That is all well and good, but we must remember that people are leaving these groups and coming into the general Canadian community with a much lower standard of education and a much different concept. It might be said


Canada Pension Plan
that I am talking about only 20 per cent of the young people living in Hutterite colonies and that some who leave do return. Perhaps more will leave in the years ahead. If they do, they will be entering our communities with a severe handicap. Whether we acknowledge the handicap that we are indirectly placing upon these young people is one matter, but this is an obligation we cannot escape today.
It has been argued as well that if we allow certain groups within our Canadian community to be exempt from contributing to the Canada pension plan, we should allow other groups if they can justify the request in the sense that they are satisfied with their present standard of living and believe their young people will look after them in their old age. Why can we not allow these people to be exempt? I have always felt that the Conservative party has stood for the rights of the individual, that the individual was all supreme and should be allowed out of a scheme if he wants out. There should not be any compulsion to join.
However, I noted that in the committee the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) stated he believed that for the sake of the over-all effect of the pension plan, in order to be portable, it must include all people, but he felt that we should accept the application of these two bodies to be excluded from the Canadian community because contributing to it was against their religion. This argument is made from time to time, but it does not stand up. They can pay the premiums but they can never collect the pension unless they take out a social security number. If the department does not force them to take out a social security number, they do not take part in an insurance scheme, according to their way of thinking.
When the Mennonite people were before the committee they stated quite clearly that some of their members were tempted to pay the premiums and take advantage of the plan. One witness admitted that one of the members of the community in which he lived had, in fact, applied for and received the old age pension. However, this is against the teachings of their church and therefore that person either was asked to return it or to leave the church. There is no real record showing whether or not these people accept the security of insurance. No one can really tell because, in the application for family allowances or old age pensions, religious qualifications are not set out. So there is no record of whether or not they obtain insurance or welfare benefits. They are prepared to give out all the welfare they can but, because they are subject to receiving payments under the plan, they consider it to be insurance.
If they never take out a social security number, they cannot receive any payment, and therefore the contributions can be treated as welfare so far as they are concerned. The possibility exists for the members of those religious groups to leave their sheltered communities and join our society, at which time they can join the Canada Pension Plan. Once they enter the labour force, they automatically find themselves making contributions to the Canada Pension Plan and accepting our standard of living as well as our welfare security when they become disabled, of pensionable age, and so on.

It is interesting to note that in the province of Alberta the Hutterites make payments into the medical insurance scheme. So, the differentiation between welfare and insurance made by the Old Order of Mennonites who believe that taking out insurance is against their religion but accepting welfare is not, is not made by the Hutterites. This is one of the reasons I was disappointed when they were not called before the committee. I might point out that the Hutterites farm over one million acres of land in the province of Alberta alone. They have big farms and they make a separation between their religion and their business. As I pointed out previously, the Income Tax Review Board made a finding in a test case involving five Hutterite colonies. As recorded at page 19 of the judgment, the judge found the following:
I have reached the conclusion that the appellants were farmers in the full sense of the word.
So, in many respects they can be considered in our Canadian community as farmers, but they also try to keep their religion separate. Their whole lives evolve round the church, and they suggest that this bill goes against their religious beliefs. Members of the Old Order of Mennonites, when they were before the committee, pointed out that in their view there could be a separation between the church and the government and that this bill really causes the two to conflict. I should like to read the following section in the bill:
The Minister ... is satisfied that the religious sect
(i) is a religious organization that has established tenets and teachings that oppose the acceptance of benefits from any private or public insurance . ..
As I pointed out, the Hutterites in the province of Alberta may take out medicare because their tenets and teachings are not necessarily opposed to that form of insurance. The section goes on to read:
(ii) does, as a practice, make provisions for the support of dependant members that are reasonable in view of their general level of living,
In some of his speeches made over the past few years, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) appeared to be saying that we must ensure in Canada a guaranteed annual income because a certain percentage of our population lives at an unsatisfactory level. He hopes to convince the other members of the cabinet some day that 30 per cent of our population, or whatever percentage Professor Bates, the secretary of the Welfare Council of Canada suggested, are in fact living at a lower than satisfactory standard of living. The minister suggested that everyone in our country deserves an adequate and fair standard of living. Yet, we have before the House a piece of legislation which sets aside a segment of our Canadian population which wants to continue to live their lives at a standard which could be compared to the standard of the nineteenth century or, I may even say, to the sixteenth century.
I think it is only fair to point out that we are speaking here of around 7,000 people in the province of Alberta, and I do not know how many thousands in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. We were told in the committee that this legislation would affect in the neighbourhood of 2,500 of Old Order Mennonites in the province of Ontario and 3,000 children in the same province. We are now saying to those


3,000	children that the standard of living which their forefathers had is good enough for them, and that they will be locked into it. Mr. Speaker, I have always been proud of the standard of living which my father was able to give me, but many of us today would not want to go back to the standard of living of our forefathers.
The question might well be asked as to how we are locking these children into an earlier standard of living by exempting them under the provisions of this bill. As an individual, I earn a salary and pay premiums to the Canada Pension Plan. If I become disabled, in theory I have security. If I reach pensionable age, I know I have a nest egg of some kind, although whether it would enable me to enjoy the standard of living to which I am accustomed could be debated. But these children as they grow up will not pay premiums to the Canada Pension Plan, and will not have that nest egg when they are old.
What happens if 20 or 30 years from now they want to leave the Old Order of Mennonites? All their security is represented in the toil they have put into their own sheltered communities. It could be argued that their religion binds them in this way, but it is strange that only 4 per cent of the Mennonites in Canada are applying to be exempted under this bill. What about the other 96 per cent? Are they less religious? Do they not believe in the Mennonite teachings? They believe in those teachings, Mr. Speaker. But as pointed out by the deputy minister before the committee, many of the Mennonites have asked that their missionaries abroad be allowed to make contributions to the Canada Pension Plan so that when they return to spend their retirement years in Canada they will have a nest egg in the Canada Pension Plan. This destroys the argument that contributing to the plan is against their religion.
If it is against their religion, I point out that they do not have to take out a social security number. I well remember the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) stating in this House that nobody would be forced to take out a social security number. If the Mennonites do not take out social security numbers, then their payments become welfare payments and not insurance premiums. Then, the minister would not have to make this severe judgment with regard to their standard of living, whether it be comparable with that of the rest of Canadians or not.
Many have argued that in the communal type of living carried on by Hutterites, the young are able to look after the elderly people and have done so since about 1500. But in Ontario the Mennonites farm and live as individual families, and looking after the elderly may not be so easy. Any piece of legislation that sets aside a certain group of Canadians and says that laws affecting all other Canadians will not be applied to that group should be examined very closely. If we allow 4 per cent of the Canadian Mennonites to be exempted under this bill, will the other 96 per cent come along at a later date and say, "You did this for the Old Order of Mennonites in Ontario, why not do it now for the Old Order of Mennonites in Alberta?" What answer will the Minister of National Health and Welfare give when confronted with that argument?
Canada Pension Plan
Perhaps the minister will stoutly maintain that they did not come forward at the right time, and therefore he will be heartless enough not to listen to them. I see him nodding his head in the affirmative. I would not think he would do that because I have always found him to be a gentle, kindly person, sympathetic to people's problems. If members of the Old Order of Mennonites in Crowfoot constituency approach him later on this question, I hope he will be sympathetic to them.
As I pointed out earlier, the report made under the Communal Properties Act in Alberta sets out the population and the land they farm. The extent of that land has grown since that report was published. It shows these people farm over one million acres in Alberta, and gives their number as 7,000. These are people only of the Hutter-ite faith. I think this bill is creating a ghetto, and some day a percentage of the young people in that society will regret that they have been excluded from the provisions of the Canada Pension Plan. As a matter of fact, some 20 per cent of the members are leaving that society right now and joining ours.
I should like the bill to be more specific about their standard of living and the Canadian standard of living as well as the "established tenets and teachings". When asked about these tenets and teachings the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who was before the committee, and the deputy minister, could not tell us what was meant. It is generally accepted that they look after the elderly members of the group, but one of the members of the Old Order of Mennonite community admitted that one of the senior gentlemen had applied under the Canada Pension Plan. This would suggest that he, at least, was not satisfied with their standard of living and wanted something better. Many of them do that and many apply for the family allowance. One does not have to reveal his religion on the application forms for these benefits, so neither the Minister of National Health and Welfare nor the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) has any way of knowing who is applying. Many of these people do apply and thus are expressing dissatisfaction with the standard of living provided to them within the Order.
As is the case with our own young people, their children do not know what life holds for them and what road they should follow. They have to be guided by their parents, and if we pass this bill without amending that clause we are assisting their parents in holding their children to a narrow, old standard of living comparable to that of their grandfathers. We are not satisfied with that approach for them as we have not been satisfied with it for ourselves, nor for the Indians or Eskimos. We should not set up ghettos and reserves to shelter people.
I should like to read an excerpt from the judgment in a case which went before the tax review board concerning five Hutterian brethren. After quoting at length from the book "Confession of Faith" the judgment reads this way:
That is enough to conclude from the above texts that paying taxes is not against their religious beliefs and practice and neither against the teachings of their philosophers and theologians. Income tax is a necessity to make sure that the citizens of Canada will benefit from it. It is a necessity to make Canada a better


Canada Pension Plan
country for all Canadians including the Hutterian Brethren church's members.
If we set up these reserves within our community, will these people live solely unto themselves? Is that what they are doing? No; they market their products through our marketing system and therefore should pay part of the cost of making that system effective. But if we allow their standard of living to be below ours, will it not also affect their ability to produce, to compete and to provide food and necessities for the Canadian community of which they are part, whether or not they want to separate from it? There is no question in my mind but that it will. If we consider that the standard of living includes the educational level of a group of people-and it must-then if we allow them a lower standard of living, we will impose on them a handicap in their production of goods within our marketing system.
I am not in any way being derogatory to the Hutterian Brethren in the province of Alberta; they are a very industrious and hard-working people and so far have been able to keep up with the rest of the province. Many people say that they are only farmers and that somewhere in their teachings it is said that they must remain on the land. That is not really the fact, Mr. Speaker; actually their teachings protect their concept of communal living and their concept of that protects them from sin and shelters them from trading and dealing with people. They take their teachings from one of their early writers who states-and I am speaking from memory-that they shall not be dealers but shall be producers of primary goods, that "sin lurketh like a hinge on a door between the door and the door jamb" and if they become dealers they will be tempted to sin. Therefore they want to remain primary producers, thus sheltering themselves from the evils of our way of life. Many of us would be far better off if somebody had sheltered us, but in the long run we would be worse off if we were not prepared to meet the troubles of today and tomorrow. We would fail to develop character as men prepared to play our part in building a peaceful world.
This is really what we are saying: set this group aside and let them continue their way. We do not really need a cultural, technical or medical contribution from them; we will go and prosper without their help but let them live in our community. Mr. Speaker, it is wrong, morally and spiritually, for us as Canadians to allow that situation to exist. I know all about the Bill of Rights and freedom of religion and I have dealt with that. It is not against their religion, provided they do not take out a social security number. Nobody has yet said that anybody in Canada will be forced to take a social security number, so it is not against their religion and that is not an influence until they themselves make it so.
I urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare to consider the amendment very closely. It suggests that instead of their general level of living, the Canadian standard of living be applied to determine whether their parents, their elderly and their disabled are properly provided for. We would not then have the ghetto, those pockets in our society which will continue to send out people who are perhaps not as healthy or as rugged and able to stand up to the trials and tribulations of today and tomorrow, and who perhaps have not sufficient education to cope with our society.

Having said that, I urge this House to move cautiously on this bill. Apparently the Minister of National Health and Welfare is under an illusion. He thinks that he alone can introduce a guaranteed income for all Canadians, so that all those not enjoying the standard of living which he thinks ought to be enjoyed by Canadians will be able to enjoy that standard. Yet, he suggests that there are some who will not be affected by the guaranteed income plan. How can a minister, who is a stalwart believer in the idea of all Canadians enjoying an adequate and equitable standard of living, come forward with a bill and say, "But we will allow people who are farming over one million acres in Alberta and probably one million in Saskatchewan or Manitoba not to contribute to the plan. We will allow them to be subjected to the same standard of life that their grandfathers and their grandfathers before them enjoyed in years gone by." I am puzzled to understand how the minister can advocate these two courses, especially as he wants to eradicate poverty in Canada. How can he allow this situation to exist?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to lend my support to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). It is difficult to add to what the hon. member has said without being repetitious, because he has pretty well covered the waterfront, so to speak. There are a couple of concerns I wish to underline with regard to this legislation and the amendment before us.
I think most people espousing a small "c" conservative philosophy are in favour of a society in which every person lives at the level he wishes. Of course, the ideal is never attainable in this world in which we are fortunate or unfortunate, depending on one's outlook, to live. Society must organize itself and abide by certain rules and regulations. I think it has been shown that a society is probably happier if there is not a great divergence in standard between those at the so-called top of the heap and those at the bottom. I am trying to say that, possibly, a society should be homogenous. Perhaps there ought not to be too great a variation between the level of those at the top and those at the bottom, so that there is less room for conflict, envy and several other human failings.
Let me say a word or two about the price that certain people are prepared to pay for their beliefs. I do not think any of us can exist in society without making some sort of contribution, financial or otherwise, towards the maintenance of that society. We do that in order that we may live with our fellow citizens. One can cite examples taken from all religions which show that people must make sacrifices, monetary or otherwise, in order to maintain that way of life in which the people believe.
Actually, I would support some sort of legislation, which might be presented to this House, which would allow a person's contributions to the Canada Pension Plan to be completely voluntary. As I said when I spoke on this bill on second reading, I have no sympathy for the concept of the Canada Pension Plan and did not favour that legisla-


tion which was introduced and passed some years before I was elected. As a means of protesting personally against this plan, I have failed to take out a social insurance number. I still do not have a social insurance number, even though I get periodic messages from the Department of National Revenue saying that I do not have a social insurance number.
I dare the minister, who is sitting on the other side of the House, to instruct the department to lay charges against me for not taking out a social insurance number. The messages from the department tell me that I am in breach of the legislation. Time will tell if the department will ever catch up with me. The department has wasted a great deal of postage in trying to encourage me to take out a social insurance number. Actually, the government of Canada paid for a young employee to go from Calgary to Drumheller, a distance of 90 miles; that employee visited me and reminded me that I had not taken out a social insurance number. An attempt was made to persuade me that I should take out such number. However, I do not believe in the Canada Pension Plan. If I do not believe in it, I do not think I should participate in it. On the other hand, if I cannot get out of my obligations under the Canada Pension Plan, I do not see why anybody else should escape them, either. That is my position in a nutshell.
I would be happy to let anybody out from under, so long as that right is extended to everybody who wants to get out. So long as the plan is compulsory and applies to everybody in this country, I do not see why certain small groups should be allowed to opt out, merely because they do not want to participate, as the hon. member for Crowfoot said. If they do not want to take out social insurance numbers, they can look on the contributions to the plan as a tax, because they are a tax. The Canada Pension Plan will never be sound actuarially. It is very much like the unemployment insurance plan, although it is really quite wrong to use the term, "insurance" when talking about that part of our statute law.
As I said before, when you find various groups living together in society, life is much easier for everybody if their respective levels of life are not too different. Federal and provincial legislatures in this country set minimum standards and, minimum wages. They establish health standards and various other standards. In the end these all add to the cost of doing business.
As the hon. member for Crowfoot said, the people about whom we are talking at present are primarily interested in the business of farming. I suppose many city dwellers think that somehow the seeds get in the ground, that the rain makes them grow, the wind threshes the grain and the crop sort of falls into bins, without anybody making too great an effort. The truth is that food production is a pretty specialized operation in this country, and certain costs are associated with that business. I have still to be convinced that contributions to the Canada Pension Plan are not part of the cost of doing business. As the Hutterite brethren of our community farm one million acres or more in Alberta alone, it is evident that they are engaged in the business of farming in a large way. If they are not subject to this tax, which in fact is what the Canada Pension Plan contribution is, they will have an unfair competitive
Canada Pension Plan
advantage over their neighbours. They should be subject to the same cost of doing business as everyone else.
We can go on to the amendment, level of living. In my opinion, this is just another step toward giving more arbitrary power to a minister of the Crown. If we continue on this way, we will not have any laws that are real laws. We will have regulations that some individuals can interpret. No one in this country will know where he stands. However, the fact remains that to have orderly development in this country, we must know where we stand and not be at the mercy of some chief administrator.
After all, most ministers are merely the political heads of departments. In many ways, they do not have too much input in the actual decisions made in their departments. They tend to be at the mercy of the bureaucracy. The more we allow the bureaucracy what is, in effect, taxing powers without any responsibility to the electors of this country, the more we will go down the road toward political serfdom.
This amendment should be given favourable consideration by members of this House. After all, how are we going to define a level of living? What are the parameters? How are we to look at that objectively? The Canadian standard of living is probably high enough. However, we all recognize the fact that it varies from coast to coast. It is not the same in every region, but at least there has developed some sort of underpinning for a definition of the Canadian standard of living.
Possibly Statistics Canada now has the situation in hand. Maybe they can tell us what the various provincial standards are across the country. This could be used as a basis for some measurement. What are to be the guidelines to determine the level of living? I think that clause could raise no end of problems in the administration of this act. I urge all members to give serious consideration to allowing the amendment of the hon. member for Crowfoot.


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, if there are no other points to be raised, perhaps I can comment briefly on the arguments that have been made.
I wish to point out that the amendment would not seem to accomplish what the mover had intended because it would make the section read that the test would then be "their Canadian standard". I am sure this leaves the House in complete confusion as to the intention of the clause as it would be amended.
Apart from that, as hon. members know, the Canada Pension Plan is an earnings related plan. For each individual, the general level of living for the contributor is the test for those who contribute. It does not seem unreasonable that the general level of living for this particular group, or the individuals making the applications for exemption, would be the test in this section.
Even if the hon. member had drafted his amendment, as I think he intended, to try to relate this criterion to a Canadian cross-country standard, members will realize very quickly the extreme difficulty of defining and interpreting that phrase. As the minister who would have to be responsible for making that interpretation, I appeal to the


Canada Pension Plan
House not to impose such bureaucratic chaos on the department and on the people who would have to be subject to a ruling.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is necessary, but possibly I might move a sub-amendment adding the words "their general level".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member has already had the floor. If he is rising on a point of order, he will be recognized for that purpose.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for drawing this to my attention. The amendment should read "by deleting the words 'their general level'" and adding the words "Canadian standard". This was a typographical error on my part. In my rush to file these amendments, I deleted the word "their". If the House agrees, I will move that subamendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Perhaps the Chair could make a much simpler suggestion. A decision would, of course, be taken later. I suggest the simplest way would be for the hon. member to seek the unanimous consent of the House to modify his amendment by adding the word "the" in front "Canadian" and delete the word "their" in front of "general level".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) took the words right out of my mouth with regard to an error when drafting the amendment. I wonder if I could have the privilege of drawing to the attention of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) that his French version is correct. His French is better than his English. The French version of the amendment takes out the word "their" and puts in "the Canadian standard of living". All he needs is the authority of the House to treat the English version as though it says what is said in French.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the hon. member suggesting that we proceed in French for the remainder of the debate? From what has been said, I think the House should allow the Chair to make the correction to make the amendment read the same as it reads in French.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I think we could agree to that provided the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) does not make the same speech now in French.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would like to, but I don't think I could.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those in favour will please say, yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those against will please say, nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 25, the recorded division on the proposed amendment stands deferred.
Order. The Chair is at this point questioning the validity of the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). It would appear, at first glance, anyway, that motion No. 4 is consequential upons motions 1 and 2 which have been declared unacceptable, and it may be that the hon. member would not wish to proceed with motion No. 4 in those circumstances. There is, however, no difficulty about dealing with the motion from a strictly procedural point of view, because motion No. 4, as it reads, is acceptable, even though it might be consequential on the first two motions.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Your Honour will correct me if I am wrong; I understood you to say that the motion, itself, is acceptable, but you wonder whether it is not consequential on motions Nos. 1 and 2. I believe it stands on its own. It deals with the form of certification a religious order or sect would need from the minister in order to qualify for the exemption set out in the bill, and I should like to speak to that point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Chair has said that procedurally the motion is acceptable, and in the light of what the hon. member has said, I think the best way to proceed would be to put the motion before the House at this time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That Bill C-190, an Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, be amended.
That clause one be amended by deleting lines 20 to 22 inclusive at page three.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment attempts to clear up the basis upon which the minister will make his decision. It proposes to delete the words "religious sect or division thereof has applied to him in prescribed form for certification." In other words, which groups can apply for certification from the minister for exemptions from the Canada Pension Plan? I think I should read from the committee proceedings of October 18, issue No. 17 of the Minutes of Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. A Mr. Snyder was appearing before the committee on behalf of members of the Old Order of Mennonites. He is the executive director of the Central Mennonite Committee of Ontario. I draw the attention of the House to the following exchange of questions and answers:


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Does the Old Order of Mennonites live as individuals? Do they farm as individuals, or do they farm in communes like the Hutterites?


Mr.   Snyder@: No. They live as individuals and farm as individuals. They own no land corporately.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If I understand you correctly, the Bishop will determine whether or not they should be allowed out of the Canada Pension Plan.
Mr. Martin, who is a member of the Old Order of Menno-nites, and who was appearing as a witness along with Mr. Snyder, stated:
If this bill passes, the person's standing will determine it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Pardon?


Mr. Martin:: The person's decision on these matters will determine it. The Bishop will only be the tool who will be responsible to say yes or no. It is not a dictatorship. The Bishop will never say . ..


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Bishop will never be able to veto an application?


Mr.   Snyder@: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In other words, each individual will make his own applications? Anyone can get an old age pension in Canada if they fill out a form.
I will pause there. I then went on to deal with another matter. So the individual would make his own application. But the bill says applications must be made in prescribed form for certification. The minister concerned is, I suppose, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury).
Clause six says the minister shall certify a religious sect or division for the purposes of exemption in certain circumstances. I should like the minister to answer this question. If the bishop of the Old Order of Mennonites, for example, were to apply for certification, would that application automatically include all his following, the whole flock among those wishing to opt out, or would each of the individuals concerned need to apply for certification? I go on to deal with this point in a series of questions reported at page 26 of the same committee proceedings.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Anyone can get an old age pension in Canada if they fill out a form. How do you know, Mr. Snyder, that absolutely none of your people, the people you are representing are getting an old age pension? There is no religious form. The Department of National Revenue has no way of knowing what a man's religion is when they send out his old age pension.


Mr.   Snyder@: Our information is based on the circulating of the ministers who know who is in good standing. I think you can appreciate that when you live in a small community and you live so closely together as the Old Order Brethren do, and I am talking about close associations with persons, it is almost impossible for one person to be doing too much that other people do not know about. I know there have been cries in parliament about bugging and this, I suppose, is a form of bugging when you know what your neighbour is doing all the time.
What has this specifically to do with the old age pension? It has this to do with it. If the bishop could certify his whole flock, then any individual member of that flock could supply a social security number and pay premiums if he wanted to, because nowhere in the application is it specified that a person's religion need be mentioned. So, the department would not know whether he had been certified by the Bishop or not as desiring exemption. Mr. Snyder went on to say:
I am simply saying that on the circulation of the bishops we have this information. Now, if you want to press me to the wall and say there is not one person in the whole group who has ever made application, obviously, I could be tried, but I am . . .


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In other words, nobody has proof.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Personally, I know of such a situation in the brotherhood where an older man at the prison-
Canada Pension Plan
I think that must be a misprint; I think it should be "community".
-decided on his own behind the curtains, but the situation has been corrected. It is not tolerated.
Certainly, the bill is not clear. The clause provides that the minister shall certify a religious sect or a division of a religious sect. Do those words mean that each individual will have to be certified, or the whole sect? As I have said, before the committee the Old Order Mennonites stated that the bishop would not be able to veto any application. In other words, if an individual member wanted to get out of the Canada Pension Plan, then as I understand it he would apply to do so and the bishop would not have the power to veto his application. I suppose such an individual could also apply to join the Canada Pension Plan. If the bishop found out an application had been made, I suppose he could ask the applicant to leave his church or following; but that is beyond the purview of our study. That is their concern, not ours.
Under the provisions of the bill, any money collected since 1970 will be returned to the individuals concerned, I suppose on their application. I believe that it should be for the individual to declare whether he is in the Canada Pension Plan or out of the plan, rather than a whole group being certified. If it is left up to the individual, there is a certain degree of freedom. A member of the modern Men-nonite faith can apply to get out of the CPP, but leaving it to the bishop is directly opposed to the wishes of the Mennonites who appeared before the committee. Because Mr. Martin clearly said:
If this bill passes, the person's standing will determine it.
Then, I asked them whether the bishop would be able to veto, and both Mr. Snyder and Mr. Martin said no. The clause refers to a religious sect or a division of a religious sect, and I should like to know what that means. Is a division of a religious sect one-half of the following, one-quarter or one-tenth? Or is it just one person within the following?
For some strange reason, the Minister of National Revenue was not asked to appear before the committee which studied this bill to explain exactly how this money that has been collected from these people is going to be returned to them or how these people will be exempted. Surely, we should be able to ask the minister a couple of questions on that, particularly the question who can apply to get out of the plan, and whether if an individual applies the Department of National Revenue will automatically check off his name with the bishop, thereby giving power of veto to the bishop. Or is a person going to make an individual application to have himself and perhaps his family exempted? These questions make a major difference to the application of the act. If application is left to the individual with no power of veto given to the bishop, then anyone can apply to be exempt from the Canada Pension Plan on religious grounds providing they can convince the minister that their religious tenets and teachings are such that they wish to provide for themselves if they become disabled or retire.
I know my hon. friends in the NDP party-I always add the word "party"; they are just a group really and I should


Canada Pension Plan
call them the NDP group-will shudder at the thought that this is the beginning of the erosion of the compulsory aspects of the Canada Pension Plan. Four per cent of the Old Order Mennonites in Canada want to get out of the plan; the other 96 per cent may at some later date, if premiums rise and it is beneficial for them to do so.
I read the newspapers and am aware that this government follows very closely the teachings of Quebec. If Quebec says that the pension plan should be changed, then the government will change it. In Quebec, the premiums are now nearly double because of the amount of money collected, so without alarming anyone unduly we can rest assured that our contributions to the plan next year will be nearly double what they are this year, and that in the next session of parliament the Minister of National Health and Welfare will bring in another of these little bills and change the whole concept of the plan.
Taxes never go down, it seems; they just go up and up, and without a doubt the stage will come when many individuals want to get out of the plan and will ask for certification by the minister because they say their tenets and teachings are such as to enable them to provide for themselves when they become old or disabled, or for that matter widowed.
I hope the minister will clear up this question. I realize I can only speak once on any motion and this does handicap me to some extent because I should like to pursue a line of questioning with the minister on this point. As I say, the committee never called him before it, and this is part of my complaint about the way the committee handled the bill. They were slightly less than diligent in their examination of what may be the beginning of the erosion of the Canada Pension Plan if the minister readily certifies the exemption of too many people, or if he takes the bishop's word that his flock is really several times larger than it actually is. The plan, in other words, will fail to be universal in its application if we continue to allow people to get out of the plan. The principle on which the plan was founded was that of universality. This is why participation was compulsory. This aspect is now being eroded. This particular part will determine how great that erosion might be in years ahead.
Perhaps the minister could explain what is meant by "certificate" and who will apply for certification. Will it be the bishop of the church or a minister in charge of one single Hutterite community, or will the bishop of the Hutterite group in Canada apply for a certificate across the board? As I understand their religion, there are two groups of Hutterites in Canada and perhaps one from each group would be required to apply for certification. I think this is a matter that should be cleared up, and perhaps the minister could give us an explanation.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, if that is the only question I will try to answer it. There is a clear provision in the bill requiring certification by a spokesman for a sect or division, as well as application for exemption by the individual. The bill attempts to allow enough flexibility, recognizing that not every religion is monolithic, to administer the intention of parliament as it will be stated if we should pass this bill.

The amendment proposed would remove the need for religious groups to apply for certification. Of course, it is this information which would allow the minister to satisfy himself that the criteria had been met. I suggest it would be quite impractical to simply delete the lines proposed by this amendment. This would, in fact, deprive the minister of the means to exercise the controls I think parliament would expect him to exercise in order to see that the exemptions offered here are not abused.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the minister permit one question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the minister permit a question by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner)?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: May an individual apply for certification for himself and his family? Did I understand correctly that this is the minister's answer?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I referred to the provisions in the bill which require that not only may an individual apply for an exemption, but that there must be a certification obtained by the minister from a spokesman of the sect or division to which the individual belongs.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In other words, you are giving the bishop a veto?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on amendment No. 4 proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Horner (Crowfoot) ) negatived on division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Having regard to Motion No. 5, standing in the name of the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher), I should advise the hon. member that the Chair has some doubts as to whether this motion should be put to the House. It would appear to the Chair that the motion involves a new proposition, and as such is not relevant to the clause or the bill itself. However, I would give the hon. member an opportunity to be heard regarding the point raised by the Chair.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for this opportunity. I proposed this amendment as I felt that the clause dealt with the membership of a group which either obtained the benefits of the Canada Pension


Plan or declined its provisions. Primarily, the clause in question will allow certain groups to opt out. I think that is its general purport.
On the basis of the old rule of what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander, I believe that if you change a clause allowing somebody to opt out it should be changed to allow others to come in. I say there should be that optional spirit in the legislation. The proposed amendment would merely allow spouses to contribute on the basis of either their own incomes or the incomes of their partners to a marriage. I submit that if the Canada Pension Plan can be amended by this clause to allow some to opt out, the clause should be amendable to allow those who want to come in to do so. I suggest there is really not a new concept being introduced here but merely a change in the provisions in respect of membership, allowing certain people to opt out and other people to come in if they desire, both on a voluntary basis.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It's your baby.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his contribution on behalf of his proposed baby.
The recommendation affixed to the bill states in part: to provide under the circumstances prescribed for the return of contributions to a contributor who, being a member of a certified religious sect or division of a religious sect has elected not to make contributions;
The hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) has made an interesting contribution in respect of the rule relating to what is sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander as opposed to the Royal recommendation. On balance, I think the Chair must decide that his proposed motion goes beyond the bill and assumes that spouses of contributors should be allowed to make contributions in respect of this pension plan. I would think, and I gather that most hon. members would agree, that if this motion were adopted it would amend provisions of the main act which are not before the House at this time.
Secondly, I suggest the proposed motion would be inconsonant with the main purpose of the bill as stated by the Royal recommendation. The Chair has many times used the Royal recommendation as a reason for not allowing an amendment, as, in accordance with our democratic system, the Royal recommendation must be heeded at all times. For those reasons, and in spite of the charming argument of the hon. member, the Chair regretfully rejects the proposed motion No. 5.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That Bill C-190, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, be amended in clause- 2 by deleting the word "greater" in line 32 at page 3 and substituting therefor the word: "lesser".


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, this is a relatively simple and clearcut amendment. What the bill does is to
Canada Pension Plan
allow certain people to be exempted from the Canada Pension Plan. This amendment attempts to put a less severe penalty on the rest of us. Clause 2 on page 3 reads as follows:
(6) Every employer who fails to remit to the Receiver General the total amount that he was required to remit at the time when he was required to do so is liable to a penalty of 10% of the amount that he failed so to remit or $10, whichever is the greater,
So, if he failed to remit $1,000, 10 per cent of that would be $100. His fine would be $100 rather than $10. All my amendment is doing is to leave the choice to the individual. Since we are letting some people off, letting them be exempted, let us allow the minister to be generous toward the others in this regard.
Some members might think that I am the only one who thinks this way. Let me point out that the vice-chairman of the committee, as recorded at page 1615 of the proceedings of the committee on September 20 said:
It is up to us then to see that we carry out our promises. I think if we carry out our promises, we will accept the bill and let them get away with it.
When the vice-chairman was accused by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) of making this unkind statement, he said he sticks by his guns, that he made that statement and was not retracting it. I admire him for that. Certainly, we are letting them get away with it. Whether or not they deserve to be let off is not the point. The committee did not even bring up the point of the large number of people who also want to be exempted from the Canada Pension Plan. We are saying that if they can get away with it, then we should change the word "greater" to "lesser" and let us have the choice of whether we are fined $10 or 10 per cent, whichever is the lesser penalty.
I know that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) is a kind man and would be generous if somebody failed to remit a portion of his premium. I know the minister would be understanding and would not want to levy the higher penalty. But the fear I have is that this minister may not be Minister of National Revenue forever. He has his eye on the Prime Minister's position. Another fellow may come along and take his position, someone who might not be as generous as he is. In any case, I do not believe that this provision would be applied too often. I do not see why the minister cannot give the rest of us a break, now that he is letting certain people off whose religious tenets qualify them to be exempted from the plan. Surely, he can allow us who have remained under the plan to have the choice of paying the smaller penalty.
Without delaying the proceedings any further, let me say that the amendment is clear and succinctly worded. It merely gives the person who has failed to remit to the Receiver General the total amount required the choice of having to pay the lesser penalty. The minister might argue that the word "lesser" might mean $1. It says somewhere in the bill that if the amount is less than $1 the whole matter can be dropped. One can argue that if it is less than $10 the matter should be dropped. Surely, we do not want to cajole people into remitting the proper amount by making them pay harsh penalties provided in a bill which allows other people to be exempted completely from paying, people who are not contributing at all. Surely, we
7202


Canada Pension Plan
should be a little more humane and change the word "greater" to "lesser".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. I wish to indicate complete opposition to this amendment. I suggest that the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) really understands the Canada Pension Plan better than one would think, judging from some of the things he just said. He talked about giving us a break. He talked about some of us having failed to remit our payments. May I remind him that in the case of employed persons, no individual remits his Canada Pension Plan premium to the Treasury. All remittances to the Treasury on behalf of employed persons are made by employers.


An hon. Member:: What about the self-employed?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought my hon. friend down there understood it better as well. There is a different part of the act altogether dealing with self-employed persons. This section of the bill that is being amended by the clause now before us does not deal with self-employed persons at all, it deals only with employers.
I suggest that it is a very serious misdemeanour for an employer not to remit moneys that he has collected from his employees, and to which he should be adding his own payments. Indeed, persons can lose some of their pension rights if their employer fails to keep the law. I suggest, therefore, that it is a proper penalty to say that if an employer fails to remit the payments he should be making there should be a penalty for it.
The act now provides a penalty of 10 per cent of the amount that he did not send in or $10, whichever is the greater. That means that, for example, if an employer has failed to send in $10,000, the penalty would be $1,000, but the hon. member for Crowfoot would make the penalty for failing to send in $10,000 only $10. That is not a deterrent at all, to use a word that has been used a lot around here in recent weeks. If it were $100,000 the fine under the legislation would be $10,000, and I think that would not be unfair at all for that kind of misdemeanour. But the hon. member for Crowfoot would let the persons get off with a $10 fine. Surely, the purpose of this penalty is to make sure that employers do not jeopardize the pension of the individual. I suggest that the amendment should be defeated.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, as the explanatory note to the bill indicates, the purpose of the amendment in clause 2 is to make the rate of interest charged on any amount that an employer fails to remit to the Receiver General capable of being adjusted to the rate of interest charged for unremitted amounts under the Income Tax Act, which may be fixed by regulation. It is important, from the standpoint of equity as well as administration, to maintain uniformity between income tax, Canada Pension Plan and unemployment insurance deductions. The hon. member's motion would defeat this purpose.
With respect to the limiting of penalties to $10 as proposed by the hon. member, that of course would be a change of the existing law and, as has already been point-

ed out, we are speaking here of trust funds which belong not to the person remitting but to his employees and the people participating in the Canada Pension Plan. Clearly, the hon. member's motion would encourage late remitting and delinquency. For example, a large employer who had deductions of $50,000 a month and who failed to remit that amount would be subject to a maximum penalty of $10, plus interest at 7 per cent on the amount that should have been remitted. Surely, this is not the intention of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). If he considers the implications of this, he will see that his proposal really is an encouragement to take advantage of deductions which belong to employees and to the plan. I do not believe he would want to be party to that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? The motion is not adopted.
We will now proceed to motion No. 7. It is the feeling of the Chair that Nos. 7 and 8 might be grouped for the purpose of debate and that a division on No. 7 would also dispose of No. 8. If hon. members do not agree perhaps they could raise the matter with the Chair, otherwise we will proceed along the line indicated.
Order. Up here on this lonely plateau we are always susceptible to advice, and I gather that I should have asked for the yeas and nays on the motion of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion No. 6 (Mr. Horner (Crowfoot) ) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I was right the first time. In any event, we will now deal with motions Nos. 7 and 8, and I gather it is the will of the House that these be grouped for the purpose of debate and that a division, if called for on No. 7, would also dispose of No. 8.
Mr. Horner (Crowfoot), seconded by Mr. Skoreyko, moves:
That Bill C-190, an Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, be amended in Clause 2 by deleting the words "a prescribed rate" in line 33 at page 3 and substituting therefor the words:
"a rate of 7%"
Perhaps I could put the second one also, since they are being debated together. Mr. Horner (Crowfoot), seconded by Mr. Skoreyko, moves:
That Bill C-190, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, be amended in clause 3 by deleting the words "a prescribed rate" in lines 4 and 15 at page 4 and substituting therefor the words:
"a rate of 7%"
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motions?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, basically the act now sets out that a rate of 6 per cent applies in both these sections, and in this bill the minister is suggesting that the 6 per cent be deleted and be replaced by the words


"a prescribed rate." This is a government of high interest rates. We have watched interest rates climb.
This is the government that removed the 6 per cent ceiling on bank interest rates, and now people tell me the rate is over 10 per cent if you want to borrow money to buy a house or anything else. The government is doing the same thing in this bill. It is removing the 6 per cent ceiling.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten per cent.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member says it is 10 per cent in the act. It is 10 per cent in one place in the act, but not in all places. Now, when the 6 per cent rate is removed the interest charge will rise to 10 per cent, 11 per cent and 12 per cent. By spring it may be 14 per cent.
The Liberal government believes in high interest rates to absorb all the careless, foolish, extravagant expenditures in which it becomes involved. The wasteful, inefficient administration of government requires the minister to charge higher interest rates to cover all the extravagance. This is really what the government is doing in this bill.
The government wants to allow the interest rate to go up, up and up. People may ask why I settled on the figure of 7 per cent. The fixed ceiling on bank interest rates used to be 6 per cent. Then, we were told that banks were not making enough money, and that the interest rate had to go up. At that time I moved an amendment allowing the bank interest to go up only one per cent, to 7 per cent, and that is what I am again doing here.
Because of the inefficiency and careless administration of the government, I believe interest rates should be allowed to rise only one per cent. Parliament must carefully scrutinize the administration and expenditures of government departments. One of the ways to do that is to put a limit on interest rates so that the government must strictly account for its administrative practices. I think it would be wise, Mr. Speaker, to accept the amendments suggested in motions Nos. 7 and 8. It is clearly set out that interest on instalments will be at 7 per cent rather than at a prescribed rate. The minister has suggested that he would like provisions similar to those of the Income Tax Act or the Unemployment Insurance Act so that there is a parallel. He might as well say that we should do something similar to what is done on mortgage loans under Central Mortgage and Housing. Interest on those loans is over 10 per cent now. He might as well say that, because that is the interest rate that will be charged under this bill.
Somewhere along the line we have to take a stand and say that we will not allow the department to prescribe the interest rate. We will say that it should be only 7 per cent. We are all living in a credit world and surely we want to hold down the interest rates so that credit will not cost us
Canada Pension Plan
so much. My purpose in moving these two rather simple amendments is that, rather than change the bill to agree with the old act and put in 6 per cent, we are putting in 7 per cent. If the minister were to assure the House that the prescribed rate will never be higher than 7 per cent, then the amendment would not be necessary. Most people in Canada are alarmed at the present high interest rates. It is all very well for the Minister of National Revenue or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to say that we must have high interest rates because of our place in the international world and on the North American continent; that if we did not, too many people would be coming here to borrow money.
The minister might claim that all the government's interest rates cannot be equal. That was not the case when this bill was passed in 1966. The government of that day changed the Bank Act a year or so before the Canada Pension Plan came into operation and the 6 per cent figure was used then. What is wrong with it now? Well, the government feels that it is too low, and they want a higher rate of interest on instalments and on unpaid contributions which is comparable to other rates of interest. How much higher? If the minister is prepared to say that it will be less than 7 per cent that is fine but if not, when I recommend these two amendments.
If we, as members of parliament, concerned about high interest rates, say to the minister that he will only be able to charge 7 per cent interest on unpaid contributions and on instalments, the minister will immediately claim that many people will not pay their interest on instalments because the interest rate is cheaper than that of the banks. That may be so, but we must encourage the government to lower interest rates to the people of Canada so that they can buy homes and the things they need. If we take the wraps off interest rates and allow the government to do what they like, then we are derelict in our duty. This is just a little piece of legislation, but it is a measure of the sincerity of the government in managing their affairs. We must make sure that the government is forever conscious that the people of Canada want lower interest rates. I think this is one of the prime causes of inflation, particularly in today's credit oriented society. Everybody is borrowing money and perhaps living beyond their means.
I suppose it could be argued that the Canada Pension Plan contributions would not come forward too quickly if people could just pay the interest on the contributions. This may be so, but it is what the government would have to suffer because of their careless handling of our finances. I do not mind saying that from time to time the government should be reminded of its job in this regard.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
26635-25>
Thursday, October 25, 1973