1973-10-31

PRIVILEGE


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, of which I sent you notice, in the interests of the apple growers of Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia.
When I went to the cafeteria last evening I picked up the apple I have in my hand which was offered for sale. It has the telltale marks of bitterpit which render it unfit for human consumption. Believing it to come from British Columbia I asked to see the box, because from the code on the box I would be able to ascertain the packer and probably the grower and therefore could caution them about sending such apples to the House of Commons. But to my surprise and horror I found that the box came from Washington state.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


George H. Whittaker: This is the height of the season for Canadian apple producers. My question of privilege is that I ask Your Honour to do everything possible to ensure that we have Canadian apples in the cafeterias and restaurant of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has three questions of privilege under advisement at the present time. Two were raised yesterday and a new one has been raised today by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. My understanding of the hon. member's question of privilege is that he has noticed that apples sold in one of our cafeterias or the restaurant came in a box from Washington. Of course, the evidence we have before us is that the box came from Washington, not necessarily the apples.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I have much sympathy with the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary, particularly in view of the fact that the best of Canadian apples, the McIntosh, originated in the historic county of Dundas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I can assure the hon. member that the matter will be looked into.
Two other very important questions of privilege were raised yesterday. One was raised by the hon. member for Halton who complained, I believe, that a stone wall was being built in one of the doorways of his office. We have
looked into this matter and some progress has been made: construction has been stopped. I assume the hon. member can still get over the wall into his office. That matter will be looked into. I am sure it will be resolved and that some other way will be found to establish the fire protection required to satisfy the fire marshal.
The third matter was raised by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River and had to do with unwed fathers. I am afraid I can do very little about the problems that beset pregnant fathers.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing importance arising from the decision of the Air Transport Committee to permit Transair, the regional air carrier for midwestern Canada, to suspend its services into western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan effective January 1, 1974. I ask leave of the House to move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That this House urges the Minister of Transport to delay the implementation of the ATC decision until such time as the regional air policy is thoroughly reviewed and updated to meet the air transportation needs of developing areas in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


RAPESEED PLEBISCITE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of

October 31, 1973
Inf la tion
urgent necessity arising from the plebiscite recently announced by the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board on how rapeseed should be marketed. In view of the fact this plebiscite is stacked against the proponents of orderly marketing, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave):
That the plebiscite on rapeseed marketing be amended to include the following:
(a)	Every Wheat Board permit holder should have the right to vote or failing this any producer who grew rape at least once in the last five years;
(b)	That a simple majority will carry rather than the present 60 per cent;
(c)	That the ballot will simply carry a "yes" and "no" category and the "undecided" category will be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to the motion proposed by the hon. member for Meadow Lake?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


INCREASE IN PETROLEUM PRODUCT PRICES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the excessive increase in the price of oil products, mainly gas and heating fuel, and of the fact that Canadian consumers, especially those with a low income, soon will not be able to face this increase, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That the House urge the government to consider within the next 30 days the possibility of granting a discount to consumers through gas and heating fuel retailers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not and the motion cannot therefore be put.

[ English]


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion under Standing Order 43, the rea-

sons for which are quite apparent in the motion that I ask the House to agree to have put. My motion is:
This House urges the government to take steps to ensure that the false statement which appears on the literature accompanying the OAS cheques just issued and which states "although inflation is a worldwide problem . . . the government are taking all reasonable steps to keep it under control and to minimize its effect" be corrected by the inclusion at the time the next cheques are issued of the true facts to indicate that the government has failed to take reasonable steps in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The hon. member for Rimouski.


Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a question of privilege.
[ Translation]


Mr. Allard:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for Rimouski, but I think that the hon. member for Peace River is rising on a point of order.

Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Gerald William Baldwin: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Because the literature in question states that the Canadian parliament and the government are taking all reasonable steps to keep inflation under control, as a member of the Canadian parliament I wish to take this opportunity, as I think I am entitled to do, to disassociate myself from this cruel hoax the government is trying to perpetrate on the old people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lalonde:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, as my name has been associated with this matter. I can give the hon. member the assurance that at the next opportunity I will try and see to it that any such message will exclude him from those who are trying to do everything they can to control inflation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

[ Translation]


SUGGESTED RETURN TO DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME TO REDUCE CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY AND OIL-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
October 31, 1973

In view of the lack of energy resources and in order to check the present crisis as concerns electricity and fuel resources while fighting against inflation and living in the light of day like during World War II, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That the government order a return to Daylight Saving Time and act accordingly.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore the motion cannot be put.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the prevalent illegal use of drugs in Canadian penitentiaries, as indicated in the statement by John Maloney, Regional Director for the Canadian Penitentiary Service, that there is an immediate drug problem in all Canadian prisons, I ask leave, pursuant to Standing Order 43, to move that this matter be referred to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise the House that tomorrow is to be an allotted day.


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-226, to amend the Combines Investigation Act.
Order Paper Questions


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, under the Combines Investigation Act it is an illegal practice to conspire to fix prices of commodities, but there is a provision in section 32(4) permitting companies in fact to sit down and conspire legally to fix prices for export purposes. Once having done that, the fixed or agreed upon price becomes the price for domestic purposes as well. In other words, Canadians thereby become the victims of legalized theft. The provisions in section 32(4) and (5) came about in 1960 as the result of an open conspiracy between the Conservatives and Liberals in those days.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member appreciates that the Standing Order allows him to make a very brief explanation of the bill and not to argue the bill as he might on second reading. I suggest to the hon. member that perhaps he is going beyond the very strict limitations imposed by Standing Order 68.


Frank Howard: Certainly I had no intention of doing that, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, I am surprised that I got as far as I did.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has gone as far as he should. Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[ Text]
Mr. McKenzie: 1.	From where will the personnel to staff the new Air Canada Computer Systems Centre at Dorval be recruited?
2.	(a) What other Air Canada departments will occupy the building (b) from where will personnel to staff these departments be recruited (c) will any Air Canada employees be moved to Dorval from other cities?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. The new centre will be staffed by personnel promoted from other computer facilities in Montreal and elsewhere, as well as by personnel recruited from outside the company.
2.	(a), (b) and (c) Other departments who occupy the building have not yet been determined, but none will involve staff or recruitment from locations other than Montreal.

October 31, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Reynolds: Are 70 million pounds of butter currently in storage in Canada and, if so, what is the government's policy in regard to disposing of same to the Canadian consumer?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: No;
butter stocks which are required for domestic consumption are at the support price of 71 cents per pound.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	With respect to answer to Question No. 2,207, which indicates that two of the 17 locations presently used to store historic artifacts will be upgraded this year, what steps will be taken to upgrade the remaining 15 storage facilities to prevent deterioration of artifacts set aside for future generations of Canadians?
2.	Does the government consider that such storage and preservation facilities require upgrading to prevent serious losses due to poor or inadequate climatic control facilities in terms of humidity control, heat limitation and other factors essential to preserving articles of historical significance, broadly defined, for future generations of Canadians and, if not, what specific plans does the government have to make such provisions in the immediate future?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: 1. I
am informed by the National Museums of Canada that an invitation to tender has been called to upgrade the textile storage area at 1523 Laperriere Avenue, Ottawa. It is planned to expand the humidified storage area of historical artifacts.
2. The other fourteen storage locations are considered adequate for the type of artifacts stored, except as noted hereunder. Ashton Press Bldg., Bells Corners, Ontario: As soon as adequate storage facilities become available, artifacts of the Ethnology and Folklore Divisions will be moved. 7 Murray Street, Ottawa, Ontario: As soon as adequate storage facilities become available, artifacts of the Canadian War Museum will be moved.


Mr. Cossitt: What was the total amount of OFY funds allocated in 1972-73 to constituencies represented in the House of Commons by (a) Members of the Liberal Party (b) Members of the Progressive Conservative Party?


James Hugh Faulkner: It is
not possible to answer this question, since the allocation of the funds of the OFY programme is done within a framework of regions and sub-regions and not within the framework of electoral constituencies.


Mr. Lawrence: 1.	What is the estimated amount of expenditures to be incurred by, for or on behalf of the Food Prices Review Board during the current fiscal year?
(Mr. Guay (St. Boniface).]
2.	What amount was estimated for the current fiscal year for consultants, "outside" research and other non-direct expenditures by the Board?
3.	What is the estimated cost of salaries and expenses for the Board (a) members (b) employees for the current fiscal year?
4.	What is the estimated cost of the research program announced by the Chairman of the Board on Friday, September 7, 1973 relating to the use of eighty (80) university graduate researchers?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. $977,000.
2.	$270,000.
3.	(a) $67,000; (b) $348,000.
4.	$110,000.


Mr. Hellyer: Is Rochdale College, Toronto, a registered charitable organization for purposes of federal income tax and, if so (a) on what date was this designation given (b) what is the registration number?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: In so far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned Rochdale College is not a registered Canadian charitable organization as defined in paragraph 110(8) (c) of the Income Tax Act.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Latulippe: 1.	What buildings (a) owned by the government (b) leased by the Government in the Ottawa-Hull area are protected by private security services?
2.	What are the names of such firms?
3.	What was the total amount of the protection contract for (a) 1971 (b) 1972?
Return tabled.



APPROVAL OF NEW HORIZONS PROJECTS FOR PROVINCE OF QUEBEC

Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): How many New Horizons projects were approved for the Province of Quebec and what were the amounts paid in each constituency to April 15, 1973?
Return tabled.



FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO CANADIAN ARTISTS AND SCHOLARS

Mr. Yewchuk: 1. For the years 1970, 1971 and 1972 inclusive, how many Canadian artists and scholars received (a) fellowships (b) grants to work or study in (i) France (ii) Belgium (iii) Switzerland (iv) Federal Republic of Germany (v) Italy (vi) Netherlands (vii) U.S.S.R. (viii) India (ix) U.S. (x) others?
October 31, 1973

2.	What was the place of birth of each individual who received the fellowships and/or the grants?
3.	How many persons are presently on staff at the (a) Maison du Canada in Paris (b) Shasti Institute in New Delhi?
4.	For the years 1970, 1971 and 1972 inclusive, what were their (a) salaries (b) annual budgets (c) travelling (d) promotion (e) lodging (f) entertainment expenditures?
5.	Does the government intend forming an external cultural policy and (a) if not, for what reasons (b) if so, on what date and which department would be responsible for implementing such a policy?
6.	Is consideration being given by the government to increase the number of (a) cultural institutions (b) bilateral cultural agreements in other countries and (i) if not, for what reasons (ii) if so, on what date and which countries will be contacted?
7.	For the years 1970, 1971 and 1972 inclusive (a) how many students came to Canada (b) how many Canadian students, by province, went abroad under the International Student Summer Employment Exchange Program?
Return tabled.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, it is not very long ago, on October 15, that I posed a question relating to La Mauricie National Park. There is urgency in obtaining an answer to that question because there is an element in it that touches upon the integrity of the hon. member in whose riding it exists.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 243, 244 and 252.



COPIES OF APPLICATIONS FOR GRANTS BY THE PROVINCIAL CITIZENS' RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS CONFERENCE, ST. JOHN'S, NEWFOUNDLAND

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 243-Mr. Hellyer:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the applications for grants by the Provincial Citizen's Rights and Freedoms Conference, St. John's, Newfoundland, in respect of its Conference held in January, 1973 and for correspondence from the government related thereto.
Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, these are confidential papers concerning the internal affairs of the Department. Under the circumstances, the hon. member could perhaps withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion dropped?


Mr. Hellyer:: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I did not realize it was a motion in my name. Consequently, in view of the fact there was no consultation, we will transfer it for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
Privilege, Mr. Nielsen



COPIES OF APPLICATIONS OF PACT FOR GRANT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 244-Mr. Hellyer:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the applications of PACT (Peoples Acting on Concerns Together), Winnipeg, for a grant from the Secretary of State together with any correspondence to or from the government relating to the applications.
Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, this is the same answer to the hon. member.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, those are confidential papers which concern the department's internal matters. In such circumstances, the hon. member would perhaps withdraw his motion.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



COPY OF MATERIAL RESULTING FROM FIRST MEETING OF VLA SENIOR MANAGEMENT TEAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 252-Mr. Marshall:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all material resulting from the first meeting of the VLA Senior Management team convened by the Director General of the Veterans Land Administration in Ottawa from March 26 to 29 as follows (a) operational plans in the periods before and after the March 31, 1974 deadline for new loan applications (b) further implementation of MBO as the VLA style of management.
['The hon. member for Don Valley. Order, please. I call for the co-operation of the hon. member for Trinity and other hon. members who are arguing across the floor to allow the House to return to work. The hon. member for Don Valley.']
Mr. Speaker:: Stand. Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order although I think it is more properly a question of privilege. Like the question raised by the hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary (Mr. Stewart), it also involves a bad apple but this time it is the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand), one of a whole barrel full on the treasury benches. It concerns a deliberate alteration in Hansard, the record of the debates of this House.
I know, Sir, that the practice is for members to make grammatical changes in the blues, but it was never intended that the sense of a statement or a sentence be altered so as to take away from its original meaning. Nor was it ever intended that whole phrases could be absolutely deleted from the written record of the proceedings of the House.
Yesterday in answer to a question of mine, which is recorded in Hansard for October 30 at page 7351, the Solicitor General replied in his first sentence:
I would be interested to know what misinformation the hon. member alleges I am giving to the House.

October 31, 1973
Privilege, Mr. Hellyer
I will get to that in a moment in connection with the change he has made in Hansard. The last sentence but one reads:
I might say also that the director of the penitentiary will be retiring shortly, a new director will be appointed.
There then appears a full stop after that sentence, and it is followed by this final sentence:
Improvements are being made at the institution.
Every member on this side of the House, and I am sure members of the Press Gallery and yourself, Sir, heard the minister say this:
I might say also that the director of the penitentiary will be retiring shortly, a new director will be appointed, and other improvements are being made at the institution.
The minister, Sir, or his minions have deliberately deleted the words "and other", changing the whole sense of his reply. That, Sir, is dishonest. It is misinformation: it misleads the readers of the official record of our debates.
If the minister is prepared to concede that my recollection of the words he used is accurate, that will be fine. Otherwise, I am prepared to move a motion that Hansard be corrected by replacing the words that now appear with the actual words spoken yesterday in that reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply if he wishes, but certainly it would be the responsibility of the Chair to look into the record and the suggestion made by the hon. member that the record has been changed. I am sure the minister will give the same undertaking from his side.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the blues were sent to our office in the usual way and I know changes were made, I thought in the usual way. I cannot remember now the exact changes that were made, but I would be willing to check it with you and, if it was out of order, if something was done that was not supposed to be done, I would be glad to comply with your ruling.


MR. HELLYER-REFUSAL OF GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REQUESTED IN CERTAIN MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with respect to the motions for papers that were just called and subsequently transferred for debate. In refusing to table information of this kind the government is establishing a new practice and departing from precedents which are time-honoured in this House, thereby taking away the rights and privileges of all members of the House.
Historically, Mr. Speaker, it has been the practice that public documents would always be tabled in response to an order of this kind. It has been the practice for many, many years that applications from private companies and persons for assistance of this kind under well-recognized government projects should be made public, that these are matters of public record and it is only internal documents between ministers and civil servants acting within the departments that are considered privileged. That has been the rule for decades, Mr. Speaker, but now a new practice is being established whereby applications from persons

and organizations outside the government and letters in support of those applications are denied to members of the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion is a terrible breach of the privileges of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Trinity may have a point of debate, but it seems to me that is the very purpose of transferring his motions for debate. I find that when we have these debates on the tabling of documents we debate the substance of the matter referred to rather than the very narrow point whether a particular document ought to be tabled or not. The hon. member may have a very good point. It is certainly not for the Chair to determine whether he has or not, but I suggest that is the very point that would be debated if and when the matter comes before the House. The Chair would be very happy, when these motions come before the House in private members' hours, if we concentrated on this aspect of the matter, whether certain documents ought to be tabled or not. I hope there can be a useful debate on this point in due course. Oral questions.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, it is only because I felt there had been-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -a deviation from the practice that I brought the matter to Your Honour's attention.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Don Valley. Order, please. I call for the co-operation of the hon. member for Trinity and other hon. members who are arguing across the floor to allow the House to return to work. The hon. member for Don Valley.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the rather interesting statement he made the other day that the seasonally adjusted increase in unemployment was in large measure caused by the high level of economic activity in the country, which is a very unique interpretation, does this mean the government is taking the position that the economy should be slowed down in order to reduce the rate of unemployment in the nation?
October 31, 1973


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker.


James McPhail Gillies: Why is the government therefore following a policy, as indicated by the rate of decline in the real domestic product, of slowing down the economy?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as I have said in a couple of speeches before the House, during the last quarter of 1972 and the first quarter of 1973 the economy expanded at an unsustainable rate of about 12 per cent. It was expected that the economy would have to moderate its expansion and it is presently on target at about 7 per cent in real growth for 1973.


James McPhail Gillies: Is the Department of Finance taking the position that this slowing down in the rate of growth of the economy is essential to moderate the rate of inflation?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that is not the way I would put it. It is obvious that what we want to do is take whatever heat is in the economy and moderate it in a fashion that we can sustain long-term growth without risk of a recession. This moderation which continues the expansion we have experienced but at a rate the economy can sustain is, I believe, a healthy way to run the economy.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member for Don Valley for a third supplementary and then the hon. Leader of the Opposition, followed by the hon. member for York South.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to abuse the privilege but I am very interested in this point. Why is the government taking the position that it is necessary to slow down the rate of growth in the economy if it is so certain that the inflation we have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question asked in those terms is argumentative. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.


CAUSE OF GROWTH IN RATE OF PARTICIPATION IN WORK FORCE
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance with regard to the growth in the rate of participation in the work force. Is it the view of the minister and his advisers that the increased percentage of participation in the work force as far as the population of the country is concerned is in any way the result of the rapid rate of inflation which is causing other members of families to seek work who would not find it necessary except for the rate of inflation?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker. It is the view of the government and the Department of Finance that the increase in participation in the labour force is as a result of the expansion of the economy which is providing more jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for York South will be patient with the Chair, eventually we will get order and he can ask his question. The hon. member for York South.


COST FACTORS INVOLVED IN ENERGY BOARD DECISION TO PERMIT INCREASE IN PRICE OF NATURAL GAS-EXPORT PRICE
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arises out of the approval by the National Energy Board, and I assume by the government, of an increase of 10.7 per cent requested by TransCanada Pipelines in the price of natural gas. Can the minister inform the House what cost factors required the National Energy Board and the government to approve this increase and what other reasons there may or may not have been for the approval?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, under the National Energy Board Act this is one of the areas where the board acts within its own jurisdiction without referring it to the cabinet. However, the cabinet, of course, will accept the judgment. The specific reason cited by the board is the increase in natural gas prices as a result of action by the Alberta government.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister whether he has been in touch with the board about this proposed increase in the cost of natural gas to consumers, and has he any information whether the increase will apply to domestic use as well as industrial use and, if so, what justification there is for that?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should explain that parliament, under the act, has put this question of determination of rates exclusively with the board. The board in turn does not make the choice in terms of deliveries between domestic and industrial users. It merely delivers it to the wholesale utilities in the provinces. In the case of Ontario, the Ontario Energy Board would determine how the increase should affect domestic or industrial users.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the minister has not interested himself in that problem. I appreciate that exported gas is based on some 105 per cent formula with competitive fuels, but can the minister assure the House that export contracts will be renegotiated to ensure that any price increases to Canadian consumers will be reflected in a price increase for exported gas?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the government would go further than that. Under the regulations established by the government in 1970 and pursuant to other action we will be taking, we will be seeking to increase the export price of gas not just to the level paid by Canadian consumers but to the appropriate competitive level in the export market in which it is sold.
7394

October 31, 1973
Oral Questions


FINANCE
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Can he confirm or refute, as the case may be, the accuracy of the figures published during the last Quebec election campaign relative to the money collected and spent by the federal government in Quebec, between 1946 and 1971?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will understand that his question is faulty on two points. The first is obvious, for he asks the minister to confirm or refute a statement made outside the House. The second weakness I see is that the question could well be put on the order paper.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to put a direct question to the Minister of Finance.
Have officials of his department received requests from the province of Quebec to clarify the statement of expenses and revenues collected in the province of Quebec, between 1946 and 1971?


John Napier Turner: Not to my
knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to one asked by the hon. member for Don Valley. With regard to the minister's statement concerning economic expansion, does the minister anticipate that the increased percentage of personal income spent on oil and gas will result in a decline in spending in other areas of the economy, and will this decline in spending reduce the rate of economic expansion and be responsible for greater unemployment?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the conclusion implicit in the hon. gentleman's question follows from his own preamble.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Can the minister inform the House as to what the effect of the price increases for energy products will be on the projected growth of the gross national product? Can the minister answer that question?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the House will be in a better decision to assess this for itself after the statement tomorrow by my colleague.


DISCUSSION WITH QUEBEC AND MARITIME PROVINCES ON MEASURES TO OFFSET INCREASES IN PRICE OF VENEZUELAN CRUDE OIL
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the minister had discussions with the governments of Quebec and of the four Atlantic provinces with a view to taking measures to offset increases in the price of Venezuelan crude coming into Canada, which of course will have the effect of increasing the consumer price of fuel and gasoline products in those provinces?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with some of the governments but not with all. I think I will have to defer further answers on that until tomorrow.


OIL-CONSULTATION WITH QUEBEC GOVERNMENT ON NEED FOR ST. LAWRENCE SUPERPORTS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the present policy of the government to replace foreign oil in eastern Canada with Canadian oil, can the minister advise the House whether there has been consultation between the federal government and the Quebec government to determine whether, in view of the new policy, there is still a need for the proposed oil superports on the St. Lawrence?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that was the nature of my meeting with two Quebec ministers in September.


AGRICULTURE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the deep uncertainty among cattle producers, as evidenced by the discussions at the cattlemen's convention now going on in the city of Regina, the government has decided to apply an embargo or very stern restrictive quotas on the importation of U.S. fat cattle into Canada?


Eugene Whelan: No, Mr. Speaker. The problem is still under discussion.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it has been under discussion for some time. During the past week more cattle were brought in from the United States than have been brought in for many, many years. I think the number was in excess of 20,000. As 50 per cent of the kill in Canada is of American cattle, when is it expected that a decision will be made? The cattlemen are waiting for action instead of procrastination.
October 31, 1973


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I ought to inform the right hon. member it was only one week ago Monday that the cattlemen decided that the government should take any action. They made requests at that time. We have compiled all the facts and I have submitted a suggestion to my colleagues. I hope a decision will be made soon.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if he has had a request from farm organizations, either the general organizations, the National Farmers Union or from the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, for an embargo on fat cattle coming into Canada or for some type of restriction governing cattle coming into Canada from the United States?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think most farm organizations have made public the demands or suggestions they are making. They predominately favour some type of surcharge being placed for a period of time on cattle entering from the United States. The suggestions of some are different from those of others. We are not getting any unanimous opinion from them. However, most of them are of the opinion that something should be done.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS POSSIBILITY OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE-DISCUSSION BY PRIME MINISTER WITH QUEBEC PREMIER
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Since the Prime Minister said yesterday that he would soon meet with the Quebec premier who stated two weeks ago that after the provincial election he would ask for the resumption of constitutional talks, will he take this opportunity to discuss the possibility of holding a constitutional conference and is he himself in favour of such a conference?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. Unfortunately, I cannot add anything new. The position of the government is that the Canadian constitution should be repatriated, that a truly Canadian amendment formula be adopted, that a bill of human rights and linguistic guarantees be incorporated into the constitution. Those were the views that we held at the Victoria Conference which regrettably failed because the province of Quebec did not accept the federal proposals. If the new government of Quebec can present proposals compatible with the federal position and generally acceptable to Canadians, we will be extremely happy to resume constitutional conferences.
Oral Questions


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As it is now more than three years since the adoption of the floating exchange rate, does the minister intend to continue this policy, particularly in view of his recent statement calling for stable but adjustable par values and wider margins, with the possibility of floating rates in particular situations under IMF supervision and surveillance?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that report of the deputies of the group of 20, from which the hon. gentleman has quoted, also contemplates in the ensuing sentence that floating will be contemplated under the supervision of the International Monetary Fund.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to those asked previously by the hon. member for Don Valley. As bank rates in London, England, and New York have fallen by a quarter of one per cent and as the bank rate has not fallen in this country, to what extent does the government attribute the fall of 2.2 per cent in the real domestic product for August to an economic policy of so-called expensive money?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this country, as I said to the hon. gentleman and some of his colleagues when interest rates were going up, sets its own monetary policy.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: May I ask the Minister of Finance why the bank rate continues to be so high? Is it the policy of the government to have the bank rate in this country so high? If not, is the government going to do anything about it?


John Napier Turner: Interest rates in this country still tend to be lower than those in the United States and in Europe and consequently there is still a differential which causes a certain pressure on foreign exchange. The other factor is, of course, that interest rates reflect the continuing expansion of the economy as evidenced last week by over $300 million in new chartered bank loans.
26635-37).

October 31, 1973
Oral Questions HOUSING


REASON FOR DELAY IN APPROVAL OF TREFANN COURT RENEWAL PROJECT
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact that on May 28 of this year Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation approved in principle a mortgage application from Trefann Homes Corporation to build 17 houses in the first phase of the Trefann Court urban renewal project, and since it is urgent that an immediate start be made on the project so as to avoid escalation of building costs, may I ask whether CMHC has given final approval to the application and, if not, what is the reason for the long delay?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I take it the question is based on press reports which I also saw this morning. Apparently the difficulty is that only one bid was received for the construction of this project and this has made an evaluation of the costs and the rents which will flow from those costs more difficult. However, I have instructed CMHC to process this application immediately because I share the hon. member's anxiety that this development should go ahead as soon as possible.

[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
On September 17, the minister advised the House that he would issue a document stating the government position at the forthcoming UN conference on the Law of the Sea. Can the minister tell us whether consultations with the provinces are completed and whether he soon intends to table his white paper in the House?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I answered a similar question last week. I am now in a position to say that the paper is in the final drafting stages and will be tabled in the next few days.


REPORTED CONFLICT BETWEEN MINISTER AND MINISTER OF FISHERIES RESPECTING CANADA'S POSITION AT NEXT LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last Thursday in Newfoundland the Minister of Fisheries presented for discussion purposes a paper in which he outlined the position Canada would take at the forthcoming Law of the Sea Conference. Following the meeting, press reports indicated there was conflict

between the minister and his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and that the latter does not go along with the recommendations of the Minister of Fisheries. Will the minister now assure the House that this is not so and that he accepts the position the Minister of Fisheries is putting forward with respect to the position Canada will take at the conference?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am completely unaware of such a conflict. The paper I shall be presenting represents the joint work of the two departments and the two ministers.


Walter C. Carter: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Fisheries. Is the minister now able to tell the House whether Canada's delegation to this conference will take with them a back-up plan for presentation in the event that the recommendations made by this country are not acceptable to the other nations?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: If the hon. member means a back-down plan, the answer is no.


TAR SANDS OIL-GOVERNMENT POSITION RESPECTING TAXATION OF SYNCRUDE AND IMPORTANCE OF PROJECT
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. It relates to the answers he gave yesterday concerning the meeting he held with Alberta ministers on the tar sands proposal. Would the minister tell us whether he agrees that the Syncrude project is most important to the nation and must go ahead at all costs? If this is his view, what are his instructions to his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, with regard to the modification of the tax problems which face Syncrude, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources having said they would remain?


John Napier Turner: There is no difference between myself and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding the approach to these negotiations. We both agree that the Syncrude project is a very important one for the future of Canada. At the moment we are reviewing the arrangements between the companies which make up that consortium and the province of Alberta to see whether they can be fitted in with the announced guidelines related to federal resource taxation policy.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Has the minister said that the project must go ahead at all costs?


John Napier Turner: I did not add the last three words, Mr. Speaker.
October 31, 1973


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that there should be a few gallons of Syncrude thrown among our fisheries questions. We do not often deal with questions about fish, and it certainly spoils the continuity of any attack the opposition can mount upon the government.
May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs who will be leading the delegation Canada is sending to the Law of the Sea Conference? Will it be himself, or officials of his department, or will it be the Minister of the Environment and his officials? Who will be presenting the official Canadian position?


Mitchell William Sharp: It will be the official Canadian position on this side of the House. I do not know about the other side. We speak with one voice and we will be adequately represented by officials of all the departments concerned. As to which minister will voice the views of a united cabinet, I am not quite certain yet. I am sure the ministers will be able to agree without any difficulty whatever.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In spite of the hon. member's admonition a moment ago suggesting we should continue with the same subject, I think we ought to take other considerations into account. For the moment, the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Drummond. I appreciate that the hon. member wishes to ask a supplementary and also the hon. member for Skeena and others.

[ Translation]


NEW HORIZONS PROGRAM
Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Does he intend to alter the process for the approval of projects submitted under the New Horizons Program in order to enable senior citizens to obtain answers before six months, as it happens from time to time?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, a large number of applications have been submitted for such projects and the consideration of these applications must be very serious and thorough; it requires frequent consultations with the groups which applied. Thus fairly extended delays are unavoidable.
Oral Questions


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Frank Howard: My supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs has to do with the document he proposes to present to the House within a week, I think he said. Would he be prepared, immediately on doing so, to present a motion to refer this document to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry in order that, hopefully, we might have the benefit of the views of all sections of the House with respect to it?


Mitchell William Sharp: That was the original purpose, as I stated to the House, and that is my intention.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: My question has largely been answered, Mr. Speaker; it had to do with the controversy which seems to rage between the Minister of Fisheries and the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to the position to be taken at the Law of the Sea Conference. What we realize is that the Minister of Fisheries is endeavouring to learn the views of the fishermen-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is my impression the hon. member said his question had been answered. If he does have a question to ask, I recognize him for that purpose.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: My question is this: what opportunity will be presented to the Parliament of Canada and to the Official Opposition to make some input into the proposals which will be advanced by Canada whenever this conference is held?


Mitchell William Sharp: Let me clarify the position again, as I did during the early part of this session. The government has now completed one round of consultations with the provinces. It now intends to present a paper which will be the subject of discussion in the parliamentary committee before which, of course, people from all parts of the country can appear and make representations. It is our desire not only to represent the views of the cabinet but, I hope, those of all parties in Canada.


AIR CANADA
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. Having regard to Air Canada's announced intention to buy the Lockheed L-1011 in preference to the Douglas DC-10, and the possibility that Air Canada may purchase the Boeing 727 instead of increasing its fleet of Douglas DC-9s by acquiring the new and larger series 50 model, and in view of the harm this could do to the employment situation in the Canadian aerospace industry, will the minister

October 31, 1973
Oral Questions
inform the House whether the cabinet has yet given approval to these proposals by Air Canada?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Whatever type of aircraft Air Canada is going to buy we shall see to it there is some economic benefit to Canada.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: In spite of the minister's assurance, may I ask him to tell the House whether the cabinet is willing to see the aerospace industry in the metropolitan Toronto area deprived of contracts upon which it is dependent?


Jean Marchand: I do not know who is going to benefit, Toronto or Winnipeg, but I am sure it will be a Canadian city.


INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF NEW PRESIDENT-DELAY IN OTTAWA-TORONTO FLIGHT
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a supplementary question for the minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very large number of urgent questions facing Air Canada, will the minister nominate a new president very shortly?


Jean Marchand: I hope very soon, Mr. Speaker. We do not nominate the president, but I hope one will be nominated very soon.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In the meanwhile, would the minister look into the reason an Air Canada plane, flight 456, last Monday night, bound for Toronto with a full load of passengers, was kept on the ground for two and a half hours? The reason given was that they could not find a crew to fly it.


POSSIBLE STRIKE BY FLIGHT ATTENDANTS-STATE OF CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Minister of Transport. In light of continued threats of a possible strike by Air Canada flight attendants, can the minister assure the House that a satisfactory contract will be reached in the near future so that thousands of holidaying Canadians will not be forced to cancel their vacation travel plans during the forthcoming winter?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I hope that a settlement will be reached soon.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transport. On October 18, in response to my question about sending the transport committee to Vancouver to study the myriad problems associated with Canadian National rail service in that area of Canada, the minister replied that he would "call the

presidents of CN and CP and ask them what they were doing to correct the situation". Flowing from that, may I ask the minister whether or not he has yet had an opportunity to speak to the presidents of these railroads, and when B.C. can expect improved rail service?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I did meet, not with the chairmen but with the vice-presidents of both railways, and I asked them to do all they could in order to get some cars for British Columbia. I think they are working hard to get lumber cars back from the United States more rapidly than at present. They are supposed to be making a report to me shortly, so I will know if what they are doing is really efficient.


Mark Willson Rose: I am pleased with the minister's response, but I would remind him that there are more problems in the west than boxcars. In view of the fact that track and section forces in the CN northern region have only 55 men currently employed in maintaining 715 miles of track instead of the normal 150 men employed on this maintenance, does the minister intend to look into the matter to ensure the safety of the public, especially with winter fast approaching?


Jean Marchand: I will look into that aspect as well, Mr. Speaker.



PROVISION OF BOXCARS AT SHIPPING POINTS IN WESTERN CANADA-ALLOCATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRIORITIES ESTABLISHED

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Having regard to the fact that the Minister of Transport indicated in the House last week, after meeting with officials of both railways, that the railways would undertake to provide sufficient boxcars for movement of grain, may I ask the minister in charge of the Wheat Board what steps he or his officials are taking to ensure that boxcars will be provided at those points in western Canada which have not yet received a boxcar since the conclusion of the strike?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, various meetings with the railways resulted in the allocation of additional numbers of cars, particularly in the case of the CNR, for movement of grain. Those cars will be placed by the Canadian Wheat Board, operating through the block shipment system, in the most effective way in order to move the grain as required and as quickly as required.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Vegreville on a supplementary, then the Leader of the Opposition and then the hon. member for Rimouski.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In view of the fact that a number of delivery points have not received a single boxcar since the conclusion of the railway strike, has the minister done an
October 31, 1973

analysis of this problem and has he established priorities for the allocation of boxcars to these points?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I did bring to the attention of the Canadian Wheat Board the suggestion I had received from a number of places that there was an imbalance in the way the cars were being spotted. They are giving serious consideration to that matter, but prior consideration has to be given to making the very best use of equipment at this particular point in time, and the equity for all that will come through equal delivery opportunities will be a matter for adjustment later.



PROPOSED SHIPMENT OF ALASKAN OIL THROUGH STRAIT OF JUAN DE FUCA-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and relates to the shipment of Alaskan oil through the Strait of Juan de Fuca, which some months ago the minister promised us he had only begun to fight. Some of us might feel that we want our money back, since there does not seem to have been any fight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the minister where the matter stands at the moment, and specifically what measures he is now taking to prevent what he undertook to fight against?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, discussions are going on and have, of course, been going on more or less regularly between officials of the two governments and between the various departments concerned. This, as I told an hon. memebr who asked me the question the other day, is one of the first items on my agenda in my talks with Secretary of State Dr. Kissinger when he arrives here. So I can assure the hon. member that we still have a few things in reserve and that he should keep his bets on me.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, before making any decision with regard to bets, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate the respective reaches and weights of himself and the Secretary of State?



PROPOSED RETURN TO DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME TO REDUCE CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY

Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Following the motion I moved a few minutes ago under Standing Order 43, when I heard a few shy nays, would the minister inform the House whether he is considering the possibility of reinstating Daylight Saving Time because of the shortage of energy at the present time, in order to save electricity and fuels?
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we did consider the possibility of extending Daylight Saving Time as a means of saving energy. It has been confirmed that such a measure may be taken, in particular for heating oil; there is also the possibility of creating a shortage of this product and, for this reason, I did not suggest such a change to my colleagues.



SUGGESTED TURNING OFF OF LIGHTS IN GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister, as head of the government, consider launching a full program of economy of energy products this winter which would bring about energy savings on a voluntary basis without any rationing? If we could get ministers and also civil servants to turn out lights in their departments, we could in various ways in Ottawa save considerable amounts of energy.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the consumer side as well as the production side of the energy problem is being considered by the government very seriously.



HOUSING


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation failed to meet with the West Broadway Citizens' committee representing 19 Kitsilano organizations located in the minister's own riding to discuss the adverse effects of a proposed 13-storey high-rise residence to be built in a family oriented neighbourhood, will the minister give serious consideration to meeting with this group and will he examine the possibility of making this project compatible with the neighbourhood?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that is more a representation than a question. The hon. member must assume that his representation has been noted. If there is urgency, it can be considered at the time of adjournment.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Last night the minister announced that the Canadian logistics force for the Middle East will be equipped with three Buffalo aircraft and three helicopters. As this exactly

October 31, 1973
Oral Questions
represents the equipment entitlement of a transport and rescue squadron, would the minister assure the House and the people on both coasts that the equipment will not be withdrawn from the already meagre resources of the transport and rescue squadrons?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have already given the assurance in another announcement that the use of equipment for the Middle East will not affect our search and rescue capability.



GREATER CONSUMPTION OF FUEL BY AUTOMOBILES


Mr. Trevor Morgan (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the mounting energy crisis, and the fact that automotive emission standards will result in the use of a great deal more gasoline and oil-the standards are to come into effect in 1975-is the minister considering a reduction in the automotive emission standards to come into force in that year and, if not, why not?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, our Canadian automobile emission standards have been announced for 1975. They are not as stringent as those in the United States. Our information is that Canadian regulations as far as fuel used in automobiles is concerned, are not as demanding as those in the United States and will not require more fuel than in the recent past.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They will still use 20 per cent more.


J. Trevor Morgan: They will still use more fuel than has been used in the past.


J. Trevor Morgan: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of the Environment. When the automotive emission standards come into effect in 1975, what is the increased consumption of alcohol, on a percentage basis, that will result from these standards?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You mean gasoline.


J. Trevor Morgan: Yes, gasoline; I am sorry.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the technical advice we have had from automobile manufacturers is that the fuel consumption per mile will be roughly the same as in 1973.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is a very direct one for the Minister of Agriculture. It relates to present beef prices. I should like to ask the minister whether he has recommended a temporary surcharge to his cabinet colleagues.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have made several recommendations to my colleagues.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General, who I believe indicated yesterday in the House he was awaiting a report from personnel on his staff in respect of the B.C. penitentiary. I should like to ask whether this report will be tabled in the House, and when the Solicitor General expects to receive it.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to an inquiry to be made by the correctional investigator, the ombudsman who, by the way, is not on my staff; she holds an independent status under the Inquiries Act. I am awaiting her report. I know that her terms of reference provide for reports to be made from time to time to the House. I will check to see what the nature of this one is before I reply further to the question.



CONSTRUCTION OF INSTITUTION AT MISSION, B.C. TO RELIEVE OVERCROWDING

Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, will the Solicitor General advise the House what progress he is making with regard to the Mission site as an answer to the overcrowding that is continuing to exacerbate the situation in the B.C. penitentiary?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we are going to go ahead with construction at Mission, British Columbia. We are setting up temporary working quarters there, and the construction of the penitentiary will be carried on by both professional tradesmen and some inmates.



SALE OF SASKATCHEWAN POTASH TO CHINA-GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO OBTAIN FURTHER AGREEMENTS

Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce
October 31, 1973

and relates to the recent announcement of the sale of $8 million worth of Saskatchewan potash. In view of the announcement coming so soon after the Prime Minister's visit to the purchaser, in this instance the People's Republic of China, and in view of the evident good relations between Canada and that country, will the minister indicate what measures are being taken to enlarge present trade in that particular product with China?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think I should refer this question to the Prime Minister as he was the man who negotiated with the Chinese.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: The House may recall that the Prime Minister announced that a permanent consultative mechanism would be set up with officials from both sides, Canada and China, to consider long-range supply questions. One of the particular items that Canada put on the agenda was long-term supply arrangements in respect of potash. I welcome, as I know all members of the House must welcome, this first sale which is an indication of this profitable arrangement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta and will recognize the hon. member for Hillsborough immediately following.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of his statement in the House that he has transferred over 100 inmates from the B.C. penitentiary, can he now tell us whether that prison is back to normal, or are the prisoners still locked up in their cells on a 24-hour basis?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the most recent report I have is that the penitentiary is partly back to normal but not completely. In other words, they are trying to restore the penitentiary to normal operation on a gradual basis.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have reached the end of the question period. The Chair had hoped to recognize the hon. member for Hillsborough and the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway before calling orders of the day. I will recognize the hon. member on a supplementary, then the hon. member for Hillsborough and then the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether the inmates have been given the opportunity to go back on a normal basis, or is the prison supervisory staff deciding which areas should be opened up?
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I know that instructions were given from Ottawa to the penitentiary officers in British Columbia to make an effort to return, as soon as possible, to general conditions all those who had nothing to do with the disruption. I know thr.t the first steps were taken in respect of those instructions, and I saw that order which was issued from Ottawa.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs in reference to the UN Mideast peacekeeping force. Will he advise whether there has been any request for the services of the highly qualified and uniquely experienced General E.L.M. Burns in an advisory or other capacity, and has he ascertained whether this distinguished public and military servant might be made available to the UN at this crucial time?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question, to my knowledge we have not received such a request. This is an interesting suggestion and I will certainly see that it is brought to the attention of the Secretary General who may find it quite useful.



CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN WORLD POPULATION YEAR

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last May I asked whether he would make a statement on Canada's preparations for World Population Year, 1974, under the United Nations, at which time he said he did not know when he could make a statement but thought it would be closer to 1974. Now that we are a lot closer to 1974, I ask whether the minister can make a statement, perhaps next week or very shortly, on Canada's preparations for World Population Year.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to do that. We are now closer to 1974, and closer to the statement that I hope I will be able to make in the next two or three weeks.
7402

Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, October 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-224, to amend the Canada Pension Plan, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose). May we have order, please. I think it is elementary and hon. members should know they should not hold conferences standing or sitting in the chamber. The hon. member has been recognized and he has the floor. If hon. members want to have talks or discussions, they should have them behind the curtain or in the lobbies. That is what those places are for.


Mark Willson Rose: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My words may not be of a great deal of interest to people who have other matters to discuss. However, the minister to whom we address our remarks, through you, Sir, might have more than a passing interest in some of the comments which will be made, not only at the moment but by members who will follow me in the debate on second reading of Bill C-224. At ten o'clock last evening I was approximately two-thirds of the way through the remarks I wished to make on this bill. There were certain suggestions I wanted to make.
I shall quickly summarize my three suggestions and then return to the second one. The first suggestion is that we should broaden the base of the Canada Pension Plan so that larger benefits would accrue to the contributors. I object to the fact that the Canada Pension Plan is considered only as a supplementary pension plan.
The second point is that I think we should be making provision for voluntary earlier retirement. Many individuals in this country would like to retire and perhaps would like to search for a new career. They are precluded from doing so because of the fact that we seem to be locked into the concept that someone must begin work at age 20 and continue with his nose to the grindstone until age 65. I see no reason, in this day and age, why this should be necessary.
We should also consider the fact that there are many people in our society who spend a good deal of their lives unemployed. I think it might be possible to accomplish the two ends, if not simultaneously at least in a reasonable way, through satisfying the need for employment among the young and providing for relief, if you like, for those people who no longer wish to be part of the work force but are prevented from retiring for no reason other than their commitments and responsibilities and the financial slashing one takes when one goes on pension in this country. I think that really applies to the first point. I was referring to those people who might wish to retire at an earlier date.

It has been reported to me, I think fairly reliably, that in West Germany the railway workers have a contributory plan which allows them, after 25 years, regardless of the age at which they started employment, to retire with a 75 per cent pension. In contrast, in this country the United Automobile Workers have a formula that is called "30 and out," which means that after a railway worker has worked on the assembly line, or in some other dehumanizing occupation, for 30 years and has paid into a contributory plan which would have subsequent benefits, he could retire and begin another career or just go fishing. I understand, however, that in order for that plan to be in effect it must be registered in Ottawa.
I am told that under the present regulations-perhaps the minister will correct me if I am wrong-any retirement plan in Canada, in contrast to the United States, which calls for retirement under age 55 is not eligible for registration in Canada. I think that is an archaic type of regulation if it in fact does exist. I am sure the minister knows that, just as regulations can be implemented, they can also be changed. It is the case that workers have contributed their own money to the kind of plan that would allow this kind of relief from the treadmill at age 55, then certainly no impediment should be placed in their way. I suggest that each year we should try to bring down, in respect of the Canada Pension Plan, the retirement age for those who wish to retire earlier. Those who do not wish to do so could continue working.
In North America we have long been caught up in what is called the work ethic for some people, although I do not believe for most Canadians. There may be a number who may not wish to retire. Some people are as young as ever at age 65, in terms of outlook and sometimes in terms of physical capacity. Other people are burnt-out at age 30. I give no specific example and I do not look at anyone, certainly at none of my colleagues. I think those who wish to draw a pension after an early retirement should have that right. If the base were broadened, and if the contributions people make were increased from 1.8 per cent to 2 per cent or 3 per cent, this would allow flexibility in respect of the Canada Pension Plan so that early retirement would be possible for people who wish it.
Some people might like to quit their jobs and work at another occupation. So far as I am concerned, they should be free to do so if they wish. Perhaps they would like to start some kind of business which would provide employment. We have a great habit in this country, through DREE, ARDA, IRDIA and other such programs, to give bountiful gifts to companies so that more people might be employed. The fact is, however, that small business employs far more people than large business and industry. So far as I am concerned, people who wish to retire early in order to start a new business that would employ people should be given the opportunity to do so. In that way some of the largesse we give to IBM, General Motors and DuPont of Canada might be used to provide the capital necessary to start businesses which would provide the employment that is necessary in this country.
I feel there is no real rationale, except tradition, which demands that a young man should start work at 18 or 20 years of age and continue until age 65.1 believe everything is reversed. We send our kids off at age 21, through OFY
October 31, 1973

and LIP, and keep the old man working until age 65. We already have a provision for early retirement. We have early retirement for members of parliament after six years. Some of us, of course, do our best to avoid this enforced retirement; nevertheless, it happens to the best of us as well as to the worst of us. Why is it not possible for us to do for others before age 65 what we do for ourselves after six years? Early retirement is a concept that I think will grow in Canada. I believe the demand for it will grow, and I think that in terms of the kind of society toward which we are moving it is most vital and necessary.
My third point has to do with the desirability of treating men and women equally, or treating spouses equally, under the Canada Pension Plan, regardless of their sex. This certainly applies to the survivors. This question was dealt with in fair depth by the muscular hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He suggested that perhaps we could combine the income of both the husband and the wife and, as we do in the case of income tax, have them file a joint return or a separate one. Perhaps I am going beyond what the hon. member suggested, but the point is that we should pay them both the same pension whether or not the wife or the husband happened to be the one who was contributing to CPP.
I think many people would agree that all sexism in the plan's structure should be eliminated. If we look, for example, at the plan we find that presently it provides for disabled widower's pension but there is no provision for a normal widower's pension. Conversely, the plan provides for a normal widow's pension in contrast to the widower's pension, and perhaps that is something that should be improved.
Another aspect of this matter concerns the disability provision. In the provision regarding a person's eligibility for disability pension, if I remember it correctly, the phrase "severe and prolonged illness" is used. From this I understand that for a person to be eligible for disability benefit he would have to demonstrate that he had been disabled for, say, two or more years, or one or two years, and then perhaps he would be able to go back into the labour force; but in practice, when a person applies for this benefit "severe and prolonged illness" means to the Department of National Health and Welfare that the person will never work again.
Someone from behind the curtain suggests-I hope this is not autobiographical-that one would have to be almost dead in order to qualify for the disability benefit. I think that is wrong. There are frequent cases, which I am sure have come to the attention of hon. members, of a man receiving disability benefits under the CPP at the age of 60 and his wife being severely limited in terms of her economic responsibilities. There may also be dependent children. In such a case the wife has no option but to go on welfare because of the parsimonious benefits under CPP.
This is also true of those people who are on old age security and CPP, the spouses of pensioners. The pensioner may be over 65 years of age and the spouse anywhere from 10 to 15 years younger. I do not think we should be so severe in our judgment of what is a disability, nor do I think that the fact a person receives disability benefits
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
because of a severe or prolonged illness should imply that he will be on it for the rest of his life. He might be on it for two or three years and then go back to the labour force, perhaps to perform a less onerous task than before. However, that is not the way it has been in practice. This provision is administered far too severely, it seems to me.
Another point dealing with disability which applies particularly in one province, namely, British Columbia, is with regard to a new social security scheme known as the mincome program. Any person between the ages of 18 and 65 receiving a federal disability pension is entitled to the mincome pension. If he has no other income, the maximum benefit is $209.02 per month. We have been in the position of saying to someone who is disabled and is also severely handicapped economically in addition to physically, "If we can only get you that disability pension, you will qualify for mincome and that will take you up to $209". But because of the difficulty of obtaining a disability pension in the first place, the option of receiving income is open to far fewer people. The hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) discussed this matter in detail and I will not go into it any further. I will only say that I certainly think it is within the easy competence of the minister to have that sort of provision changed.
I shall conclude by saying that in my view the Canada Pension Plan should no longer be considered just a supplementary plan. I think that is basically wrong. I am also not convinced that anything we do to improve the CPP will have the effect of improving the mixed private and public pension plans in the country and thus benefiting the workers rather than the companies. I say this because if we increase the benefits under CPP, because of the integrated rather than the stacked provisions of most company pension plans operating in Canada, as CPP benefits become that much more, the company's responsibilities become that much less. I think that is a discouraging feature and only points out how deeply we are mired in a multiplicity of competing private and public plans. I do not think they necessarily support one another; in fact I think they compete with one another.
I suggest that the Canada Pension Plan could be used for a tripartite purpose, namely, as a pension plan, a guaranteed annual income and perhaps as an instrument of national economic policy, by using a selective investment policy. It is well known, of course, that the funds which emanate from a particular province can be, under certain conditions, lent back to that province for investment purposes. I will not go into the details of that procedure because it will not add anything to my remarks.
The premise upon which this idea of a tripartite purpose is based is a relatively simple one. I think the orange paper on social security put out by the minister anticipates a consolidation or rationalization of some of these social security provisons. I am referring to the Canada Pension Plan, the old age security plan, the guaranteed income supplement and perhaps even the Canada Assistance Plan. These programs should be rationalized and consolidated into one comprehensive package which you might want to call a social security program or an insurance program. What it is called is not important.
I think another corollary is that with the guaranteed annual income and the comprehensive program which will
26635-38}

October 31, 1973
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
provide for a disability income as well as survivors' benefits, perhaps there is no longer such a great need, if there ever was, for the private insurance industry. If we could achieve some form of public ownership of the private insurance industry, plus some of its liquid assets, with or without compensation-I think insurance companies have been well compensated for their efforts over the years- we could develop a rather important social and economic instrument in this country which would bring benefits to everybody except, perhaps, private insurance companies.
I would like to close by congratulating the minister on his progress. Some significantly progressive steps have been taken in the legislation he has presented. Naturally, the usual comments by opposition speakers on a government bill that goes part way to meeting their desires can be summed up in the phrases, "What took you so long?" and, "Why didn't you go further?" I congratulate the minister on his courage. He told me that he never really thinks about a pension plan for himself. Maybe he feels he will live forever, or perhaps he has independent means to take care of his own security. But I would like to remind him that, progressive as he is, the people all across Canada are away ahead of him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am informed that there have been consultations between representatives of the parties and that the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) might be recognized at this point ahead of the hon. member who might otherwise be recognized by the Chair. On this understanding, the hon. member for Winnipeg North is recognized.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their courtesy, since I have a speaking engagement to fulfil elsewhere. I begin by congratulating the minister on the improvements to the Canada Pension Plan which this bill will permit. We in this party approve of the removal of the maximum annual increase of 2 per cent which was a provision in the Canada Pension Plan Act when it was first adopted. We opposed that provision at the time. We believe that the proposal in this bill, to allow benefits to increase annually by an amount that will take into account the full increase in the cost of living, is a substantial improvement.
We also support the provision which increases the level of income on which pension contributions are calculated and on which basis pensions will be paid. I am happy that those who now receive Canada Pension Plan benefits will have their monthly payments increased by between 8 per cent and 20 per cent. This is long overdue in view of the sharp increases in the cost of living during the past few years.
However, I suggest to the minister that what he has done does not go far enough. This bill proposes that we accept the idea that the present payments made to Canada Pension Plan beneficiaries are fair and are in fact a permanent feature of the plan. If we say that the benefits received by people will increase only by an amount equal to the actual increase in the cost of living, then we tie their benefits to the present scale. I suggest that we ought to increase the benefits annually, not by the increase in

the consumer price index but by the increase in the actual growth of the gross national product, adjusted of course to take into account the increase caused by inflation. Today I do not have the time to put the figures on the record, but I suggest that if this were done, over a period of time benefits would be substantially more than is the case simply by providing an increase to meet the rising cost of living.
When we discuss the effects of the Canada Pension Plan we must look not just at the Canada Pension Plan itself but at the total package which is available for people who retire. That includes what they get under the old age pension legislation, from the Canada Pension Plan and also from the private pension plans to which they contributed while they worked. We then realize that when we passed the Canada Pension Benefits Standards Act some years ago, which put certain floors under the provisions of the private pension plans, we did not go far enough.
Let me deal briefly with some of the difficulties which we still have. I am not unhappy that we have federal legislation for people who work in industries which come under the jurisdiction of the federal government and that we have similar legislation in four provinces. I am sorry that the other six provinces, including my own province of Manitoba, have not yet passed similar or better legislation. But there is much lacking in the legislation that we passed. What are the defects in private pension plans which still contribute substantially to the well-being of most Canadian citizens when they retire? First of all, private plans are in the main devoid of portability. We are living in an age in which people experience a great deal of mobility. People change jobs voluntarily, people quit because they are sick, people are laid off because of reductions in the working staff, because of automation, and so on-and when they do, even under the best plans they suffer a great deal.
Until the passage of the Canada Pension Benefits Standards Act, under the CPR pension plan the rule was that if a person had not worked 30 years for the company, was not 55 years of age and had left voluntarily, for instance if he were sick, then all he got from the CPR was the exact amount he had paid into its pension plan. He did not get a penny of the interest which his contributions had earned, and he did not get a cent of the money which the CPR should have been putting into the pension plan on his behalf as its share of the contributions.
That is the kind of thing which is wrong with many pension plans. At age 35, 40 or 45, when a worker gets a lump sum repayment of money which he has contributed to a pension plan, he may find it advisable to use it as a down payment on a house, or to buy a car or something else. But the story is different at age 65 when it is time for a worker to retire. I suggest we must introduce legislation to provide for portability. Some companies have begun to do something about this question. The CNR has made an arrangement with the government so that a railway employee can take his pension credits with him if he leaves the CNR and goes to work for the federal government.
October 31, 1973

As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, we have the Pension Benefits Standards Act which has since 1967 required both employer and employee contributions to be invested after ten years of service of an employee provided he is 45 years of age. I suggest that the ten-year period should be eliminated or reduced, say, to two years and the age provision should be completely eliminated.
Another defect of most private pension plans is that they pay an employee a fixed amount upon retirement. In some cases they pay 60 per cent of salary, calculated on the best five years. That may be pretty good for a worker who retires in 1973. But where the cost of living increases by 4 per cent or 5 per cent every year, as it has in recent years, a worker who can manage quite well on his pension this year if he retires at age 65 may find that at age 75 his income has been reduced by between 40 per cent and 50 per cent. I suggest that private pension plans should be changed to have built into them the same principles that are now being built into the Canada Pension Plan, that is, they should be increased by at least the increase in the cost of living.
Another defect in most private pension plans is that, while an employee is required to contribute a certain percentage of his wage or salary, say 5 per cent or 6 per cent, 6 V2 per cent in the case of railway workers, the same is not required of the company. The amount the company pays varies from year to year and from employee to employee, and simply guarantees that the employee will receive a certain amount. I think employers should be required to match the contribution made by employees. Take the railways as an example. The CNR employees pay 6 per cent of their wages as their contribution, and the CPR employees pay per cent. But the CNR itself pays only 1.75 per cent, and the CPR pays 2 'A per cent as its contribution. That kind of advantage to the companies should not be condoned or excused.
I suggest that the Canada Pension Plan Act should be amended to require the provinces to enact legislation to incorporate escalator clauses in private pension plans. The federal government should be asked to put such a requirement into the Pension Benefits Standards Act. If that were done, then the package that people retiring would receive in the form of old age pension, benefits from the Canada Pension Plan to which they have contributed, and the pension plan established by their private employer would guarantee that they could live at a decent standard, given all the suggestions I have put forward.
It seems to me rather obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the integration of private pension plans with the Canada Pension Plan which has taken place in many cases has had a perverse effect upon private plans, an effect which nobody could foresee; or if they did, they did not speak about it. The Canada Pension Plan and the kind of improvements we are proposing in this bill are based upon a plan which is not funded. This means that the increased benefits are provided through the transfer of funds from the public sector to those who will benefit. Many groups of people are not covered by this plan; for example, housewives, people on welfare who do not work, and people who are unskilled and earn small wages. The benefits under the provisions of this plan are based upon the contributions
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
made, and people such as those I have mentioned either receive no benefits at all or benefits at the lowest end of the scale. The chief beneficiaries are those in the top earnings bracket who pay the maximum amount allowable and, when they retire, will receive the maximum amount permitted under the Canada Pension Plan Act. That is another illustration of giving to those who already have.
Another matter which I think should be looked at, not necessarily today but in the near future, is the integration of the Canada Pension Plan with private pension plans which has taken place. A very good illustration of that is the pension payable to railway workers. This has resulted in the transfer of a large number of benefits to private companies. When we increase the Canada Pension Plan, in many cases we reduce the liability of the private company.
A very large number of private pension plans are set up in such a way that when the employee retires he receives a total pension package. In other words, to the extent that the Canada Pension Plan benefits are increased, the obligation of the private pension plan toward his pension is reduced. In those circumstances, since the worker's contribution is set as a certain percentage of his wage or salary, and since that is deducted every pay day, when the employee retires and you begin to calculate what the company has to put in in order to meet their obligation to his pension, you find the amount they have to contribute is much less than it was before the Canada Pension Plan came into effect. To that extent there is obviously a transfer of the burden from the private company-the railway is one of the best illustrations-to the public.
It seems to me we should be looking at the legislation we have or which we ought to provide in order to regulate and set higher standards for private pension plans so that the benefits they pay will be commensurate with their obligation. I know this kind of thinking will be anathema to the private insurance companies. I do not say this because I think they are inherently bad. Insurance companies are in business to make profits, as other companies are. They want to sell more retirement pension plans to more and more employers and employees. I suggest that just as we found in the field of hospital and medical insurance that the state can do a better job than the private sector of the economy, so we shall find-as we are indeed finding-that the federal and provincial governments can do a better job in the field of pensions than can the private sector of the economy.
While commending the minister for the changes he has brought before the House, I urge him to give serious consideration, along with his provincial counterparts, to the introduction of other legislation which equally with the Canada Pension Plan is necessary if we are to regulate and control private pension plans which play such an important part in the well-being of millions of retired citizens.


Mr. G. A. Percy Smith (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate and to join other hon. members in expressing support for Bill C-224. I notice that the lead-off speakers for the opposition parties, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), the hon. member for Winnipeg

October 31, 1973
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard), all expressed their support for Bill C-224.
I follow the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) in speaking on the bill. I regret that I did not hear part of his speech, but near the end of his remarks he appeared to object to the fact that the Canada Pension Plan does not provide an adequate retirement pension for everyone. He mentioned the poor, the working poor, the unemployed, and so on. I suggest that the Canada Pension Plan is not intended at this time to provide an adequate pension for everyone. It is simply a social insurance plan to which people contribute. Its purpose is to provide a measure of retirement security for the working people of this country.
The speaker who preceded the hon. member for Winnipeg North, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose), made an informative and interesting speech on this subject. It was as well, a witty speech, as his speeches sometimes are. In his remarks, with which I did not entirely agree, he took exception to the fact that the plan is a supplementary plan and is not in itself enough to provide for the retirement income security that most Canadians require. That may be quite true at present. The whole point of the amendments included in Bill C-224 is that this particular situation is to be remedied. What the bill provides for is this: when the plan reaches its full potential under the original legislation, the benefits paid, plus the increases provided in the present amendments, will be such that by the end of this decade a workman could receive a pension of $250 a month. The approximately $90 provided at present is clearly inadequate.
It is thought that the pension payable by the end of the decade, which is to be added to the ordinary old age security pension, should be a substantial factor in providing retirement income security. In many cases that income will be sufficient. Even if we ignore further escalations, what will be the result? Take, for example, a couple receiving $210 in old age pension, or $105 each. If you add the $250 that will be available, their total income will be $460 a month, or about $5,500 per year. We must agree that this would be a very substantial income. In some cases it would be enough, as at that time of life many of the expenses of the couple would be lower, their children having been educated and their general expenses having decreased as they grew older.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley West objected to the word "supplementary" being asked in connection with the Canada Pension Plan. Apparently his objection arises from the fact that this word appears in the first line of the initial legislation; there was reference there to "supplementary income." The act as first passed was to provide an income that would be supplementary to the old age pension. I point out, however, that it does not refer to any supplementary pension.
There is another aspect of the speech of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West with which I do not totally agree. He contends that the kind of plan we are talking about is not clear. If I remember correctly, he said it is unclear whether this is a welfare plan, a social insurance plan or something in between. I say that all this will become extremely clear if one reads the words of the

original Canada Pension Plan Act of 1964-65. It is strictly a social insurance plan. It is, and must be, financed totally by contributions and no charge whatever is to be made against the consolidated revenue fund of the country. This includes the administration of the plan, the clerical help and everything else. It is financed, as we know, by contributions from employees which are matched by contributions of employers, as well as by contributions from certain self-employed people.
As well, the funds earn interest; they are invested when not required immediately for the payment of benefits. The provinces profit from the availability of these funds. By law they are lent to the provinces. The proportion which contributions from an included province bear to the total fund determines the size of the loans made from the fund. This was pointed out clearly by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who on a point of order raised objections to the legislation. What he meant, of course, was that there are no public funds, or funds out of consolidated revenue used in connection with benefits paid under the plan.
I also notice that there appears to be some confusion about the nature of the plan. Several of the speakers I heard did not clearly distinguish it from some of the other plans in effect in Canada, income-support plans such as family allowances, old age pensioor, supplementary allowances, and so on. In recent weeks and months we have passed legislation to enable the escalation of benefits under such plans. I think it is even more important that we do so now in connection with a social insurance plan such as we are presently considering.
A number of speakers have advocated the lowering of the age at which pensions should be payable. Various increases in the rate of pension have also been proposed. However, we must remember that if we were to carry out these proposals the whole concept of the plan would need to be changed. At least, the amount of the contributions would have to be greatly increased. These questions would then arise: How much should we, as a parliament, order a workman to pay into a savings plan? How much should we be prepared to legislate that employers or self-employed people must pay into such a plan?
The legislation prescribes that under penalty of fine or imprisonment employees must contribute a certain proportion of their salaries. Similarly, we order employers to contribute a like amount. So when we talk about lowering the age at which pensions are payable, we are bound to take these other factors into consideration. The money which some 500,000 people presently receive is derived from funds which were paid in under certain conditions, and those who benefit are entitled to benefit. If the age of eligibility were lowered and a flood of new recipients came in to collect benefits under the plan, there would be no solution except to decrease the amount of benefit payable, that is, if we are to follow faithfully the original legislation which clearly states that benefits must be related to contributions.
The plan holds in trust the money paid by contributors,-and we cannot change the rules to the disadvantage of those who have already made contributions on the basis of
October 31, 1973

certain understandings. This is why the original legislation made it quite difficult for changes to be made in the plan. I am not for a moment suggesting that the change contemplated in the bill before us is such a change that the draftsmen had in mind. I raise this point because on the front page of a daily newspaper which I read yesterday was an article suggesting that a serious question existed as to the legality of the bill now before us. The article was supplied by the Financial Times news service. Underlying this concern is a certain section of the legislation which was passed in 1964 or 1965-section 115(2) of the Canada Pension Plan Act. This provides:
Where any enactment of the Parliament of Canada passed after the coming into force of this act contains any provision which alters, or the effect of which is to alter, either directly or indirectly, and either immediately or in the future, the general level of benefits provided by this act or the rates of contributions provided for by this act, it shall be deemed to be a term of such enactment, whether or not it is expressly stated therein, that such provision shall come into force only on a day to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council, which day shall not in any case be earlier than the first day of the third year following the year in which any notice of intention to introduce a measure containing a provision to such effect was laid before parliament.
So the argument is that any change in the original act could not be effective for two years and a day from the date it was introduced in parliament. However, it is a well-established principle that parliament can pass any law it chooses, no matter what an earlier parliament may have said or done. The government must be free to respond to changing situations. After all, the original legislation was passed seven or eight years ago, and at this point I feel there is an urgent need to respond to price increases caused by inflation.
The other subsection of section 115 of the original act requires that two-thirds of the population of the included provinces should consent. This provision has been met or it will shortly be met, as is clear from the communique which was issued at the conclusion of the conference of welfare ministers held in October of this year. It is clear from this communique, dated October 11, that all the provinces have expressed agreement with this change we are asked to make. Had it been otherwise, I might have agreed there was some question about the legality of the amendment which is presently before us.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I feel sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, with his knowledge of the rules, would have raised this matter on a point of order if there were any grounds for his doing so. I do not claim to be an expert on the construction or interpretation of statutes; however, I do know that in trying to interpret them to find the real meaning of the legislation we must look at the intent of the legislation.
We might ask why the section requiring, in effect, two years, notice of any substantial change in the plan was placed in the original act. I think it was put there to prevent any government from recommending hasty or ill-considered changes. Perhaps on the eve of an election some future government might have attempted to increase benefits without making provision for a corresponding increase in contributions, or something of that kind. However, it is clear to me that the intent of the initial legisla-
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
tion was not that a change such as we are proposing in Bill C-224 would be prohibited.
Clause 8 of the bill now before the House provides as follows:
Subsection 115(2) of the Canada Pension Plan does not apply in respect of the amendments to that act contained in this act.
In other words, in passing this bill we are saying that subsection 115(2) of the original act does not apply. Hon. members will note there is no provision in the bill that subsection (4) of section 115 does not apply; that is, the provision requiring the agreement of all the provinces.
I feel the minister is to be congratulated for bringing forward this bill and for his success in obtaining the agreement of the provinces. The similarity between the proposals contained in the working paper on social security in regard to the Canada Pension Plan published in April of this year and the communique to which I made reference earlier is very striking indeed, and I think is a tribute to the tact, diplomacy and indeed perhaps the persuasiveness of the minister in his dealings with the provinces.
One of the main objectives has been to bring the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan into parallelism with each other in regard to contributions, particularly in regard to the income on which contributions are based; the two figures had diverged somewhat. In obtaining agreement on this matter I believe the minister did a real service so far as mobility of the work force and portability of pensions are concerned, as well as for national unity itself.
I feel sure there is no legal objection to the passing of this legislation and I urge its speedy passage through the House. I should like to make one other point before sitting down. It, too, arises from the communique issued by the welfare ministers. Part of the communique reads as follows:
It was also agreed where the Canada Pension Plan operates that, effective in 1974, retirement pensions will become payable at age 65 to any person who has ceased to contribute to the plan, regardless of his or her earnings. Thus the earnings test which has been applied to people between 65 and 69 will be eliminated. The government of Quebec has already liberalized the earnings test under the Quebec Pension Plan.
The minister indicated that he has further amendments in mind. I urge him to include an amendment to incorporate the agreement that I have just read. However, I believe the minister has indicated that further amendments should have a little more time so they are fully discussed both by the public and by this House, and that he is introducing only those that are contained in Bill C-224. Since they are to be effective at the beginning of 1974, they are therefore urgent.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the changes proposed in Bill C-224 are going to cause or have caused any violent arguments on the part of anybody in this chamber. When we are dealing with such a sensitive question as pensions, a subject we are all sensitive to both politically and personally, perhaps we do not always scrutinize or discuss all of the issues. In addition to that, in this particular case we are faced with the fact that the consent of the provinces to these changes has been secured, since this is a measure requiring the consent

October 31, 1973
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
of the provinces. Even the effort and time involved in getting together with the various provincial governments is something that cannot be taken lightly. I feel it makes discussion of the bill, you might say, somewhat academic.
However, I should like to raise a few points regarding the workings of the Canada Pension Plan. There are those who suggest that the CPP should be used to replace the old age security and guaranteed income supplement plans for the elderly. In my opinion, the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement should be the means by which the state guarantees to its citizens a basic pension when they reach retirement age.
There are those who say that the Canada Pension Plan should override old age security and that eventually old age security ahould be phased out in favour of the CPP. In my estimation it is important that the Canada Pension Plan remain a pension plan for those who, either by working as an employee or by being self-employed, make contributions to the plan and thus qualify for a pension when they retire. For this reason I think amendments to the plan that seek to override the plan have to be seriously considered to ensure they are actuarially sound.
There are those who say that the Canada Pension Plan is not really a pension plan in the accepted sense of a private plan or one's own plan, but merely a transfer of income from those who are working to those who have retired. This is perhaps true of any large scheme whereby massive sums of money are raised by way of levy on employers, employees and people who are self-employed and the money transferred to those who have retired. Others would go farther and suggest that the Canada Pension Plan is largely a tax levied on those who are producing and earning, the revenue from which is given to those who have reached retirement.
I think it is wise in any discussion of the type of Canada Pension Plan we would like as a nation to consider the impact of a compulsory-type saving such as this in relation to the level of voluntary saving, or the general desirability of private plans such as employees' pensions, annuities, and so on. Personal savings are usually directed toward specific goals. In my experience as a physician, some 20 years ago people thought seriously about the problems they would face when they became old, particularly if they were ill. Today people do not worry so much about having enough money to live on. Years ago people wanted to make sure they would be able to pay their hospital, physician and other bills associated with illness when they became incapacitated, in order that they would not be a burden on their children, which very often was the case.
In a relatively few years we have taken care of these expenses in that hospital bills are paid for universally, medicare is universal and in most provinces, at least in my own, the cost of drugs is looked after. There is practically no one past the age of 65 who has any difficulty getting drugs. We also have nursing home care and assistance in respect of a wide range of services, including assistance in providing shelter cost for those in low income groups. In that relatively short time much of the basis for the fear on the part of the pensioner has disappeared.

With the level of old age security and guaranteed income supplements, it seems that personal savings are no longer as attractive to many people. Many who took out life insurance policies 25 years ago with the idea of saving now realize they might as well have taken a trip with the money at the time, particularly in view of the dollar devaluation as a result of our inflationary trend. This is one area we must consider in respect of the Canada Pension Plan as it relates to voluntary savings.
Very shortly we will be considering the foreign investment bill and the government's screening process for foreign investment. I think we should all realize that, in a practical way, what people in Canada save and invest will ultimately determine how effective will be Canadian control of our own resources. A very rapid inflation rate means, for most people, that personal savings programs drawing conventional rates of interest do not really offset the inflationary effect on such investments. People receiving 8 per cent or 10 per cent on their investments-and this is a high rate of interest for those who are buying homes-will pay 3 per cent or 4 per cent in income tax at the end of the year and will be substantially farther behind in terms of real value.
There is one other aspect of the Canada Pension Plan that should be discussed in terms of savings. This represents a large pool of capital, at the present time in the neighbourhood of $4 billion, earmarked for the provinces. Employees' corporate pension plans, mutual funds and the savings portion of insurance funds have all contributed to the pooling of capital in the hands of a relatively small number of companies under the control of professional managers. One bad feature in this regard has been the withdrawal of capital from rural areas with concentration in a few cities in the country. Most communities in the past had a local money-lender who was perhaps not very popular in the area but who did serve a purpose. Rural areas are now starved of capital. As these small capital pools have been centralized, governments have attempted by various programs such as DREE to provide capital for rural communities, but in my opinion they have not been too successful.
The combined effect of the old age security and Canada Pension Plan being tied to the actual cost of living index will mean the taking over from a large number of Canadians the function of personal saving. In other words, very few private pension plans can be indexed in this way, so the Canada Pension Plan will assume a much more important role. When voluntary personal savings cannot be related to the inflation index it becomes very unattractive to build up personal savings. While it is desirable, and perhaps easy, to provide automatic increases in basic pensions by tying them to the cost of living index, this is a somewhat arbitrary measure.
It is very difficult to measure the actual increase in the cost of living, as various items are included; but the index does not reflect the entire economy. The governor of the Bank of Canada made a statement the other day to the effect that he could not understand our unemployment rate at a time when indices showed such business activity. This probably results from the fact that the conditions which affect the indices are upset by changes in the
October 31, 1973

economy not being registered, or registered in a different way in the indices we are using.
The change from the automatic 2 per cent escalation factor will be significant and I support this move although I have reservations, particularly as this provision relates to the entire business community and our tax structure. In a free economy, various segments are advancing while others are going back, and adjustments must be made to offset this fact. When the cost of production in one segment is higher than the return on the product, the price must go up in order to obtain required production. When indexing is related to the entire economy, perhaps this situation is rectified.
Let me give one example in respect of agriculture. We have seen a rapid increase in food prices, about which there has been a great deal of comment, much more so than there has been about increases in the cost of automobiles, clothing and other manufactured goods. An examination of the cost of agricultural production indicates that unless prices go up, production will go down. In addition, we must remember that the determination by the international market of the price of grain products has contributed to the increase in retail prices ultimately passed on to the consumer and reflected in the cost of living index. What happened was that the industry needed a larger portion of our national income in order to maintain productivity. Without such an increase, production would have fallen off, and I might say that it has to some extent.
When there is an increase in the cost of food prices, there is naturally an increase in the cost of living index. If the remainder of the economy is able to respond to this by an immediate rise in their payments, then the whole economy becomes rigid and there is little point in raising agricultural production. So when we translate automatic rises in the cost of living to pensions, wages, and so on, in my opinion there could be considerable unfavourable reaction. It is true we are not dealing here with the normal sums of money in relation to the total economy, although these sums could become significant. Although they are in retirement, we are dealing with people who, because they have left the work force, perhaps because of age or infirmity, have a reduced ability to earn a living. Nevertheless, if all segments of the economy, or almost all, became indexed there could be a very rigid economy in society. At the present time almost all increases in salary are based on cost of living increases rather than productivity.
I should like to elaborate a little on some of the problems in respect of our economy as a result of the way the funds of the Canada Pension Plan are being spent. The provincial use of Canada Pension Plan contributions has become part of a mechanism that not only affects the pension plan but also affects provincial government spending and the entire investment pattern.
Provincial governments have a pattern of borrowing from the Canada Pension Plan. This tends to encourage increased spending by the same governments because of easy access to the pension fund money. The legislation in respect of the Canada Pension Plan provides for the investment of funds less the estimated amounts needed to pay for benefits and costs. These funds are made available
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
to each province, based on its contribution. In this way the provinces are able to borrow money from these funds subject to the supervision of the Department of Finance.
I think it has been recognized for some time that in the past 20 years the provinces have had much greater demand on their treasuries, relatively, than there has been on the federal treasury. Considerable discussion of this problem was generated during the debate on the white paper in respect of taxation, and subsequent taxation law. I believe the use of Canada Pension Plan funds has tended to mask the importance of this. It has tended to make it easy for the provincial governments to have access to funds, and perhaps contributes to some unwise spending programs. This may also have prevented dialogue in respect of making decisions on actual taxation powers, in terms of the proportion allotted to the federal and provincial governments as well as, perhaps, to municipal governments. In general, this easy access to funds by the provincial governments could lead to unwise spending programs.
This program does not involve the normal contracts that would be involved in borrowing from normal lenders. It is not necessary for a provincial government to become involved in the process of borrowing money on the financial market. I suggest this condition could tempt provinces to adopt an "easy come, easy go" attitude. This huge reservoir of Canada Pension Plan funds provides a cash flow which occurs independently of the normal business cycle. The revenue of the Canada Pension Plan grew from $95 million in 1965 to $1,102 million in 1972-73. Since 1965-66 the excess of revenue has left the plan with an amount of $4,779 million. In 1972-73, contributions to the plan totalled $897 million, with pay-outs of $206 million, so that almost $700 million was available to the provinces for borrowing on a prorated basis.
There are many who criticize the free enterprise system, but the intragovernmental borrowing and short-circuiting of the free market by borrowing from the Canada Pension Plan fund-illustrates what has happened. If a province needs funds, it should borrow directly from the market. In turn, if the division of taxes is such that provinces do not have sufficient access to taxing powers, then that should be negotiated. Borrowing from the Canada Pension Plan fund brings into conflict two different functions, the needs of the provincial treasurers and the rights of the pension fund contributors. If the provincial governments borrow at an advantageous rate, obviously the pension fund is lending at a disadvantageous rate. If the provinces did not borrow these funds there would be an incentive to maximize the yield on the funds and the money would flow to the most productive and rewarding sectors of the economy.
Perhaps the managers of the fund should be urged to invest as effectively as possible. There is a suggestion that the Canada Pension Plan legislation would have to be amended to permit each province to control its own funds. If yields on the pension fund could be improved, the contributions could be decreased or the benefits could be raised. Under the present arrangement the provinces are able to borrow at less than market value and thus the pensioners rights are disregarded and given second place. The present situation allows governments to disregard the best interests of the pension plan contributors. After all,

October 31, 1973
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
the purpose of the government should be to help citizens, not unnecessarily to harm them.
In the final analysis, I think it is important that the Canada Pension Plan be actuarially designed to provide imcome for those who have contributed. It should remain separate from old age security, and some consideration should be given to the fact that the managers of the plan might be instructed, or be placed in a position to invest the money to yield a good interest so that contributors to the plan will be rewarded as much as possible.


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Saint-Henri):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join the previous speakers who have voiced their approval since the beginning of this debate on Bill C-224. It seems that there is no opposition to the bill from either side of the House. I congratulate each hon. member who, while approving the amendments introduced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), has suggested improvements which I am sure will not come into effect immediately. But knowing the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I am sure that all those suggestions will not remain unheeded.
I would like to relate the history of this bill and summarize its main features.
Passed on April 3, 1965, the law establishing the Canada Pension Plan came into force the following May 5. The collection of contributions began in January 1966 and the first benefits were paid in January 1967 in the form of retirement pensions.
The first benefits to surviving people were paid in February 1968. This plan is a major landmark of social progress in Canada as it enables millions of citizens to secure a financially safe retirement while simultaneously protecting their dependents or surviving relatives against the loss of income in case of disability or death to the bread winner.
This plan is in force throughout the country except in Quebec which has a similar and closely co-ordinated pension plan; the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan practically operate as one single plan. Together they cover almost all working people in Canada, including the armed forces.
The benefit credits accumulated under both plans are portable everywhere in Canada. The contributor who works for more than one employer or who is self-employed during the whole or a part of his working life accumulates pension credits no matter where he works in Canada. Moreover, the plan benefits are paid to recipients, whether they live in Canada or abroad.
Every contributor to the plan must have a social insurance number so that his gains entitling him to a pension may be registered correctly for benefit purposes.
There are three main kinds of benefits: retirement pensions, benefits to surviving relatives, including pensions to widows and disabled widowers, orphan benefits, the overall death benefit, benefits to the disabled, including the pension to a disabled contributor and benefits to his dependents.

In another field, the same bill includes provisions to give complete justice to any Canadian citizen who, on account of a decision from the board or from the plan, feels frustrated in his rights.
Any contributor or recipient included in the plan has the right to appeal against decisions he deems unjust. As regards participation and contributions, requests from employees and employers must be sent first to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr, Stanbury). Should the minister's decision be unsatisfactory, the applicant may appeal to the Pension Appeal Board, whose decision is irrevocable.
As to earnings assessment for the purposes of Canada Pension Plan, review applications from self-employed workers are treated in the same way as appeals provided under the Income Tax Act. As regards benefits, there are three appeals: one can refer to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), to the review committee or to the Pension Appeal Board whose decision is final.
Implementation of the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan is already an important step in the area of social security in Canada. Such an initiative from our government shows to what extent the latter was concerned with retired people, disabled persons, surviving spouses as well as orphans who, since the plan was implemented, have been able to live more serenely.
In 1968, this government, aware of the problems resulting from inflation and willing as always to be earnest towards pension beneficiaries, implemented a review of social security. Since then, many Canadians have been able to meet their obligations, despite unavoidable increases in consumer prices, and this was made possible by the government's determination to protect citizens against the rising cost of living. Today, faced with the rapid rate of inflation, the government continues to take the necessary measures. This is why, on September 4, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in a statement made in this House, presented immediate legislation designed to slow down the inflation rate. Among these measures, I would like to mention one that enable retired workers and citizens who belong to the above-mentioned categories to keep pace with the standard of living.
Since 1966, we have witnessed-and this makes me very happy-the government's flexibility in their amendments, that I could qualify as systematic, if I consider the amendments brought forward in 1968 to set up an adjustment mechanism which provided for a maximum annual escalation of 2 per cent for pension benefits. Since these amendments, this government has remained on its toes in the face of the extensive inflation that afflicts not only us but all countries of the western world, and we are quite aware of that. That is why after repeated efforts and lengthy studies it was agreed to set up a mechanism much more flexible than the previous one which provides for the adjustment of pensions on the current cost of living standard and a progressive adjustment from year to year.
For those who contribute to both plans; the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan; maximum pensionable earnings will be increased from $5,600 to $5,900, $6,600 in 1974, and $7,400 in 1975.

I find very practical the suggestion of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to legislate immediately on those two questions that should be implemented before 1974. There is no doubt that everyone knows that those amendments to the legislation will provide relief to over
500,000	Canadians who receive retirement pensions or other pensions provided for in the act.
In the Speech from the Throne at the beginning of this session this government considered the different problems affecting all Canadians and promised a complete revision of all social security measures in Canada. Following that formal undertaking by this government, the Minister for National Health and Welfare released his working paper on social security in Canada on April 18, 1973, which contains several proposals that should completely change the social security plan in Canada. And a little later I would like to come back to some of the projects that I find particularly interesting and cherishable, specially in the area of employment strategy.
I would like first of all to commend the Minister of National Health and Welfare for the federal-provincial conference of ministers that was held on October 11 and 12 in Qttawa.
We, from Quebec, have heard the leader of the new government of that province talk about profitable federalism during the election campaign.
In my opinion, the results of the federal-provincial conference held in Ottawa on October 11 and 12 are tangible evidence of that profitable federalism, where the representatives of two levels of different governments can discuss their problems and ways of solving them and implementing measures while protecting the interests of all, whether under provincial or federal jurisdiction.
That is why, following last spring's publication of the working paper on social security by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, after the provincial ministers of Health and Welfare met in Charlottetown on September 25 and 26 to discuss further and make their positions known before resuming talks with their federal counterpart at the conference held October 11 and 12. During this conference, the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare obtained agreement from all provincial ministers on five points, on a complete revision of the Quebec and Canada plans.
The first point of agreement is the increase in benefits according to the cost of living. In future benefits paid under these two plans will be based entirely on increases in the consumer price index, following the removal of the existing 2 per cent ceiling for everyone, including retired workers.
The second point of agreement is the raising of the ceiling on earnings used to compute benefit and contribution rates. The rates of contributions paid to the Canada and Quebec pension plan accounts will be identical from now on. Both will be established at $6,000 in 1974. For the benefit of those who did not know it, there used to be a difference of $300, I believe, between the ceilings of the Quebec Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan.
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
The third point of this agreement provides that maximum retirement benefits under the Canada Pension Plan, which amount to $1,089 in 1973, should increase to $3,000 by 1980, according to estimates. Old age security benefits are added to these retirement pensions.
The fourth point of this agreement concerns a change of residence by the employees. Employees entering or leaving Quebec will now contribute the same amount before and after moving, and this contribution will be based on the same earning level.
The fifth point pertains to the suppression of the earnings (employment income) control for Canada Pension Plan participants between the ages of 65 and 69. Retirement benefits under the Canada Pension Plan for participants aged from 65 to 69 will ne longer depend on their justifying beforehand their employment income-which used to be determined by the earnings control to which they were submitted-and from now on, they will be automatically granted to all those aged 65 who will have stopped contributing to the Canada Pension Plan.
This understanding, Mr. Speaker, given any disagreement which can exist in any area between provincial and federal jurisdictions, proves that there can be an agreement provided the citizens' rights are protected and safeguarded.
I do not doubt that we all readily accept these two amendments and, as the minister said in his speech at the beginning of this debate, other amendments will soon be added to the act.
Speaking about social measures, I would like to talk a little about the duty of the government towards the citizens and of the concern they feel about them, especially about the citizens who are the victims of inflation and of the increase in the cost of living and who do not have any other income than the old age security pension. We all know that last September the government, for the second time in their parliamentary year, granted an increase in the old age security pensions to mesh them with the cost of living. This is a supplementary measure this year and those who get the guaranteed income supplement will benefit from it.
In the same area, the government, by a temporary measure, gave higher family allowances with the October cheques. This measure is temporary-and I am confident it will be adopted during this session-until the new legislation on family allowances is passed. Everybody knows that this new legislation which is now before the committee provides for a three-fold increase over what is provided in the present act, up to a maximum of $20. To this will be added a special program of the provinces and I shall talk with full knowledge about the province of Quebec which will also offer family allowances amounting in some cases to $45 a month.
All that, Mr. Speaker, to come back to what I said before: when it is possible to adjust the views of both federal and provincial jurisdictions according to the needs of citizens, it is always possible to do better.
I would be remiss for not doing like some of my colleagues who, during their speeches, have brought forward some ideas and some amendments regarding our social legislation; I would like to support the member who yes-

October 31, 1973
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
terday spoke about an adjustment of the eligibility age for the old age security which could be progressively reduced from 65 to 60 years. It is, I think, the member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) who, this afternoon, spoke about that matter. We now have workers aged 60 to 65 who cannot find a job because of their age and who, as they are not eligible for the old age security, must be satisfied with welfare allowances.
If we want people between 60 and 65 to leave the labour force we should see that they get the old age security in the same way as at the time of the last change, that is to say by reducing the eligibility age one year at a time over a five-year period. I would not mention any country, but some have a pension plan in which you take the years of service and the age and if they add up to 80, I think, retirement is compulsory. In several instances, some employees must retire even if they are younger than that.
That is why, in my view, officials of the department ought to consider that matter further in order to be able to set up a general plan aiming at the early reduction of the eligible age for old age security pension.
I would like them to look after another case which perhaps would be acceptable to those who will consider it faster than the proposal I made earlier, namely that of the spouse of a beneficiary of old age security pension who is not actually aged 65. Where one of the spouses is aged from 60 to 65 and the other is eligible for old age security pension, the former should also be entitled to that pension.
If I make these two suggestions, it is because everyday, in the riding that I represent, that request is put to me by citizens who have retired from the labour market and who, by this very fact, see themselves without any immediate income and must apply for welfare. When a Canadian has had to work all his life in order to live, and not always for a very high salary, I find a little degrading that he be forced to go on welfare before being eligible for his old age pension. Studies should be made to find out at what level and how such a project should be implemented. I am personally convinced it is possible to do something, at least to have some studies conducted. After all, I believe I should insist more in order that people between 60 and 65 years of age be entitled to pensions when the spouse is eligible.
In conclusion, I would like to encourage all my hon. colleagues to continue in the right direction as laid out in the budget speech, that is to readily accept the two amendments to the bill now before us, with the hope that very soon the minister will present other amendments, as he as promised, in order to give greater access to the Canada Pensions Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan for the 500,000 Canadians who are totally dependent on them, while, at the same time, making them more interesting for them.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, the bill now under consideration is characterized by two main features: the first deals with the consumer price index leading to an equivalent increase in benefits payable under the legislation. The second refers to an increase in the year's maximum pensionable earnings. I readily accept both amendments to the Canada Pension Plan but, for a very special reason, I have decided this

afternoon to restrict my comments to the first feature, that is the consumer price index.
I am not so much interested in the validity of the argument in support of a rise in the index applicable to benefits. This I openly accept. What does interest me is a group of persons to whom neither indexes are applicable at the moment. This problem is complicated and I fail to understand it. This is why I want to put it clearly in the hope that the minister may be able to give us some explanations regarding a really strange situation.
If the government is so much aware, as the hon. member for Saint-Henri (Mr. Loiselle) just pointed out to us, of the fate of those suffering from the disastrous effects of the rise in the cost of living, I am confident that the minister will do his utmost to solve the problem which I am about to make known to you.
I am very happy to see in the chamber this afternoon the parliamentary secretary to the minister because I hope he will draw to the attention of the minister the remarks I am planning to make. I rise to speak today for many people who have no voice in this House. They live in Canada. Some are Canadians and can vote, but most of them are not yet Canadians and therefore cannot vote; therefore they have no spokesman. These people came to Canada to be with their families who had immigrated before them; they are the mothers and fathers of emigrants from Britain. They came here with what they could by way of assets from Britain because their families had preceded them and they wanted to spend the rest of their days with them. Why should I feel called upon to speak for them today? It is because of the pensions they draw here and the steps being taken by the minister to rectify the situation.
The background is worth recounting, Mr. Speaker. The British pension is a contributory pension; for the length of one's working life one makes contributions to it. Should a contributor decide to leave Britain for Canada after making contributions, he will receive the pension due when he becomes eligible for it. It will be paid at the rate being paid on the date of departure from Britain. That is, if he decides to come to Canada, for example, to stay within the Commonwealth.
However, if he decides to go to a country with which Britain has a reciprocal agreement on social security, he will receive the pension as adjusted from time to time in Britain in accordance with cost of living increases- adjusted right up to the moment of his entitlement-and he will receive all subsequent adjustments as they are made. That is, if he decides to go to a country where there is a reciprocal agreement on social security. These countries include Austria, the Common Market countries, Cyprus, Malta, Switzerland, Israel, Yugoslavia, Turkey, the United States and Jamaica, not to mention the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey and Bermuda. But not Canada. So emigrants from Britain to Canada, having contributed all their working lives to a pension plan in Britain, find that by coming here, to a country in the Commonwealth, their pension level is frozen just because Canada has no reciprocal agreement with Britain on social security.
October 31, 1973

Where does the fault lie, Mr. Speaker? Here is the explanation I get from one side. In a letter dated July 3, 1973, which I should like to put on the record in part, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) wrote:
Although it is usual for a country to pay its old age pensions to all eligible persons residing within its territory, the same general practice does not apply to persons living abroad. Some countries do not pay such pensions abroad to anyone excepting under very special conditions. Others pay them abroad only to their own eligible nationals. The United Kingdom and Canada pay their pensions abroad to both nationals and aliens who are eligible, whereas the only eligible aliens to whom the United States pays its pensions abroad are those who are nationals of countries which will pay social security benefits abroad in full to their beneficiaries who are U.S. nationals.
From time to time a country may increase the rates of old age pensions payable. Whenever such adjustments are made to Canadian old age security pensions and to Canada Pension Plan benefits, they are payable unconditionally to all recipients residing anywhere abroad, including the United Kingdom, by virtue of Canadian legislation alone, without the need for reciprocal agreements between Canada and the other countries concerned. On the other hand, it is our understanding that the United Kingdom pays such increases abroad only in those countries with which it has reciprocal agreements or arrangements on social security.
As you have indicated, such an arrangement exists between the United States and the United Kingdom. It will be clear from the above information that by virtue of this arrangement, pensioners of the United States who are not U.S. citizens are able to enjoy their full U.S. pensions in the United Kingdom, though they would not be able to do so if the arrangement in question did not exist. Meanwhile, pensioners of Canada, no matter what their nationality, are able to enjoy full Canadian benefits in the United Kingdom. Similarly, there is no impediment to the British government paying increases to United Kingdom pensioners in Canada by virtue of their legislation alone, should they wish to do so.
I emphasize "should they wish to do so", Mr. Speaker. Here is what I hear from the other side, because in my search for the truth and to find out where the problem lies I have entered into correspondence with a number of members of the British parliament and in particular with the minister directly concerned in the British government. What he tells me is a reiteration of the statement concerning the eligibility of persons drawing pensions in a foreign country at the rate current when they left Britain or when they first became entitled after emigrating. Subsequent increases are payable only in countries which have undertaken, in reciprocal agreements, to pay unconditional pensions.
In my correspondence I suggested that Canada was ready to sign an agreement with the United Kingdom and that the United Kingdom was reluctant. This was on the basis of correspondence I had had with the minister. I quote part of the reply of the British minister as follows:
I should say at once that the opposite is true. Since before 1970 it has been our desire to conclude a comprehensive social security reciprocal agreement with Canada and in the course of the last three years draft proposals have been transmitted to the Canadian government on three occasions, the last in March of this year, to which a reply is awaited.
Mr. Speaker, I find this extremely confusing. You will therefore understand why I am at a loss to explain this anomaly to people who come to me for advice and ask what can be done. It seems to me a matter of concluding an agreement with Britain. Why have we not done so? What is the hold-up? Many of those for whom I speak arrived here at middle-age and when they reach the age of
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
65 they are not, except in rare cases, eligible for the Canadian old age pension since they are unlikely to have lived in Canada for the required 20 years. For this reason, if for no other, I urge the minister and the government to hasten the conclusion of an agreement with the United Kingdom on social security.
I cannot conclude my remarks without mentioning two other classes of disadvantaged persons. Others have mentioned them and perhaps I may be allowed to do so. Something ought to be done soon to permit housewives to contribute to the pension plan, so that they too may receive the pension in their own right, as they deserve. Something must also be done to ensure equivalent treatment for widows and widowers. If a man loses his wife, as I understand it his pension is not reduced; but if a woman loses her husband, her pension is reduced automatically and drastically. Why should this be? Why should one partner of a marriage be treated as less than an equal in the partnership? This defect must be eliminated from our legislation. The legislation we are presently considering may not be the vehicle for doing that, but we must not lose the opportunity when it arises to correct these inequities.
Having made this triple call for justice for British immigrants, housewives and widows, I resume my seat, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Rod Blaker (Lachine-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, as have many other members of the House, to express my satisfaction with Bill C-224 and, to be consistent with many other members, to emphasize that this bill through its provisions is simply a vehicle for bringing about a better social security system for Canadians.
I intend to be brief, for which hon. members may be thankful, and discuss only two concepts. They are the social guidelines and the philosophy which produced this bill. I shall make a comment or two about our obligation to extend that philosophy and to see to it that our citizens are increasingly brought into contact with this kind of program and given more information. Secondly I shall comment on what I call the hard dollars involved in this program. I also hope that the bill will be passed as quickly as possible because as members of this House know many Canadian citizens are waiting to benefit from its improvements.
The purpose of any social security system is to assure to all the citizens of Canada a decent, human and humane standard of living. The class of Canadian citizen to which our obligation is perhaps greatest is the one consisting of our senior citizens who have devoted their lives and working years in working for our benefit in order that we may enjoy a better place in which to live. Yet bearing in mind the intention behind our social security programs, we must recognize that, perhaps because of the complexities of interrelated and parallel provincial and federal programs, not all our people are the beneficiaries.
Let me give an example from the riding that I represent. I emphasize that I represent one of the wealthiest regions in Canada. The people are among the most highly educated and the most mobile. It is one of our most highly industrialized regions. Yet I still hear of women who are

October 31, 1973
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
afraid to leave their homes in daytime because they are inadequately and improperly clothed. I still hear of men who cannot get jobs, despite the university degrees they possess, because they are over 50 years old and corporate pension plans do not permit the hiring of people of that age.
I share the hope expressed by my predecessors in this debate that we shall introduce legislation which will result in private pension plans, to which many of our citizens contribute, being made interchangeable and portable and as flexible as the Canada Pension Plan. Such legislation would guarantee our citizens the chance to contribute to better private pension plans. This bill, in essence, is a reflection of those ideas and goes a long way toward establishing the kind of social security system that was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. It is unnecessary to repeat what the speech said. I simply say that in the near future, and by that I mean a few years as I am not looking much beyond the end of this decade, we must consider the idea of a complete and cohesive guaranteed income program for Canadians. I do not mean a program that will encourage persons to stay at home rather than to work; I mean a program that will guarantee the citizens of this country a basic standard of decency. This bill moves us in that direction.
I shall touch briefly upon my second point. I want to deal with the dollars and cents that are behind this program, compare it with past programs and look to where we shall be in the future. In addition to our medical care program, I think it is fair to say that we shall see introduced in this country what I may call "pharmacare" or pharmaceutical care and dental care programs. Remember that about ten years ago all we had in this country was the old age security pension of $65 a month. Compare that situation with the situation of today in which, under the guaranteed income supplement plan, we guarantee that a single, elderly person shall receive not less than $2,150 a year and a married couple not less than $4,100 a year. The benefits under the plan are available at age 65 instead of age 70, and many members of the House have expressed the desire that the eligible age be lowered to 60. I add my voice to theirs and hope for this to come about.
The 2 per cent escalation provision has been removed and the cost of living adjustments will be made quarterly, not annually, which will mean more dollars in more pockets. The yearly maximum pensionable earnings provision will bring into the plan a considerable number of additional dollars, and on the basis of actuarial data to which I shall refer in a moment the result, obviously, will be a substantially increased pay-out at the age of 65. It is this increase from the current maximum of $5,600, as mentioned by an earlier speaker, under YMPE to $6,600 in 1974 and $7,400 in 1975 which, at the 1.8 per cent level of employee and employer contributions, will increase the maximum individual contribution to $106.20 next year. That will be the employee's contribution and there will be an equal and matching contribution by the employer.
Also, the 1214 per cent per annum increase on the 1974 ceiling of $6,600 will bring a greater number of capturable dollars, if I may use pension terminology, into the plan and there will be, as well, an increase in the amount of money which will be received by beneficiaries. The result

is this: Whereas the present maximum is $6,600, that maximum will rise to $13,000-we are speaking in terms of yearly maximum pensionable earnings which will apply by 1980-and present benefit of $1,089 will rise to more than $3,000 over and above the old age security pension.
Finally may I cite some examples which will show how this plan is to work. A married man with four children who let us say retired in 1971 when he was earning $5,000 per annum would have received the following benefits under our system: from the pension plan, $63 per month; from the old age security pension, $160 a month; from the guaranteed income supplement, $64 a month-for a total of $287 a month or $3,444 annually. Those benefits are to change as follows: the man will get, under thhe Canada Pension Plan, $86 a month; under OAS, $210 a month; under GIS, $89 a month-for a total of $385 a month or $4,620 per annum.
According to a very cautious and conservative projection, by 1975 the individual who was making $5,000 a year when he retired in 1971 will be receiving under the Canada Pension Plan $123 per month, under OAS $228 a month, an under GIS $81 per month-for a total of $431 a month or $5,172 annually, which is more than he was making when he retired.
This is an extremely conservative projection of the rates of inflation which reflect the possibility of income improvement. If we look only seven years ahead to 1980, we find that an individual receiving $90 a month presently will be receiving $250. A disabled individual presently receiving $115 will be receiving $225. A widow under the age of 65 receiving $71 will then be receiving $135, and a widow over the age of 65 receiving $69 will be getting $120. These figures represent a doubling of current benefits within seven years.
I share with other members of the House a desire to see the programs for our senior citizens still further improved. But I also think members who sit on all sides of the House should compliment the minister responsible for bringing in this bill, with all the increased advantages it will mean for those who so greatly need them.


Mr. Dan Hollands (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure many people in Canada will be happy to see this amendment to the Canada Pension Plan. Many older people, through no fault of their own, are in financial trouble today. In the past year we have seen a more rapid rise in the cost of living than we have ever seen before. This is the essence of the times in which we are living. It has certainly hit the older person much harder than anyone else.
There are one or two changes still to be made to the Canada Pension Plan. I am concerned about the fact that one must earn at least $6,600 a year before being eligible to contribute to the plan. A large number of people are excluded from benefits in consequence. I suppose the largest group would be that which includes the farmers. Over the last five or six years, through no fault of their own, they have been forced, as a result of depressed markets for their livestock and grain, into an extremely difficult financial situation. Indeed, many of them are only able to
October 31, 1973

live because of the tax provision in respect of depreciation of their assets. Many of them do not earn enough to entitle them to contribute to the plan.
I believe there should be some way of enabling people in such a situation to join the plan and catch up with their payments in more profitable years. Unless this can be arranged, they will have to turn to other types of insurance in an effort to make provision for their old age. It is no fault of theirs that their income has been drastically reduced or cut off altogether.
In many ways, the quota system has been a factor in preventing many farmers qualifying for the benefits of Canada Pension Plan. The amount a farmer can produce and sell is limited. Then, too, there are the effects of adverse weather. Go to northern Alberta today and you will see valuable crops lying on the ground, so bad have been weather conditions for the past two months. Surely we should be able to amend the act so that people who are confronted with misfortunes of this kind can still take part in the plan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Fulton Hollands: One of the features I have been very concerned about since I have been in Ottawa is the disability section of the act. Last week I received a letter from a farmer in my constituency whose only means of support was his quarter section farm. He had been in hospital, two discs had been removed from his back. He is unable to work, so he wrote and asked whether I could help him to receive benefit under the Canada Pension Plan. It is a tragic thing. I went to see this man at his house. He was barely able to walk. But the answer he received from the officials of the Canada Pension Plan, after the man had undergone a medical examination, was that he was able to do light work.


Mr. Paproski:: Shame!


Daniel Fulton Hollands: I am sure hon. members of the House who supported the plan when it was brought in, imagined that our citizens in this kind of trouble would be helped.


Mr. Baker:: Or given the benefit of the doubt.


Daniel Fulton Hollands: It seems to be one of the jobs of a member of parliament to try to break through the large volume of red tape and bureaucracy which surrounds so many government programs.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A government which does not care.


Daniel Fulton Hollands: Yes, I think you are right.


An hon. Member:: Don't get mean, now.


Daniel Fulton Hollands: The other question I am concerned about is this. What happens to the money in the Canada Pension Plan? We all know that contributions are deducted from our pay cheques if we are employed, and we all know money is sent out to those who qualify for pensions. But what about the money in the middle? I find that the province of Ontario, for example, has been able to draw $2,560 million out of the plan. Alberta has drawn $428 million. I can find no regulation governing the use of this
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
money by the provinces. It is conceivable, therefore, that a province could build highways with the money, or it might invest the funds in projects which were not revenue-producing. So when the time comes to pay back these funds, the young people, the work force in the provinces will be taxed again so that the funds may be repaid.
It is probably a good thing that there should be a large pool of money available in Canada from which projects can be financed. But a great responsibility attaches to any government charged with handling the funds of the Canada Pension Plan and I believe we should ensure, for the good of the country, that the money is earning the maximum possible interest. For example, if we were to take this fantastic sum of money and invest it in housing, I have no doubt the effect would be to reduce the rate of interest which many of our people are paying today. It could lead to a reduction in interest rates.
Quebec is getting the best deal to the extent that it raises its own money and does not need to borrow. I cannot for the life of me understand why other provinces did not opt out of the plan. I would think that if a similar opportunity arose today, many provinces would opt out of it. I should like to see the monetary aspects of the plan handled in such a way as to benefit not only the people of Canada who collect pensions but also the working people who contribute. After all, it is the young people of today who are keeping the pension plan going.
I hope that before too long the government will bring in further amendments to the Canada Pension Plan Act which will make the plan a little more human and will also take into consideration what our ultimate aim is, in view of the tremendous amount of money which has been built up in the fund since 1965.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be very brief since there are only a few minutes remaining, and perhaps some other member will be able to speak before six o'clock. I want to say that I, like every other hon. member who has spoken in this debate, am in favour of Bill C-224. Ever since the Canada Pension Plan came into being, I have admired it. Quite frankly, it is the way I like to do business. A young person takes money out of his pocket and, in co-operation with his employer, puts money away for when he is older. The fund is self-sustaining, or has been up to the present time.
I am only sorry that the Canada Pension Plan as it is now set up did not start many years ago. If it had, and if it had been modelled on the same lines as the United States social security plan, then in my view we would not be in the welfare tangle and mess that we are in Canada today. Surely it is better for a young man and lady to learn as soon as they start working that there is not a great deal in this life that is free, that they have to save a certain amount of money in order to look after themselves in their old age.
Regretfully, this has not, in my opinion, happened in Canada. I must point out that even though we feel that because of circumstances we must embark upon this course, the old age pension has had two increases during the last few months, costing a fantastic amount of money,

October 31, 1973
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)
increases that were made as a result of inflation and the high cost of living in Canada. Over $6 billion will come from the department of the minister who is sponsoring Bill C-224 in this year and will go toward providing primarily for the old and the disabled.
Many of my hon. friends in this chamber who have socialistic tendencies may think money grows on trees. But the fact is that whether in the year 1973, a time when all of us are becoming more socialistic, or whether in the year 1955, when in my opinion most of us were most sensible, this money is provided by the public, the taxpayers of Canada, people who have worked hard, and provided particularly by people who are going to be saddled with the bill and are younger-generation Canadians.
So while I agree with the bill, particularly since the fund is self-sustaining, or has been up till now, I nevertheless give this word of caution. The word "pension" has been used in this debate by many hon. members and we now come to think that a pension is a matter of right just so long as you can get one. Regretfully, I say we have become a nation of "gimmees". Our attitude is "give me something", whatever it may be, in many instances regardless of the cost.
I repeat that in terms of dollar bills, the cost is substantial. The money must be provided by those taxpayers of Canada who have the desire to work. For this reason I caution the government and all members of the House of Commons that just adding to pensions is not the real solution to our Canadian way of life. We are in an inflationary era, which of course is prevalent around the world, and the only way we will solve the situation is, not by increasing pensions every year or every few months but by tackling the inflation philosophy that all or at least most of us are accepting today as a matter of course. In my opinion, this is not good enough and something will have to be done about it.
Let me just give the House one example of what I mean. The government of today and governments of yesterday have advertised for sale Canada Savings Bonds at roughly 7'/2 per cent. Anyone who is paying tax has at least to pay a quarter of that interest and many people pay half of the 71/2 per cent. Then there is an inflation factor of 8 per cent. There is no possible way for people to save money under such conditions. The government must tackle the root of the problem, and I hope that this one has the common sense to go ahead and do so.
Let us not forget that there are many people in Canada who in years gone by have not used the word "savings" as a bad word. In my opinion, it is still a good word. Our senior citizens today would not be able to collect their old age pensions, and neither would I be able to collect mine very shortly, if it were not for those people who still do something that seems to be rather unpopular in Canada, namely, work hard and try to save money, which is then put into those terrible things described by my socialistic friends and which are known as banks, so people can save, so houses can be built and the country as a whole developed.
I have spoken, Mr. Speaker, long enough. But let us not forget that while a bill such as this is most important and most necessary in this inflationary age, the only way to

pay the bill is to get people to work hard and to do a certain amount of saving as did our forefathers.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief. The hon. member who has just spoken castigated socialism. I simply say to him that it was his party that picked up some of these schemes and prostituted them, and in essence they are no longer true socialism. If they were, then we would not have the problems we have in this country today.
This bill, as I understand it, removes the 2 per cent limit now imposed on annual pension increases, basing increases on the consumer price index. This is something that our party has been fighting for since 1964-65 when the Canada Pension Plan was first conceived. The bill also contains a catch-up clause making cost of living adjustments retroactive to 1967, the year Canadians first started to receive benefits. Similar ideas have been hashed and rehashed in this House over the last few hours and days, but I am going to try to express four points which I think are very significant. These have been mentioned by other speakers. I will rehash one or two and then probably bring in one or two concepts that are brand new.
Something that our party would like to see-and I think we will have to start moving in this direction soon-is retirement at the age of 60, perhaps voluntarily, under the Canada Pension Plan. I think that one class of persons we forget are those who live in the hinterlands of Canada and work in dangerous occupations, those who feed the factories of our huge cities and provide their residents with high standards of living yet never themselves reach the age of 60 because, as I say, they are engaged in hazardous occupations. Look at the fluorspor mines on the Burin peninsula of Newfoundland, where there are about three times as many widows as anywhere else.
It saddens my heart every time I go to Uranium City to find that a number of men of the age of 40, 45, 50 or 55 are dying from silicosis, lung cancer, emphysema or some other disease of that nature. For these people involved in hazardous occupations we should make a first step toward lowering the pensionable age to perhaps 55-and that is not being ridiculous or advocating welfare. I think it would be actuarially sound to have people in hazardous occupations retire at that age. I understand that members of the armed services and the RCMP can retire after 20 years' service, but underground miners keep on breathing filth and dirt for 35 years-if they live that long!
Another significant step that should be taken-others have touched on this but I want to repeat it-is to change the legislation in order that we treat husbands and wives alike. I would rather see my wife at home looking after the children than out working, but because she does not earn an income she is not entitled to benefit from the Canada Pension Plan. I think she should be entitled to some benefit. This is particularly true in the case of farmers' wives. I think we could get around this whole concept by accepting the idea we have been proposing for many years now in relation to a family income tax rather than an individual income tax. In this way the husband and the wife would file returns and both would be entitled to Canada Pension Plan benefits.
October 31, 1973

The third point I wish to make relates to disability pensions. From my experience in my constituency and in other parts of the country it appears that an individual must be about seven-eighths dead before he can qualify for a disability pension.


An hon. member:: No, eight-eighths dead.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: Someone suggests eight-eighths dead, and that is pretty bad. A disability pension should be exactly what it says. If a person is disabled and cannot carry out his regular job, he should be entitled to a pension. I know of one chap who was awarded a disability pension but some bureaucrat here in Ottawa or somewhere decided to appeal the award because he thought the man did not deserve it. The case was set for hearing on August 19 of this year, but I received a letter from this fellow the other day in which he said there has still been no hearing and he does not know when it will come about. I think this whole mess-perhaps it is administrative-should be straightened out.
The fourth and final suggestion I want to make to the minister is that many private pension plans, including the one for parliamentarians, should be scrapped. We should devise a national pension plan, integrating all these plans under one heading. In this way we could provide for retirement at age 55, 57 or what-have-you.
When I was elected a member of this House I had 20 years' service in the teaching profession in my province. I did not give a hoot about the parliamentary pension, but had I stayed in the teaching profession I could have retired at age 57 with 70 per cent of my pension based on my best six years' earnings. I am now losing the years I am here as a member. Maybe that will be only two or three years.
Canada Pension Plan (No. 2)


An hon. Member:: It won't be long.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: An hon. member suggests it will not be long, but I will bet anything I will be here longer than him.
All pension plans should be totally portable. For 15 years I worked on a pension scheme for teachers in the province of Saskatchewan, during which time we had a very difficult time getting pensions made portable among Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia and Ontario. We were never successful in making them portable east of Ontario. Rather than providing for a parliamentary pension, I should like to see my years of service as a member of parliament added to my 20 years' service as a teacher, in order that I might be able to retire at a decent age, in my case 57.


Mr. Cafik:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the hour perhaps I should not proceed to make a wind-up speech in respect of Bill C-224 but should deal with this matter in committee when the bill has been referred. I would therefore ask you to put the question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 1, 1973