1973-09-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm the statement I made yesterday that Monday will be an allotted day.


Mr. Bell:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we know the government House leader is leaving and we wish him good luck on his trip, but may I ask whom he has lined up to say no in his absence to all our requests?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on what is considered to be a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the confusion and uncertainty throughout the agricultural industry in Canada caused by the ambiguous and incomplete policies of the government and the administration of those policies with regard to feed grains, beef exports and wheat prices. I move, seconded by the hen. member for Huron (Mr. McKinley):
That this House requests the Minister of Agriculture and the minister responsible for the Wheat Board to appear before the House of Commons Agriculture Committee to clear up the state of confusion occasioned by the government's ambiguous policies on feed grains, wheat support and beef embargoes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will inquire whether there is unanimous consent, but before doing so I would remind the hon. member for Lisgar and also other hon. members that the form of these motions should be watched closely in view of the fact that under the practice we have developed there is no opportunity to reply to the allegations or charges which may be included in a motion or in its preamble. I think hon. members should exercise some discipline and care in ensuring that these motions are not couched in too clearly and obviously argumentative a form. In any event, I will inquire whether there is
unanimous consent for the motion proposed by the hon. member for Lisgar. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


POLLUTION
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the continuing pollution problems affecting not only the Great Lakes but also our main rivers and streams, and in view of the apparent lack of progress in providing any relief for this most serious situation, I ask leave of the House under the terms of Standing Order 43 to move, seconded by the hon. member for York East (Mr. Arrol):
That this House instruct the government to take immediate steps to end the growing pollution of our lakes, rivers and streams, and that the government of the United States be pressed into advancing its timetable of commitment to clean up Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


FAMILY ALLOWANCES ACT AND YOUTH ALLOWANCES ACT
Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill C-223, to amend the Family Allowances Act and the Youth Allowances Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
September 7, 1973
Oral Questions

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who made a statement to the press in August regarding the revised budgetary position of the government. Is it now the minister's intention to make a statement in the House as to the currently revised fiscal position of the government?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, there will probably be an opportunity to do that very shortly, I should imagine, as a result of the announcement by the House leader this morning. It is obvious that the measures recently brought before the House as a result of the announcement on August 13 and the announcement this week by the Prime Minister have added about $292 million to the costs as against revenue.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I take it from what the minister says that he will be prepared to participate in the debate on Monday next. In view of the statement the minister made to the press in August in which he indicated that he had emphasized to the government the importance of choosing carefully among spending programs in order to keep spending within the adopted fiscal stance. I now ask the minister whether he proposes to cut back on other expenditures in view of the increased expenditures announced or whether he has changed his stance or whether the Prime Minister has changed his stance for him?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the total fiscal stance or cash requirements of the government will depend not only upon the increased expenditures I have just referred to but on what the revenue picture brings in. In any event, the hon. member mentioned priorities. The government felt there could be no higher priority at this stage than to protect Canadians in the low income and fixed income groups against the erosion of inflation. That was the purpose of these expenditures. As an additional purpose, in macro-economic terms-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I just wanted to bring some members of the House into the picture-I would hope that the additional disposable income made available to Canadians as a counter action against the erosion of inflation would have a stabilizing effect not only on profits but on incomes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the minister.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. We will look to Monday for further enlightenment, but in the meantime the Minister of Finance has been gyrating at

a new record rate. In view of the great divergence between the revenue the minister is taking in and the revenue he is estimating, according to his own admission to the press in August, I should like to ask if he is now prepared to support the establishment of an independent forecasting unit so we can get something like accurate economic forecasting in this country?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any forecaster in this country or anywhere in the world, whether public, private, academic, business or labour, was able to forecast, first, the strength of the economy or, second, the worldwide rate of inflation, both of which have affected the revenues of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Egmont on a supplementary and then the hon. member for Northwest Territories.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Since the minister admitted in August that revenues were exceeding the original expectation in his budget forecast in February by some half a billion dollars, and since the cost to the treasury of the announcement made earlier by the Prime Minister is some $290 million, is the minister prepared to indicate that government revenues will still create an inflationary factor among the general public? Further, will the minister be prepared on Monday to tell the House to what extent the inflationary effect of the Prime Minister's earlier announcement will really relieve the problems of low income families and those who have to pay very high interest rates in terms of housing costs particularly?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will take those remarks carefully into consideration in framing what I might like to say.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Now that the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories has ruled in favour of the caveat application of the Northwest Territories Indian Brotherhood, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether it is the intention of the government to accept this judgment?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed by the Department of Justice that they have not received the judgment yet. I believe that they have received the conclusion but they are only expecting the judgment which is a long one, some 60 pages, I am told, by Sunday night. They propose to examine the judgment and ascertain the conclusions and motives for the judgment and decide whether or not an appeal is in order.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There are advantages to slow mail.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Does the government intend to pay the fees of defence counsel appointed by the Northwest Territories Supreme Court to serve on the government's behalf?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have to inquire whether that matter was considered by the Department of Justice.


NORTHWEST TERRITORIES-SUGGESTED INCLUSION IN NEGOTIATIONS OF LANDS COVERED BY TREATIES 8 AND
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Since the minister's statement of August 8 specifically exempts those lands in the Northwest Territories covered by treaties 8 and 11 from direct negotiation between the government and the native people, is the minister now prepared to reconsider that decision in light of the fact there is sufficient doubt about the aboriginal claims of the people in the Northwest Territories, and will he take into consideration whether those lands should now be included in any negotiations between the government and the native people in the Northwest Territories?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot make a decision at this time because the legal aspects of the problem have to be considered by the Department of Justice. As far as I am concerned, I have said and I repeat today that I will be always willing to sit down with the Indian people of the Northwest Territories and try to find a way out of the difficulties in which they find themselves and in which we find ourselves. Not later than this morning I was approached by a person to that end and I said, as I always have said to the Northwest Territories Indians, that I am willing to meet them at any time to discuss the problem.

[ Translation]


AIRPORTS
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Yesterday, we raised the issue of land expropriations in the Pickering and Ste. Scholastique areas. Can the Minister tell us why there is such a big difference between the rates paid for expropriations in the Pickering and Ste. Scholastique areas?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am having this situation investigated. There are several reasons why the rates should be different. I think that this will be nothing new for the hon. member if I say
Oral Questions
to him that some lands and properties do have a higher value than others and all this has to be taken into consideration. For a $100,000 house built in Pickering, we do indeed pay the full value. When comparing this with a $30,000 house in Mirabel, one should not infer discrimination.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker.
In my opinion, it is not so much a question of the houses which have been bought. I should like the hon. minister to tell us why $300 million can be spent to buy 18,000 acres of land in Pickering, while it is not possible to spend more than $125 million to buy 80,000 acres of land in Ste. Scholastique?


Jean Marchand: I think that this is putting the question in a somewhat simplistic manner. Out of the
80,000	acres of land which have been expropriated in Mirabel, some were fallow lands which could have been bought by anybody. The market price of a piece of land can very well be arrived at and I think that the hon. member could do it. A piece of land in full production does not have the same value at all. It would be like comparing potatoes with oranges. Therefore, I do not feel I am in a position to answer this question.

[ English]


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Keeping in mind the provisions of Bill C-217 as amended by the House, can the minister advise when it is reasonable to expect rail service to be back to normal in Vancouver and other affected areas?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, there was a desire on the part of many in Vancouver for an explanation of the provisions of the bill. That is being supplied in detail, although I have the conviction that the details of the bill have been explained to all those concerned throughout the country. I would like to indicate to the hon. member, and naturally I hope to have his support, that we cannot tolerate further open defiance of the laws of parliament. It is one thing to be reasonable, and we feel we have been reasonable, but we cannot continue to tolerate this defiance. I believe I speak for all parliamentarians and the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STEPS TO EXPLAIN PROVISIONS OF ACT TO RAILWAY WORKERS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Has the Minister of Labour taken steps to send officials of his department who are well acquainted with the details of the act to

September 7, 1973
Oral Questions
Vancouver, Thunder Bay or wherever there are difficulties to explain to the railway workers the provisions of the act and what the powers of the arbitrator are?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated, and I reiterate, I am satisfied that the provisions of the bill have been explained and that those who are doing the explaining are fully aware of the provisions of the bill. That having been said, I believe the reasonable period in terms of explanation is at an end and we should insist on compliance with this act of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Labour why he did not accept the request of various unions across the country that he go to Vancouver and explain the provisions of the bill, realizing his well known lack of desire for publicity?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I believe my position, and I think the right hon. member will agree, is to insist on compliance with an act of parliament that has been passed and not to lend any credence to anyone who may believe there is any way by which they can avoid compliance with this act. In the circumstances, I feel there are other appropriate ways of getting explanations to those who desire them. In fact, we have done that. I reiterate to the right hon. member I am now fully satisfied that all those who expressed concern are well aware of the provisions of the act and should now instruct all their men to comply with its provisions.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of this declaration, have any informations been laid or when are they going to be laid?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that if we are going to insist upon compliance with the act, action will have to be taken very shortly indeed. This reasonable period in terms of explanation is just about at an end. The right hon. member has just expressed an inclination that these explanations should be offered. Indeed, I believe the implication of his question was that I should have done it. I take it from that that he has no disagreement with the procedure to date. I would hope I would have his support when I insist on behalf of all members of parliament that there now be compliance with the provisions of the act of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the right hon. member for Prince Albert for one further supplementary and then the hon. member for Hamilton West.


John George Diefenbaker: With this vast accumulation of words to conceal information, will the minister now say whether any informations have been laid or, if not, when they are going to be laid? That is a very simple question. It cannot be evaded by the kind of language in which the minister has been engaging.


MANPOWER
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration related to the LIP program. Why did he or his department find it necessary to publish advertisements in the papers in the last two or three days indicating that constituency advisory groups would be set up when, in fact, he had asked for the opinions of members of parliament, which opinions were supposed to be in his hands today, as to the efficacy of constituency advisory groups? It seems to me the minister's letter was a sham and a farce. Would he explain the circumstances to the House?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: We will certainly hold to the intention of offering members of parliament the opportunity to make the decision whether there should or should not be such groups within their constituencies. It is a legitimate choice because some constituencies, by reason of their make-up or structure do not lend themselves, at this stage anyway, to the operation of local advisory groups, if the hon. member reads the advertisement carefully I think he will find that an attempt is being made to make provision for more local input concerning decisions as to the desirability or otherwise of projects. The indication was given that in a typical constituency such a choice would probably be made. There was no attempt to put the hon. member on the spot.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Notwithstanding what the minister has said, there was an indication of pressure placed on members of parliament to go along with these constituency advisory groups. To my mind the advertisement was very misleading. Can the minister tell the House that projects categorized as essential or desirable by constituency advisory groups will be accepted for funding by the minister? He has left the impression with the community that the constituency advisory groups would have the final say. Is this a fact or is it not?


Robert Knight Andras: I think the advertisement refers to consultation and respect for that consultation, but I want to make it absolutely clear, as I did in my letter to hon. members and in any public statements I have made, that while consultation will be a major factor in the decisionmaking process, ultimate authority for the approval of projects or otherwise will remain with the minister, who must accept that responsibility.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Is it the intention of the minister, in order to give some credibility to his statement and to the policy that has been announced, to break down the $83 million by constituencies in order that we can ascertain whether, in fact, constituency advisory groups will have the opportunity to have their projects funded?


Robert Knight Andras: Every constituency will have the same opportunity. The exact amount allocated to constituencies will be subject to already committed negotiations with the provincial governments. The allocation as between provinces has already been decided upon under a formula that
September 7, 1973

has existed in the past. As I have said, allocation within a province will be subject to discussion with the province concerned, but it will be based primarily on allocation to areas of high unemployment.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Since not all hon. members intend to involve themselves in the scheme proposed by the minister and since the advertisements appearing in the national press leave a very positive impression in the constituencies that their member of parliament is involved, will the hon. gentleman cease and desist, or give instructions to his officials to cease and desist, from publishing, as he has, the kind of advertisement which indicates that all members are involved?


Robert Knight Andras: I was under the assumption that all hon. members would wish to take some responsibility in this matter. We have received many representations in the past year.


Erik Nielsen: Not from all members.


Robert Knight Andras: Maybe not all. Maybe the hon. member wishes to avoid that responsibility. But many other hon. members have indicated to me that they wish to make a definite input when these projects are considered. I think this is a commendable suggestion on their part and I have followed it through to the best of my ability.


Erik Nielsen: Will the minister answer my question and stop publishing the advertisements?


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister advise the House as to the result of the meeting that took place Wednesday between provincial marketing boards and industry representatives in connection with the implementation of the milk subsidy announced by the Prime Minister?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: A further meeting is being held today. The response, as I said at the time, was fairly good. They are trying to iron out the technicalities-I guess that is the best way of saying it.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, in reply to a question I directed to him, the Prime Minister referred to either the containment or a roll-back of milk prices as a result of the subsidy. Can the Minister of Agriculture confirm that his written announcement of the same date referring to the definite expectation of a roll-back is in fact a government policy objective?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, it all depends on the agreements that we come to with the individual provinces which control fluid milk marketing for human consumption. These consultations are taking place.
Oral Questions


MILK-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF SUFFICIENT PRICE TO FARMERS
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In giving consideration to subsidies, roll-backs and so on, will the Minister of Agriculture assure the House that the dairy farmer will receive a price sufficient to cover his costs of production and to enable him to stay in business so there will be enough dairy production to serve the needs of the people of Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think federal action regarding industrial milk and the actions of the provincial marketing boards to try to guarantee producers a proper return, particularly the two main marketing boards in the provinces that produce over 80 per cent of the milk, prove that they are concerned. This government is concerned to see that consumers of milk do not have to bear this extra cost any more than they can afford to do so. This is why we are making this proposal to them at this time. I reiterate that our actions show our concern, and that the meeting we are calling on September 27 with the provincial Ministers of Agriculture, and with the leaders of the national farm organizations which will take place prior thereto, show this concern even more so.

[ Transla tion]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Chair is absolutely right in view of the statement made yesterday. I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Considering that a few months ago the minister announced that negotiations were under way with the provinces concerning the assistance program for areas in special and other zones, can the minister tell the House whether he will soon issue a statement following his talks on this subject with the Quebec government so that the people in charge at the municipal level may be made aware of the situation as soon as possible?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, very intensive discussions at a high level have been going on between officials of the department and the government of Quebec, indeed, with all provincial governments. I am happy to tell the hon. member that in the case of the province of Quebec substantial progress has been made with regard to agreement on a general development policy for the province of Quebec affecting not only my department but other federal agencies. It is our hope and expectation that a general development agreement will be ready for conclusion and signing later in the present year, I hope within a matter of perhaps a month or six weeks.

September 7, 1973
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
May I ask the minister if the negotiations are progressing well enough that we may hope to learn about the nature of the master agreement before the end of September?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, it is not my expectation that the work can be concluded by the end of September. The fact is that, in addition to the general development agreement, we are also examining a number of supplementary development agreements under the umbrella approach. It is our hope that two or three of these can perhaps be introduced, if not simultaneously, certainly very quickly after the development agreement. However, if the hon. member has anything specific in regard to a particular region I would be glad to try to elaborate for him.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who for some seven months has been refusing to make a report on the results of any monitoring of the anti-inflationary effects and reduction of prices that the budget of the Minister of Finance was supposed to produce. Can the minister tell the House, after seven months of delay, when we may expect to have this report? Can he give us a precise date when we may expect this report?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is incorrect in suggesting that I have been refusing to prepare a report. Work on this has been going on. I expect it to be completed about the middle of September. It will be delivered to the Minister of Finance, following which I trust its conclusions will be made available appropriately to the House and the public.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the Prime Minister give us the assurance that these games regarding this report on the monitoring effects of the budget, which has been so long promised and so long delayed, will stop and that the report will be presented to the House and rapidly as possible?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will gladly renew the assurances just given by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue. Is it the policy of the Department of National Revenue to have the RCMP serve and deliver notices to taxpayers in various cities and elsewhere simply entitled "Demand for Income Tax Returns as prescribed by form No. 2", when in fact there is no prosecution involved or even quasi-criminal proceedings anticipated?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would like to give me details of his concern I would be glad to look into the matter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Did the minister authorize the forwarding of a memorandum to the various Department of National Revenue offices across the land advising that the new name of the department in question will be "Revenue Canada, Taxation", and are those instructions now being withdrawn along with the memorandum sent out by his department? If so, why?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: No, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member and other hon. members know, for some time a short description of departments has been used and a short description is used in our department as in others. But the fact is that the name of the department has not been changed and it is not expected that it will be changed.


PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ACT
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Now that the government has brought before the House a bill dealing with the benefits accorded retired employees of the government of Canada, would the minister inform the House when the government intends to bring forward the amendments to the Public Service Employment Act which were promised in the Speech from the Throne but have not yet seen the light of day?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, these provisions are still in the process of being drafted. We hope to bring them forward at the earliest possible date.


Walter David Baker: Is there any truth to the rumour that is rampant in the city-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that a question couched in those terms is out of order.


Walter David Baker: Then may I rephrase my question. May I specifically ask the minister whether he will undertake to introduce this legislation perhaps within the next two weeks, and also undertake that this important piece of
September 7, 1973

legislation is not going to be delayed in order to be included in a bag of election goodies at the next election?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would seek the co-operation of all hon. members in enabling the Chair to recognize as many questioners as possible by limiting the number of supplementaries between now and the end of the question period. A number of members have been waiting to ask questions during the last few days and the Chair is anxious to give them an opportunity to do so. This can only be done with the co-operation of all hon. members.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the sartorially splendid Minister of Transport, if he is listening to me. I should like to repeat the essence of the question I asked him on June 27, at which time he asked for more time. Is the minister now willing to accede to the request of the Midwestern Development Council that a tri-level committee be struck to inquire into all aspects of transportation needs in southwestern Ontario?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I regret that my translation system is not working.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: My normal answer would be "in due course", but if the hon. member would repeat his question I will borrow my seatmate's system.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the question I asked was whether the minister is now going to accede to the request of the Midwestern Development Council, which had a meeting with the minister some three and a half months ago, that a tri-level committee be struck to look into all aspects of transportation problems in southwestern Ontario, including passenger transportation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall having received this request, but I will inquire of my department and if it is there I will give an answer on Monday.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Transport who apparently has just stepped out of the House. I will direct it to
Oral Questions
the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the green light appears to be on for the purchase of Texasgulf by the Canada Development Corporation, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, if he is listening, or some other minister, whether he can say, in view of the fact the Canada Development Corporation has now been given the green light in respect of this purchase and in view of the fact the government is the sole owner of that corporation, that the activities of Texasgulf in this country will be stepped up in terms of investment, jobs, research and development?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure those representations by the hon. gentleman will be heard by the directors of the CDC who, as the hon. member knows, under the law have a great deal of autonomy.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the relatively successful job the CDC has been doing, and in view of the fact the corporation is supposed to be going public, can the Prime Minister say whether any consideration is being given to keeping this Crown corporation wholly owned by the people of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there are several Crown corporations which are wholly owned by the people of Canada. I cannot answer a hypothetical question.


POSSIBILITY OF CAMPAIGN TO COMBAT GLUE SNIFFING
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and arises out of an undertaking given several weeks ago by the minister to the right hon. member for Prince Albert. At that time the minister advised he would consider a campaign to combat the problem of glue sniffing in Canada. Can the minister now advise the House whether his department is ready to conduct such a national campaign and whether it will include warnings against other solvents and drugs?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I do not remember having given a commitment to the right hon. member, but this matter is under continuous study. I think I said at the time that it was a very complex issue and that glue sniffing, indeed, was only one element. There are many other aspects involved. No large campaign is planned at the present time. It is more a matter of providing information to the public through the media on a general basis and as a result of questions like the one asked by the hon. member.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Prime Minister. Follow-

September 7, 1973
Oral Questions
ing the co-operative action in July of the Cuban government in permitting the sister and daughter of Ronald Patrick Lippert to visit him while a prisoner in Cuba, has the government of Canada made any representations whatsoever to the Cuban government since that visit by Mr. Lippert's family on behalf of the release of Mr. Lip-pert and, if so, can the Prime Minister report any progress to the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will pass the question on to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have not made any recent inquiries.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he is now prepared to change his previous inhumanitarian attitude and make a direct appeal to Prime Minister Castro-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that a supplementary question asked in those terms is out of order. I would suggest to hon. members that after they have asked their questions in the first instance, we might save a bit of time if they would not ask a supplementary when there is perhaps nothing much to be added to the first question. I know hon. members very often feel they must ask a supplementary, but when we are moving toward the end of the question period a little more forbearance on the part of hon. members might help.

[ Translation]



HOUSING


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Can he tell the House whether or not Canadians took advantage of Bill C-133? Could he also tell us whether Quebec municipal authorities have received information on the procedure to be followed to take advantage of that new act?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, may I ask my hon. colleague to repeat his question?



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. As the police are often the first at the scene of an accident, is the Solicitor General considering a policy, in respect of those

provinces whose police services are carried out by the RCMP, whereby RCMP officers will receive advanced paramedical emergency training, and many of their vehicles will be converted into police ambulances as in the city of Montreal?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting suggestion. I would be very pleased to take it up with the RCMP to see what can be done.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Keith Taylor (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that the court case involving the South Indian Lake diversion will be going to trial shortly, and in view of the repeated requests by local residents for financial assistance, will the minister advise the House what financial assistance has been given by his department to these residents?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have no information on any financial assistance which may have been or may be offered I shall look into the matter and report to the hon. member.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Postmaster General I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Does the appearance of the words "Canada Post" on mail boxes and mail trucks in Vancouver, coupled with the removal of the Royal crest and the words "Royal Mail", a practice which I notice has spread to Ottawa, indicate a change in government policy, and does it signal the end of the Royal mail in Canada?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take that question as notice for the Postmaster General, but I can say that I have noticed that the coat or arms is still on my local mail box.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You must have a private one.
September 7, 1973



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the statement by the right hon. Prime Minister on Tuesday last respecting the subsidy on fluid milk to a maximum of five cents per quart, is the minister considering an increase in the subsidy for manufacturing milk used in the making of cheese?


Eugene Whelan: No, Mr. Speaker. We raised the return for manufacturing milk on August 1 by the equivalent of $1 a hundred. We had previously raised it, earlier in the year, by the equivalent of 60 cents a hundred. That is what the producers asked for at that time. We do know that some of their costs have gone down since that time.



PASSING ON OF ENTIRE BENEFIT OF FLUID MILK SUBSIDY TO CONSUMERS

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Will he indicate specifically how the government plans to make certain that the entire benefit of the milk subsidy will be passed on to the consumer?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if it is not passed on to the consumer no one will receive it.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that those railway employees who were laid off by the railway companies because of the strike but who were not directly involved in the strike still have not received a decision as far as unemployment insurance claims are concerned, and as many of these employees have not had any income for some six weeks, will the minister advise whether a decision has been made and, if not, will he see to it that a decision is made in the immediate future?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, a decision was made last week and that information was transmitted to all unemployment insurance offices across the country, along with an instruction to proceed with special measures to speed the processing of claims for those entitled to benefits.
Oral Questions



CANADIAN PACIFIC AIRLINES


Mr. Paddy Neale (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact there is a legal strike in effect between the International Association of Machinists and Canadian Pacific Airlines, would the minister inform the House what action his department has taken to halt the ferrying of CP Air DC8 aircraft No. 801 to World Air Centre in Oakland, California, on September 9 of this year for overhaul and repair, as requested by the IAM by telegram on September 7?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, under international agreement all airlines can have their normal repairs made outside the country; this is not new. If they are doing it in order to avoid the strike, there are some other provisions in our laws that would prevent Canadian Pacific Airlines from doing so. I know that they asked to be relieved of those financial obligations, and I do not think that the government accepted that.
*	* sk



OIL-PROPOSED EXTENSION OF PIPELINE TO MONTREAL-IMPACT ON PRICES IN QUEBEC

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, in order to avoid a supplementary, I will ask a twofold question to the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
As regards the oil pipeline recently referred to in an announcement, since the information available at this time indicates that for many years to come imported oil in Quebec will cost less than western oil, can the minister give us the assurance that the implementation of that project would guarantee to Quebecers prices identical to those of imported products?
And secondly, would the minister also indicate, since his Quebec counterpart expressed his surprise at not having been consulted in that respect, whether it is his intention to negotiate or discuss the matter with the Quebec minister in the next few days?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out the fact that we have had discussions with Quebec representatives in July on all matters relating to energy, particularly on the construction of an oil pipeline to Montreal. And I will have next week the opportunity to meet with my Quebec counterpart and I will again be most interested in having his opinion on the matter.
As to prices, I must say that one of the considerations is that the international price of crude oil keeps on increasing; for that reason, we are very much concerned about a situation where the Montreal market must pay a higher price than other parts of Canada. It is for that reason-

September 7, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, but-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister would like to return to motions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, he would not.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of persistent reports that winter clothing will cost 20 per cent to 50 per cent more this fall, will the Prime Minister immediately recommend to parliament the removal of the 12 per cent federal sales tax on clothing for adults?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for the suggestion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Trinity on a supplementary and then call orders of the day.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that a 12 per cent reduction at the wholesale level represents an approximate reduction of 20 per cent in prices at the retail level, would the Prime Minister not agree that this is one of the most important measures this government could recommend to parliament-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You are out of order.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -to give lower and middle income groups-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -a chance to protect themselves against the winter cold?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat. He knows that a question asked in those terms is irregular.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege now that we have come to the end of the question period. I did not want to impinge upon that. It involves the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and is similar to the question of privilege raised earlier in the session concerning the Secretary of State and his circulation of correspondence leaving the impression that he had the concurrence of all members of parliament. The minister is responsible for the appearance of certain newspaper

advertisements throughout the country leaving the positive impression that all members of parliament are involved in some kind of organization which he wishes to set up in communities under the Local Initiatives Program.
It is not a question of wanting to avoid responsibility but rather a question of the right of members to reject the minister's offer of inclusion in this scheme. All members of the House have not agreed nor have they answered the correspondence that has been circulated by the minister. It is therefore not within the minister's right, by virtue of his office or any other reason, to leave the impression in national newspaper advertisements that all members are involved in this scheme. I personally want no part of the approval of a grant for the making of wooden ducks by a motorcycle gang in Montreal or grants to count tombstones or seagulls.
My question of privilege, put succinctly, is that the minister, not having agreed to remove that advertisement, should rise now and say that he will have it redesigned so as to remove the impression that he has the co-operation of all hon. members in this scheme of his. That is my right and I insist upon it. I wish the minister would give his assurance that he will do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I will have another advertisement prepared suggesting that, but I will certainly note that I do not have the co-operation of the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that Bill C-220, to amend the statute law providing for the payment of supplementary retirement benefits to certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words to explain the details of the bill to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act. The principal reason for introducing this bill is to provide that increases in the consumer price index will be fully reflected in the escalation of benefits payable under this act. As hon. members will recall, I have stated in the House on a number of occasions that the government's objective was to remove the 2 per cent ceiling on the annual increase of pensions payable under this act, but I had suggested that this should be
September 7, 1973

sought at the time of an agreement with the provinces that the 2 per cent ceiling on increases of pensions under the Canada Pension Plan would also be removed.
At the present time, the pension index for the purposes of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act is the equivalent of the pension index under the Canada Pension Plan, as the latter was defined on January 1, 1970, with the result that any annual increase in the pension index is subject to the existing limit of 2 per cent now provided for in the Canada Pension Plan.
It is, however, not expected that this decision on the Canada Pension Plan will be reached before the meeting of the federal and provincial welfare ministers in October. As one element of the government's measures to mitigate the effects of price inceases on those unable to protect their incomes, the government has now decided to proceed without waiting for that agreement. Accordingly, the amendments proposed in this bill will remove that 2 per cent limitation and provide that any increase in the consumer price index will be fully reflected in the escalation of benefits under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act. The proposed increase will reflect the full change in the consumer price index since the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act was passed in 1970 or the year in which the pensioner concerned ceased to be employed, whichever is the later. As a result, the new pension increases payable in 1974 will range from an increase of about six and a half per cent for those who retired in 1973 to about eleven and one half per cent for those who retired in 1970 or earlier.
When this act was passed in 1970, a shared cost method of financing was provided whereby the contributions of members of the public service, Canadian forces, RCMP, as well as members of parliament was established at half of 1 per cent of their salaries with a matching government contribution. This was intended to meet the cost of the pension increase for those already retired from the public service as well as those who retire within a seven year period, after which additional revenue was expected to be required.
This approach had been proposed by a special committee made up of the members of my advisory committee on the Public Service Superannuation Act and representatives of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP. In considering the increased cost of the amendments under this proposal, the advisory committee was concerned about asking present members to increase their contributions in order to pay for greater pension increases of those who had already retired.
The government appreciated the viewpoint of the advisory committee and is therefore proposing that, effective from January 1, 1974, it will assume the cost of all escalation for all those who retired before 1970 and the balance of the cost of the escalation of pensions of persons retired since 1969 which is not covered by matching contributions made by those persons and by the government with respect to them.
In the long run, the contribution of half of one per cent together with the government's matching contribution will almost certainly be insufficient to cover the cost of escalation for employees now entering the public service
Supplementary Retirement Benefits with an average working life of 30 years in the service ahead of them. Under certain assumptions it would be necessary to increase the contribution rate in the very near future if such an employee is to pay half the cost of his pension escalation after retirement. Under other assumptions it would not be necessary to do so for a few years. The government is proposing to adopt a phased approach under which the present rate of contribution would be raised by half of one per cent each, effective January 1, 1977. What further increases might be required in later years will be determined by future parliaments.
The third feature of this bill on which I would like to comment relates to the age at which the escalation of pensions of former members of the public service, Canadian Forces, RCMP and members of parliament can commence unless they are disabled. At the present time the act provides that this age should be 60.
Since 1970, the amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act which lowered the age at which public service employees could retire from 60 to 55 if they had 30 years of service created anomalies between the public service employees and members of these other groups. I assured hon. members from time to time that the government was concerned over these anomalies and would propose amendments to the act to take care of them when this legislation was introduced.
Accordingly, this bill provides for a lowering of the age at which escalation will commence for former members of the Canadian Forces, the RCMP and members of parliament, from 60 to 55 for those who have 30 years of service, to 56 for those who have 29 years of service, and so on, while all other persons on pension in those groups receive their increases on attaining the age of 60. The present provisions for eligibility of immediate escalation in the case of disability are not changed.
This formula has been determined after consultations with representatives of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP, bearing in mind the assumptions regarding cost factors mentioned earlier, and the amendments which were made in the Public Service Superannuation Act last year. Since those amendments led to increases in the pensions of civil servants retiring after age 55 with 30 years of service with effect from January 1, 1973, the amendment which introduced this new formula will have retroactive effect to that date under the terms of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I commend second reading and passage of this bill to the House.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I note that last night in one of its rare lapses Hansard made a mistake and quoted me as suggesting that in my eagerness to speak I had done such and such, whereas I had said in my eagerness to be agreeable I made a certain determination. Today I am not eager to speak, but I am agreeable to any scintilla of help that the government might bring forward to assist any group of people in this country.
I have found a certain element of fascination in this particular measure. I have known the President of the Treasury board (Mr. Drury) for a number of years. I have heard him speak in this House a good many times, but this is the first time I have seen him come before the House in the role of the dispenser of goodies.

Supplementary Retirement Benefits
He has generally been the man who knew how to say no, no, to increases for this group of public servants, no to that group of public servants, no when he was asked for more flexibility in dealing with the post office workers, no when it was pointed out to him time and again that he was injuring terribly the people in many parts of the country by his extension of the iniquitous prevailing wage rate system. He was the man who said no when it was suggested that those who were longshoremen on the east coast deserved the same pay as those on the west coast. He said the same thing about the nurses. He also was the one who was not able to say yes when we protested that firefighters at the Charlottetown airport were not properly served if they were getting a lower rate than firefighters in other parts of the country. It is not, I suppose, quite right to say that Scrooge has become Santa Claus, but it is interestingly close enough to attract the attention of those who have watched this minister so long.
Something less pleasant is the impact on any thoughtful member of parliament that here is another measure which illuminates and dramatizes the extent of inflation which is raging across the country. We are trying in this measure, as we tried in the one yesterday, to bring about some small measure of amelioration, some tiny piece of protection against something which is rampaging the land and affecting the people of Canada, every one. It is another partial measure, and of course in so far as it does help we are glad that it has come about although it has been a long, long time coming.
One of the distressing things about this resumed emergency session of parliament is the lack of alacrity, if I may put it that way, of the government in bringing forward such measures as it deigns to ask to be legislated. I think that in all my years here I never before found myself getting ready for a sitting of the House without, until an hour or two before I went into the chamber, having any idea of what, in fact, would be on the parliamentary agenda for that day. It not only took the whole of the session before, but the whole of the recess and of the resumed session for a determination to be made that the three measures we now have before us would be introduced. This indicates something less than a galvanic ability to deal with the problems of the land.
The bill is also startling and dramatic when you read that the figure 2 per cent was once regarded as something less than fantastic, unreal, as a cost of living escalator. But that figure is not a drop in the bucket with the inflation we have now, something like 14 per cent in those essentials of daily life per year. Of course, many people thought at the time that the 2 per cent was unreal and inadequate, but how far from reality it seems today. One would think we were talking about a bygone era, yet it is only a few years ago that 2 per cent was within the bounds of possibility.
The bill also causes us to reflect again upon the fact that certain groups of Canadians, in this case those who have served the country well for a long time, have been bearing the burden of inflation. The people to whom this measure refers are Canadians who have served the government, who have served the people for many many years. Most thoughtful people in our society, even in these days of
(Mr. Macquarrie.]
early and easy obsolescence, have pondered about their future. A great financial institution at one time had the slogan, and they may still have it, "Make your future more secure". We used to believe that whatever disadvantage there might be in entering the Public Service, at least there was security. Now, we know what has happened to that security. We know that many public servants who thought they had a pension which would give them security in their later years, have found it to be totally inadequate.
One of the disturbing things that I have noticed in recent months is the actual discomfort of so many of the people involved. There are thousands upon thousands of Canadians whose plans for retirement have been altered because the purchasing power of their dollar has been diminished. Every day we get letters from people who had thought that by careful planning they would be able to retire at such and such an age. Not long ago I talked to a very bright executive in a private company who was ready to retire next year. However, he said that considering what the dollar buys today he will have to work for at least another five years, and if this inflation continues he will never be able to stop work completely. This is a man who is not by any means on the bottom rung of the ladder.
Mr. Speaker, inflation is the sworn enemy of any kind of security that thoughtful people have tried to provide for their families and their own declining years. Inflation that has got out of hand is more than a political problem, more than the subject of political argument. It is a grim and, I would say, a criminal social problem which effectively shatters the future plans of people because of a government's inability to keep the economic and fiscal operation of the country under reasonable control. To tell people living in a country where inflation is soaring that they will make their future more secure by doing such and such a thing is preaching an incredible and incredulous doctrine.
It is interesting that a portion of this bill refers to something which is just and proper, that is the dropping of the age to allow people with long service to retire earlier. Yet because of the effect of inflation, the diminishing value of the dollar, many people are finding that they have actually to work longer. In a country like this, any citizen at age 60 should be able to step out of the work force if he wishes and have his future needs looked after. But the opposite prevails.
I am not going to go into these matters in detail, Mr. Speaker, but just want to make a few more general remarks. There is one group that we have to take note of and that is members of parliament. The member of parliament is used to being a target because of what he is able to eat and what kind of office he is supplied. I even noticed some criticism recently about the gymnastic facilities that members have on the hill, and I thought I should go about the country demonstrating that probably no group needs them more tham members of parliament!
However, I was looking at the report on members of parliament retiring allowances. I discovered that only one person of the many who have come here, having given up their profession or business, was in the top bracket giving him an annual pension of $8,000 to $8,999. I believe that man was in the House for about 30 years. The next man
September 7, 1973

was in the $5,999 bracket and he had about 20 years service. This is an indication that the affluent society does not occur within this supposedly select group. Like all other people, this group requires the kind of thing that the bill provides. We have known for a long time that the 2 per cent escalation was not reasonable for retired public servants, and even at this late date we are grateful that it has been removed from the legislation. We will do our part in that regard, Mr. Speaker.
Many members hear from former members of the RCMP and the railway people who are suffering now because they find that their pensions are insufficient. There is not a group mentioned in the bill from which I have not had letters revealing their anxiety and I imagine all hon. members have received letters as well. Much more must be done than is provided in this bill.
I was sorry to hear the minister indicate that the change in the Canada Pension Plan will have to wait. Just the other day I expressed the view that I was shocked that discussions on these matters had not taken place with the provinces long ago. How long do we have to watch inflation growing more burdensome before something is done about it? We should have had that consultation and that approval already. I cannot accept the thought that any province would not agree to an increase on the 2 per cent and I cannot believe that such consultation would take more than a couple of hours. I do not think it is necessary to wait for a plenary session of the ministers of social welfare of the whole nation. It is inconceivable that any province would stand in the way of approval, but I think it is up to the dominion government to move on this. I am not content that it should be let go for a while longer and when it is before us this party will help facilitate its passage.
In all of this the hundreds of thousands of Canadians on private pensions and the poor people who have no pension plan, have been left out. They are the victims of maladministration and, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself revealed the other day, they are the victims of a faltering conception of how bad the problem is and a limping approach toward remedial action. One wonders how long it will take those who have responsibility to be fully aware of the urgency of the situation. To govern a nation entails a heavy responsibility. That responsibility becomes tremendous when the economy of a country is in the state of our economy.
The government of the day, in its mental approach to these problems, should act as if an emergency faced it. There is no need for the languid approach which says, "We will leave it until October; we will slap another 2 per cent on here and, in the interim, add a bit to family allowances." Why need the family allowance be $12 instead of $20? These discussions were promised months ago. Did somebody say that $20 is too much? If a bill can provide for $12, surely it can provide for $20. I am no genius at mathematics, but even I can see that. Surely, if it was thought last spring that the need was for $20, what has happened to the cost of living cannot make one say that the need has diminished to $12. If someone last spring thought that $20 was an adequate figure for a family allowance, how could it be said, after the way food costs
Supplementary Retirement Benefits have been soaring in the months since the original announcement, that the increase should now only be up to $12. These things are incomprehensible, indefensible-


Mr. Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: And reprehensible.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: -and reprehensible, as the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles), who has a fine vocabulary, suggests.
There are some problems connected with this bill. Questions will be raised by my colleagues. One is somewhat leery of the general principle whereby certain people, namely, the contributors to these pensions, are to be soaked for inflation which they did not create, and soaked at the say-so of the government that created it. There is something unfair about that. It is not retired civil servants who are responsible for our roaring inflation.


Walter David Baker: Nor the serving ones.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Nor is it the serving ones, either. Yet the government, which is responsible, says to civil servants, "Okay, we will increase your contributory responsibilities because we are responding to this and dealing with it." That attitude reminds one of the old president of the treasury board. That is the kind of thing I would have expected him to do in his dealings with postal workers and people at the suffering end of the prevailing wage rate. Was it Shakespeare who said, "For this relief, much thanks"? I would be begrudging if I did not say, "For what is there, thanks; we appreciate it." But this is long overdue and it is not enough. At least it is something. For that we are thankful.
Having made that observation, I will take my seat and assure the minister that, despite the observations I have made, we will not stand in the way of this legislation. I hope he will show an unaccustomed willingness to listen to others and accept from some of my collegues helpful suggestions on how best to cope with this problem which the people referred to in this legislation have borne for far too long in this country.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) that any bill relating to any facet of pensions raises the whole, broad question of the adequacy or inadequacy of many of the pensions of the people of this country. I also agree with him very strongly when he says that the problem of inflation hits pensioners with particular force and, aware of the problem as we are today, it behooves us to make improvements in all our pension plans. Indeed, I urge that when we talk about the need for improving all pension plans, we think not only of those plans that come under the aegis of government, but that we increase our concern about the adequacy and safety of the provisions of private pension plans.
There is legislation on the federal statute books and on the statute books of our provinces, I believe, which provides standards for pension plans. There are also provisions in the income tax regulations which do the same thing. In my view, these items of legislation and these regulations need to be overhauled. We need to take a close look at the whole pension picture in this country.

Supplementary Retirement Benefits
Nevertheless, before us at the moment is a bill dealing with just a sector of the pension picture. Indeed, if my statistics are correct, I believe it affects about 100,000 people who are retired. I arrive at that figure by adding up the number of retired federal civil servants, plus their widows and orphans, and the number of retired personnel of the RCAF and Canadian Armed Forces as well as other groups referred to in this bill. I doubt if the total actually is 100,000, but it is of that order.
For those 100,000 people and for those others who are working for the federal government and will join that retired group in due course, this is a very important piece of legislation. However, if I may hark back to what I said that I agreed with the hon. member for Hillsborough, I regard this bill as important not only to the 100,000 persons it will affect immediately, but important, as well, because it establishes a principle which I hope will soon be extended to all pensioners in this country; that principle is the right to have pensions escalated after retirement, and escalated at least to the extent of the full advantage increase in the cost of living. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in saying that I welcome this bill. Indeed, I welcome it warmly. That does not cut off my right to be critical about it and to suggest that some other things should be in it. But in so far as this bill improves the pension position of retired public servants and of those in other groups, I am glad that this bill is before us.
When I think of some of the red letter days I have experienced in my years in parliament, I have to admit that one that stands out is December 19, 1969, when the minister who is piloting this bill through the House announced for the first time that the government was going to bring in legislation providing for the annual escalation of the pensions of retired public servants. It is almost 30 years since the first group of retired civil servants came to see me and asked me to go to bat for them with the proposition that their pemsions should be increased after retirement. I am happy to say that two or three of those who came to see me about this matter in 1944 lived to see their pensions escalated in 1970. One of them almost reached the age of 100 and enjoyed quite a bit of the escalation that was introduced.
When that proposal was made on December 19, 1969, and put into law in what was Bill C-194 of that session, passed by the House of Commons on March 23, 1970, it was a pretty good piece of work on the part of the government and the House of Commons, even if it took 25 years of prodding to get it. It provided for persons who had worked for the government in the various categories listed guarantee of an annual escalation of their pensions because of increases in the cost of living.
There were two main shortcomings. One was the imposition of a 2 per cent ceiling on the amount of escalation that could take place in any one year, no matter how much the cost of living might increase. The other was a limitation of age 60. While it did not affect public servants generally, it did have an adverse effect on retired personnel of the RCMP and the Canadian Armed Forces.
Just as I had urged for 25 years that this piece of legislation be brought into effect, the President of the
(Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).]
Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) knows I began urging right away that these two improvements be made. He and I have had many night sittings over this. It would take all day to look back over the record. I am glad that the hopeful things he said to me in a number of those late shows will be done some day. I will not even talk about the fact he was very firm that this could not be done until a similar change had been made in the Canada Pension Plan. I suppose the President of the Treasury Board was preventing my doing that by the explanation which he gave. The fact of the matter is these two main shortcomings have now been dealt with in whole or in part by the bill that is now before us.
As I understand it, as far as the 2 per cent ceiling on the escalation is concerned, it will come off completely starting in January, 1974. At one time there was talk that instead of just taking the ceiling off, it might be raised to something like 3 per cent or 4 per cent. Thank heaven that was not done, but that the ceiling is to be taken off completely.
From studying this bill and comparing it with previous legislation, I think there is a bit of a retroactive effect in this legislation which I welcome. This, of course, is a detail that can be dealt with when we get to committee. As I understand it, those who got a 2 per cent increase in 1971, 1972 and 1973, in each of which years the cost of living went up more than 2 per cent, will get the shortfall in the calculation of their rate of increase in January, 1974. In other words, in January, 1974, a public servant who retired in 1973 will get a percentage increase equal to the actual rise in the cost of living for this one year period. Those who retired in earlier years will get an extra percentage point or two for the years 1971, 1972 and 1973. The old timers, those who retired before 1970, can anticipate an increase in their pensions in January, 1974, in the order of 11 per cent, 11 and a fraction per cent or even 12 per cent. That is good. It will mean a great deal to many of these people.
I earnestly hope I have correctly understood it in this regard. In reading the bill, I tried to figure a way in which the government would have to pay some back dollars that it did not pay in 1971, 1972 and 1973 because the 2 per cent ceiling that was in effect then will now come off. I will leave that until we get to committee. However, I do think I am correct in my interpretation of the bill that in January, 1974, persons who were retired prior to 1970 will have a calculation in 1974 which is cumulative so they will pick up the portion of the cost of living increase which they did not get. This is another of those occasions when I am very happy to see the President of the Treasury Board nodding his head vertically. That is good.
One of the things about this life, if I can indulge in a philosophical utterance for a moment, is that we never reach perfection. There is always something more for which to strive. I will get to that in a moment. At any rate, for those of us who have fought so hard and so long for civil service pensions to be escalated by the full extent of the cost of living, this is another of those so-called red letter days.
The other thing that this bill does and to which the minister has drawn attention is to touch in a slight or a meagre way the question of lowering the age at which
September 7, 1973

escalation can come into effect, especially for retired personnel of the RCMP and Canadian Armed Forces. This is another subject we have discussed many times in the question period and in late shows.
As the minister just indicated, the way the law now stands, unless an RCMP or armed forces person retires early because of illness, he does not get the escalation until he reaches age 60, even though he may have served the full term he was permitted to serve under the regulations of those two branches of government service. Many people feel very badly about this. They point out they served their full term. They know the arguments the government has put forward about their pension plan being different and so on and that at these earlier ages, some of them can get other jobs. The fact is that many of them cannot. I have run into cases of persons who served out their term whereas they could have taken a retirement because of illness a year or so earlier and qualified for the escalation. However, because they served out their term, they were not able to do so.
When the rumour got around that this bill would do something about the age, I hoped the minister would bring it right down to 55 or 50 so that persons who had served their full term in the RCMP or armed forces would be entitled to the escalation of their pension the year after retirement. The minister has not done that. I think he likes these late shows in which he and I are often involved. It must be that he likes to leave something so that I can still go after him.
All that is being done is to provide retired armed forces and RCMP personnel to pick up their escalation at 55 if they have 30 years service, 56 if they have 29 years service, 57 with 28 years service, 58 and 27 years service and 59 if they have 26 years service. Why do we have to take two or three bites at the cherry? Why could the minister not have dealt with this in one action and met the points these people have brought forward? In any event, this is another case of welcoming what is before us, but wishing the minister had gone all the way.
Despite those words of criticism, I regard this bill as extremely welcome. I know that retired civil servants who will be affected by it will be pleased to know that in January they will get an increase in their pension based on the actual cost of living, particularly the old-timers who retired before 1970. I think particularly of the old-timers who were retired before 1970 who have the prospect this January of a pension increase of perhaps 11 per cent, or possibly even a bit more.
The hon. member for Hillsborough made reference to the fact that there is one section of the bill which deals with retired members of parliament who are on pension. I was one who was extremely annoyed, when Bill C-194 was brought in back in the session of 1969-70, to find that what some of us had fought to achieve for a long time, namely an improvement in the pensions of retired civil servants, had been linked with a massive improvement in the pension plan for members of parliament. The whole thing was put into one package. Some of us did not like what was done for MPs at the time as compared with what was being done for others; we moved the appropriate amend-
Supplementary Retirement Benefits ments and we took our stand about that. It is a matter of record, and those who were here remember it well. I speak as one who was opposed to the generosity of the arrangements made for the MPs, but I think it should be clear, now, that what is being proposed here does not change the basic scale of pensions for MPs at all, not make one cent higher the pension any present member of parliament will get on retirement. All it does is to remove the ceiling on the escalation of pensions for those who are already retired while, of course, it will remove it in the future for any members now here who will at some point in the future go on pensions.
In the main this is a piece of legislation which will improve things, if I may be non-partisan, for persons like M. J. Coldwell, Gordon Churchill and Jim Brown. I mention three people whose names I am sure are well remembered by those who have been around here for a time and I know that in the case of the first person I named, he went out on pension when the maximum was $3,000 a year, for all the service he had put in. He has received the escalations in pension which were provided under the existing act, which brought the pension up a little bit, but it is still a pretty small pension, much smaller than the one to which the hon. member for Hillsborough referred. I am thinking of people like Mr. Coldwell, Mr. Churchill and His Honour Judge Brown-I understand that the latter has retired from the bench because of ill health. I think all of us who knew them are not ashamed that in this legislation we are including for them an escalation of their pensions in January which will be equal to the actual increase in the cost of living, and in the case of Mr. Coldwell, since he went out some years ago, he will get the 11 per cent which will be available to him. Indeed, for these gentlemen we should be doing even more, and I felt, Mr. Speaker, that because some references are bound to be made to this aspect of the bill, I should make this point. I am still sorry it is linked with the other. I think that when we make provisions for MPs they should stand on their own feet and not be part of a package. But what this does is simply add an element of fairness to those who have already retired.
Now, Sir, I said that despite my appreciation of this bill, my readiness to welcome it and not to play the usual opposition role of saying it isn't as good as it ought to be, there are some things which remain to be done-not in this bill, but I hope they will be in some bill in the future. Before I get to that, may I just say a word about the costing arrangement? I have discovered already that some of those who did not like the one half of one per cent are therefore not likely to like the one per cent which is to come into effect in 1977. Still, it doesn't worry them today, because they think anything can happen between now and 1977. This is something I should like to discuss when we get into committee, whether it is really necessary at this point to provide for that increase in the premium to one per cent in 1977.
The more substantial things about which I should like to say a few words have to do with improvements which I think should still be made to the Public Service Superannuation Act and related pieces of legislation. I said a moment ago that one of the things about life is that we never reach perfection, and I am glad life is like that. "A man's reach must exceed his grasp, or what's a Heaven

September 7, 1973
Supplementary Retirement Benefits
for?"- isn't that the quotation? It is wonderful we have reached the point at which pensions are being escalated by the full amount of the cost of living increase. Wonderful. But it is not good enough. The day must come when pensions are increased by an even better scale such as the wage index or the gross national product. We got awfully close to this when we were dealing with veterans' disability pensions a few months ago, but in the end the government chickened out.
However, it is there, stated as a goal not only by some of us on the floor of the House but in a special report by an important joint committee. This comes to light when older retired civil servants write to some of us and note that civil servants who have succeeded them and who have now retired get a pension higher than the former civil servants got as salary when they were on the job. Many retired civil servants say to me: Doesn't it cost us as much to live in today's society as it costs the ones who retired last year? In other words, they are saying there should be a relationship between pensions and the rate now being paid either for the job those same civil servants did or the rate of pension now being paid. I think the most direct way to go at it is to establish an index based not just on the rising cost of living but on the rise in the standard of living and you can get that in one of two ways, either by relating it to the wage index or by relating it to the gross national product. I hope that as soon as we get this bill through, as soon as we get the principle of escalation by the full cost of living well established, the next crusade to get the cost of living escalated by an even better index will not take as long as this one did.
At some point I think there will have to be more discussion, especially with the representatives of the various public service organizations, about the whole basis of public service pensions. I know that many of the questions which are asked are answerable-questions about the fund and the amount of interest paid on the fund, whether higher pensions could be paid if the money were lent out, and so on-and I know the answers that are given to those questions, for I have heard them so often. But still there is uncertainty among public servants as to whether they are really getting the best pension that their contributions can buy, and I think the least to ask for is a further study of this matter. I think, also, there should be a review of the six-year provision, the provision which says a pension is based on 2 per cent per year of the average salary for one's six best years. Especially in these days, when increases are won a little more rapidly than used to be the case, and when they rise with a little more acceleration, there is an argument for reducing the number of years to five, or four, or even fewer.
I also think a serious look should be taken at the position of widows and at the pensions paid to women generally in the public service. I do not know why society accepts so easily that if a man and wife have lived together and built up their home, and one of them has done the work and the other has stayed at home, the pension arrangement is satisfactory if it provides that if the wife dies first the husband's pension continues at 100 per cent, but if he dies first, the pension for the widow continues at only 50 per cent. Why should it not be the same? Perhaps we will have to work this out and say 75 per cent for each of them, or what-have-you.

I sometimes wonder in these days of women's liberation why there is not much more cry about equality in the pension field as between men and women. Mrs. Bird's committee dealt with this point briefly and drew attention to the fact that men in the public service pay 6 V4 per cent of their income into the public service superannuation fund whereas women pay only 5 per cent. The difference at the other end is that if a man leaves a survivor there is under certain conditions a survivor's pension. But a woman who had paid only 5 per cent into the fund cannot have any survivor at all, whether she is single or married.
I suppose that any call to women to pay the same percentage as men-in other words, to pay 6V2 per cent instead of 5 per cent-would not be met with great enthusiasm by women in the public service. But if something were considered by way of survivor's benefits even for single women, for people whom they have helped support and so on, there might be some interest shown. I am just making the point that it seems to me that we are still living in the early 1900's in our concepts of pensions as between men and women, and that one place where we ought to sort this out ought to be in the field of public service pensions.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I think there should be equality in pensions between men and women. I think the question of who can be a person's survivor should be looked at again, particularly in the case of single persons, whether they be men or women. And I think that the provision about a widow receiving only 50 per cent pension, whereas if a man survives he receives a 100 per cent pension, just is not right. I suppose this is part of the old attitude that a woman, after her husband dies, can try and find somebody else to provide a meal ticket for her and that the poor bereaved husband has to have a 100 per cent pension so that he can pick up another wife and have enough money to keep her. These ideas have gone and I think a good place for some new thinking about the structure of pensions is right in the public service field.
Perhaps even before we get to the position of equality among men and women we ought to give our public servants at least the same provisions that we give ourselves with respect to our own widows. We have our own Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act under which, if a retired member of parliament dies leaving a widow, providing she was married to him while he was a member of parliament, her pension is 60 per cent of what his was or would have been, whereas in the case of public servants' widows it is only 50 per cent. I suggest there is a basic unfairness there. I think it is terribly unfair on our part to have provided a 60 per cent pension for our widows but only a 50 per cent pension for the widows of public servants.
These are matters that have to be looked at. Hardly any of the ideas I have expressed on the floor of this House are new on my part, but apparently we have to keep on expressing them in order to get them considered. I urge that all of the various points I have discussed, such as a new escalation formula based on a wage index related to or on the gross national product rather than on the cost of living; a new look at the funding principle; shortening of the number of years on the basis of which a pension is
September 7, 1973

calculated; the relationship between pensions for men and women, and so on, should be looked at and given very thorough study.
I see we are getting pretty close to one o'clock and although my 40 minutes would take me past one o'clock, I shall conclude before one so that any member who has been planning to speak next can be ready at two o'clock.
I should just like again to put in a word for the recipients of the war veterans allowance. We have to do this every time. Some of these retired civil servants are on pensions that are pretty low. Whatever the reason for that may be, there is no argument that they are low. There are retired civil servants whose pension and other income is such that they also receive war veterans allowance. There is to be an increase in the pensions of those people in January, so here we go again: off it comes from their war veterans allowance, since there is a ceiling in that act.
The President of the Treasury Board will say that this question falls under the department of another minister, but the President of the Treasury Board is a pretty important member of the cabinet in all financial matters. Just as the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) and I have been urging that steps should be taken by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) to make sure that veterans get the full amount of old age security and the guaranteed income supplement increase without it coming off their war veterans allowance, so steps should be taken to see that retired civil servants who receive an increase in their civil service pension also get the full benefit of it and not have it taken off their war veterans allowance.
I also urge that action on the Canada Pension Plan not be delayed, that the 2 per cent ceiling must come off soon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to see the hon. member for Hillsborough applauding, though I was even happier to hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) say two or three days ago that he expects this to happen before January 1 next. He is much more positive about it now than he was earlier in the session.
There must be no failure in this respect. What we are doing for these 100,000 people we must do for all those thousands of people who are participants in the Canada Pension Plan. Escalation of their pensions, to take place in January 1974, must not again be limited to 2 per cent but must be the full amount of the cost of living increase, just as will now be the case for our public servants.
Again I suggest, as I said earlier in my remarks this morning, that one of the values of this legislation is that it establishes a principle-and I think it is a principle that should apply to pensions of all kinds, both government and private-namely that we have to do all the prodding and pushing we can to make sure that private pension plans are also escalated. As I said the other day, I welcome the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that the income tax regulations will be changed so that private pension plans that do escalate beyond 2 per cent can be registered. I think the government could go further and
Supplementary Retirement Benefits say that these plans cannot be registered unless they do go beyond 2 per cent.
Since it is just about one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I guess I had better draw my remarks to a close. As I say, I welcome this legislation. I welcome it in the name of the people who will benefit from it. I also want to see these other improvements I have mentioned. And most of all, I want to see the kind of benefit that we are talking about today made available to all our people, and this includes private pensions across the board.
One last kick before you get to your feet, Mr. Speaker. We must not forget the lowering of the pensionable age across the board to the age at which it is already possible for public servants to retire, namely 60. Let us make that, on a voluntary basis, the rule for all.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the debate on Bill C-220 as well as on the old age security bill adopted yesterday and on those which will be tabled next week has been made possible by the railway strike. If parliament had not been called back, senior citizens, pensioners and young people would have had to wait till the end of October or till next year for higher benefits.
Moved by the uncontrolable inflation of prices, to which it is one of the main contributors, and goaded by public opinion, the government is trying to calm the population by adopting measures which are aimed at making tolerable this continuing rise in prices which sometimes swallows up the savings of a lifetime of work. The fight against inflation has been abandoned and, through this law as well as the other social laws which have been adopted or which we plan to adopt in the near future, inflation is being accepted and an attempt is made at following it, as my colleague from Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) so aptly put it yesterday.
These laws will have no other effect than to further increase the cost of living. What we offer today to some members of our society, we will be taking away from those who work, from those who have an income. The government had agreed to an annual readjustment of pensions and allowances on the basis of the increase in the cost of living and the price index. Today, it has to bring the readjustments on a quarterly basis and soon maybe it will probably have to do it every month. Why? Because the cost of living increases more rapidly than incomes. The dog will never succeed in catching its tail, especially when the tail is getting shorter faster than the nose of the dog is getting longer. That is the situation which we are facing today. We get increases in salaries, we get increases in old age security pensions, more generous allowances, but prices keep increasing at a faster rate than these incomes. The net result is that we are further behind than before,

September 7, 1973
Supplementary Retirement Benefits
and this situation has been prevailing for at least two decades.
The solutions that our governments have adopted since that time have always been the same: they have never succeeded in slowing down the increases in prices, they have always caused further depreciation of the dollar so that the Canadian consumer still continues to have difficulties in making his budget meet both ends. What is the reason for such a mad rise in the cost of living? The reason is that this government has failed to strike at the root of the evil. The government is facing a crisis like the one in the thirties, the difference being that instead of a price collapse we are witnessing a price explosion which has the same effect on the people as well as on savings.
Not long ago, people used to save money so as to provide for a happy retirement, secure from a loss of income at an advanced age. That concept is rapidly vanishing with the loss of the dollar's purchasing power.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, in the annual news letter published by the Canadian Bank of Commerce, one can find very interesting figures on the economic changes in Canada, especially with respect to the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar. On the basis of a 100 cents per dollar in 1961, the dollar value in 1962 was 98.8 and in 1971, 75 only. That means that within 10 years the dollar lost at least 25 per cent of its value.
So the person who saved $1,000 in 1961 had only $750 in 1971. Therefore, that runaway inflation robs the people who tried to save money, who deprived themselves of certain things during their working years to save money to provide for a more prosperous retirement. The price rise deprives them of their savings and there is the lack of incentives to save.
Contributions to a pension fund, either in private enterprise or in the public service feel the repercussions of the same situation. Some people who work for companies, if they are numerous enough, join forces to ensure a relatively late retirement, still too late given the production facilities we now have. But when retirement time comes, they find that the money they deprived themselves of during 30, 35 or 40 years of work has lost its value. It does not ensure them the retirement conditions they had anticipated.
As a result, Bill C-220 which is before us tends to rectify this situation by pegging the pensions of some categories of public servants so that these pensions increase at the same rate as the continuing rise in the cost of living. But no provision in the legislation will prevent prices from increasing, so that the pensioner is no better off than before. He will always be in the same situation and since the fiscal system is so designed that the taxpayer is taxed according to a percentage of income and that sales tax is established according to a percentage of prices, it ensures that the higher the prices, the higher the taxes from the three levels of government so that the workman, the labourer or the pensioner has to face higher and higher taxes.
Then the situation which will prevail for the retired we want to relieve through Bill C-220 will be one where their incomes will be a little higher.

Since these are taxable incomes, they will have more to pay in taxes and they will not be any better off after having obtained this pension increase and prices will keep on increasing for them as well as for all others.
In view of this situation, Mr. Speaker, people must try and remain at work longer, even though the whole of the economy could do without their services at an earlier age than before. Their needs are growing and the value of the dollar is decreasing. History records the following, and I quote the Labour Gazette of November 1970:
The life expectancy in Ancient Greece was 18 years. One hundred years ago, in the western world, it reached perhaps 30-odd years. Today, for the whole population of the world, it stands at 60 for one out of 14 persons. In the USSR, this proportion is 1 over 11; in North Amercia and Europe, one over seven.
But, progress in hygiene, dietetics and related fields have extended life expectancy. Lately, they have even greatly improved it. It is nonetheless obvious that age creates great difficulties for workers because, on the labour market, the age at which a man or woman becomes known as an "aged worker" is decreasing instead of increasing as could be expected in the light of improved fitness and health among middle-aged people.
There is a saying that living to a ripe old age does not matter as much as remaining young longer. And I feel, Mr. Speaker, that thanks to the progress of hygiene and medical science, we have managed to remain young longer so that as people are growing older, the scope of possible employment is narrowing. Senior citizens must often accept jobs that young people turn down because they are relatively badly paid or not so well considered socially.
So, Mr. Speaker, the aged people now find themselves more than ever in a difficult situation. Workers who enjoy a steady job in a firm to whom they have belonged for a great number of years can expect to remain with that employer until age 65. Some will even keep their jobs until they are 70.1 know some such workers in my constituency. However, the situation is not the same for those who do not enjoy such stable employment. For the latter, landing a job at 50 or 55 becomes very difficult; they have almost no means and they must wait until they reach the age when they are entitled to receive the old age security pension, which is now fixed at 65.
Mr. Speaker, this bill features a more direct approach to lowering the retirement age of public servants; in my opinion, that benefit should be extended to all classes of society and at least those who so wish should be allowed to go on retirement as early as 60 in the public service and the private enterprise as well. That should perhaps not force them to go on retirement when they reach 60, but at least those who so wish should have the possibility of withdrawing from the active work force with the assurance that they will receive a sufficiently high income to allow them to lead a decent life.
With such a provision, Mr. Speaker, those who have worked for 30, 35, 40 or even 45 years could have access to retirement and should benefit from those things they have contributed to create during their active working life, and I believe that they deserve it.
In the northern hemisphere, in America and particularly in Canada, people are known for their guts and their willingness to spare no effort when needed.
Mr. Speaker, Canada should be more respectful towards these people at the time of their retirement and ensure
September 7, 1973

them a happy life particularly when they contributed to a pension plan as public servants do.
I think the light increases proposed in this bill should be accepted and I am convinced that my colleagues of the Social Credit will join me in voting for this bill on second reading.
When listening to the first round of speeches, it seemed to me that all parties agreed on what was proposed; of course, we always hope to get more, but at least we can be sure that retired civil servants will get a little more than they had before.
This example should be followed at all government levels: I am thinking, for instance, of the workmen's compensation legislation. In some provinces, compensation payments are still not geared to the cost of living. There are people who have been getting full compensation for many years and who are still receiving the same amounts they got when the accident happened. Those amounts are no longer sufficient today and I think that the example given in this bill should encourage governments at all levels to follow suit.
[ English]


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) for the very short and succinct speech he made introducing what I think is an extremely important piece of legislation for all those who, in some way or another, have served their country in the public service. I am glad that he did not embark on an immodest extolling of the virtues of his predecessor or his own virtues, as did the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) recently. Perhaps his conduct in this regard is due to the fact that, so far as the public service is concerned, there are few virtues the President of the Treasury Board can extoll. This may have had something to do with the length of his speech and with the lack of self-congratulation.
The government does not want to take upon itself sole credit for the fact that we are dealing with this legislation. Members of the government certainly are draftsmen of the bill, but if you examine the history of public service legislation you find that this government and its predecessors were really dragged, kicking and screaming, to the point where they finally gave in to what, over the years, were the reasonable demands of public service staff associations, the officers of public service associations, retired public servants and others who have written to people like myself and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). As I say, the government has finally given in and seen the reason for positions that have been taken by my party and, for that matter, the NDP with respect to this matter.
Tbe shame with respect to this legislation is that the motive behind it is not primarily to protect the public servant. It is far from that. The government has not acted to save the retired public servant from hardship. The government acted as it has in the past few days just to save itself. That is the prime motivation. For a long time this move toward increased pension benefits for a great number of people who served their country well has been
Supplementary Retirement Benefits urged on the government by members of this party, the staff associations and other interested people, but the government waited to act until there was a crisis upon the country. From the point of view of motivation the government cannot clothe itself in a cloak of compassion and humanity. That has not been a hallmark of the government with respect to action on public service matters.
This morning during the question period I asked the President of the Treasury Board why amendments to the Public Service Employment Act, forecast in the Speech from the Throne on January 4, 1973, had not yet been introduced, despite urgings from me and from my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre. Why has there been this delay? Why did we debate capital punishment for so many days when there were so many things that had to be done, particularly with respect to public servants? I cannot recall his exact words, but the usual answer has been, "In due course these things will come forward."


Mr. Reilly:: In the fullness of time.


Walter David Baker: Or in the fullness of time, as the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly) says. Moreover, I read in the Ottawa Journal last evening that the Public Service Alliance of Canada, representing 40,000 of its members, has had to break off negotiations with the Treasury Board on various matters, one of the most important of which is compensation to the public servant. According to press reports the latest Treasury Board offer is a 3 per cent increase in pay for this year and, I think, 2 per cent for the next year. That is unreasonable, Mr. Speaker, and that attitude is breaking the back of free collective bargaining in this country. The offer does not even keep up with the increase in the cost of living which stands at an annual rate of 8 per cent. The government should realize that it must deal properly with its public servants and that is why I say it ought not to clothe itself in a mantle of glory with regard to this legislation. It has been dragged kicking and screaming to this point in an atmosphere of crisis which was, to a large extent, of its own making.
I want to say to the President of the Treasury Board that my party approves of the proposals he has brought forward in the legislation. I think he realizes that, and I think he realizes that the legislation is long overdue. In the time it has taken the government to bring it forward retired government employees have seen the buying power of their pensions shrink, and for many of them their circumstances have gone from bad to worse; they have become discouraged. I have had many letters from retired public servants who had been looking forward to a future of reasonable security but the view has become more bleak by the month.
I hope this legislation is not coming as too little and too late to rectify the situation, particularly for the older ones.
I hope that what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said with laudable vision with respect to retroactivity, will make the difference so that they may live out their years in reasonable peace and security.
Mr. Speaker, I have to commend the minister for at long last going on his own and not waiting for some change in the Canada Pension Plan. I join with the hon. member for

September 7, 1973
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) in believing that there is no disagreement that the Canada Pension Plan ought to be amended, and quickly. Surely, there is no reason for, not having provision in the legislation for the adjustment of pensions generally on a quarterly basis. If I read the bill correctly, it contains no such provision. I support the changes brought forward by the bill. We should deal with it today and so ensure that the beneficiaries would not have to wait until January 1, 1974 to feel the effects of it.
If the record of the government in the first part of 1973 has any relationship to the increased cost of living, between today, September 7, 1973 and January 1, 1974 many retired public servants are going to suffer unnecessary hardship and will continue to do so. The standard of living of these public servants has deteriorated over the years and it is difficult to see how some of them have survived. Farm costs have risen by 13 per cent in the second quarter of this year and one does not have to be a mathematician to understand the effect of this on food prices. Milk production has decreased by 6.1 per cent from last year. The annual rate of inflation is 8 per cent and of the seven most industrialized nations of the world we have had the fastest escalation of food prices with 14.7 per cent. Just yesterday we heard reports of further increases in fuel costs, and today it is reported that the general wholesale index has increased by 2.3 per cent. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this action has come too late as a result of the stubbornness of this government. The people ought not to have been exposed to the suffering that ordinary human compassion could have alleviated.
I am very pleased to take part in the debate with my good friend and neighbour, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He has long been the champion of pensions and has advanced the cause of many who were not in a position to help themselves. However, I do not want him to be misled by the kindness of my personal sentiment towards him. If we are now faced with high prices, inflated costs and greater farm input costs, it is to a great extent because the New Democratic Party has been prepared to live with a government whose policies are conceived in ineptitude and born out of expediency. Perhaps that is why in his speech the hon. member did not mention the responsibility for high costs, the difficulties of many people and the ineptitude of this government in dealing with the problem.
I am not sure whether the consumer price index is the proper yardstick when tying escalations to pensions. One would hope that it would remain relatively stable but if the past record is any indication, it probably will not. Perhaps it is much too broad an index to which to tie future increases. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre mentioned the possibility of using the wage index or the index of productivity and perhaps that suggestion is worth pursuing.
In the bill that we dealt with earlier there was some mention of using the highest items that make up the consumer price index; food, housing and clothing. I would ask the government to consider all these indices when trying to find a way to bring more justice to retired people. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as well, that perhaps there is some question about the investment, use and management of funds held in

trust by the government. Many public servants question this. I am satisfied that the government that will succeed the present government will look at this important field of public trust. The position of women in the public service, the position of widows, which was well illustrated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and the six-year rule which affects the calculation of pensions, are important matters. By studying these areas, perhaps we can make our pensions more beneficial to recipients.
There are still discrepancies, although there ought not to be, in our pension arrangements and there is still a discounting of pensions and superannuation benefits with respect to members of the Armed Forces who have retired and have entered the public service. I suggest that because of present salary scales these discrepancies are lessening. It seems to me that a breach of principle is involved in this matter when, in 1973, it is still felt that service in one area of the government ought not to be recognized when the person who has so served his country serves it in another area.
I think injustice and wrong principles are involved in matters to do with the pensions of members of parliament. Let me explain. If a former member of parliament who draws a pension is appointed by a province judge, he may continue drawing his full pension as an ex-member of parliament, which will depend on the length of his service, the amount of his contributions, his rank and so on, and receive the emoluments of his new office. If that same person is appointed to the position of county judge or some other office that comes under the Crown in right of Canada, he cannot do that. Some people may be cynical, but why should there be this discrimination? There is no such discrimination if a person who draws a pension from industry enters the public service of Canada. We ought to accept the fact that pensions, whether from industry, or whether arising from service in the public service of Canada or from service with the armed forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Governor General and the other areas covered in the bill, are the result of services rendered. They are earned and ought to be paid. That being so, we should not recognize such service on the one hand and, by a regulation, deny the recognition of that service if the particular person concerned chooses to serve his country and his community in another capacity.
Really, we have only begun to scratch the top of the barrel in Canada in our dealings with pensions. We have hardly opened the barrel. We have only begun looking into the question of pensions. On behalf of the many public servants who have written both to me, to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and to others, and on behalf of those who have not written but have just suffered under a system which made few pretentions to equity until today, I join with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in extending thanks to the President of the Treasury Board for bringing forward this legislation even though it is done in crisis and as an answer to the economic difficulties which the government has brought upon itself and the country. As I said at the beginning, welcome though these advances are to all those who will receive them, they were not born out of any underlying motive to protect retired
September 7, 1973

public servants and save them from hardship; rather, they were born out of an effort to save this government.
I will not add anything further. I hope we can proceed through second reading quickly and then give clause by clause consideration to this bill.


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise after my friend, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), has spoken as I, too, support the changes the government has introduced. On behalf of the people of this community, and of public servants, may I say that I support the changes brought in by the government for the benefit of public servants, members of the Canadian Armed Forces, RCM Police and others.


Erik Nielsen: You would be in trouble if you did not.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: I think I am voicing the opinion of all members of parliament representing constitutiencies in the national capital area when I say that we all support this overdue increase which is to accrue to those who have worked in the public service as well as other areas mentioned in the bill, and who have retired. Although the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton who preceded me did not say this, I can say that the minister who introduced this measure deserves full credit for the decisive action he has taken. It will be of benefit to many in this community, and to many others across the country. To my knowledge, public servants look on the minister as a leader that they like. They are extremely happy with the manner in which he is acting in his capacity as President of the Treasury Board.


Walter David Baker: You don't read your mail, Hughie.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: I hear an hon. member saying, "You don't read your mail, Hughie." I read it every day. I am one of the members representing a constituency in the national capital area who, together with the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Gauthier), has lived here all his life. I have been here all my life. I have known people who are now public servants at all levels all their lives. I have known public servants occupying the lowest, if you like, and the highest ranks ever since their boyhood. I grew up and went to shcool with some of them. I deal with them day by day; and although they complain to me about other things, they say that they are happy about this legislation. They are content and, indeed, proud of the work they are doing from day to day for this community and on behalf of the people of Canada.


Erik Nielsen: Their happiness shows up in leaked documents, too.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: The members of the public service with whom I have had the privilege of coming into contact since becoming a member of parliament have been most courteous, effective and helpful in dealing with the problems of my constituents. It is because of their good services and exceptional work that it is said all over the world that the public service of Canada is one of the finest in the world.
I am pleased also at the recognition this bill gives to the needs of others. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces
Supplementary Retirement Benefits have rendered a great service to Canada, and retired members of the force are to receive supplementary retirement benefits under the act. The bill also applies to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who perform an extremely fine function in the country. In the last few days, together with the security personnel of the House of Commons, they did something which entailed a great physical risk when they acted on the occasion of the unwarranted attack upon people in the House of Commons last Tuesday or last Wednesday-I forget which day it was. They did an exceptionally fine job and were, as I said, ably assisted by the parliamentary security force, which also did exceptionally good work at a difficult time. They handled the people concerned with as little fuss as possible and are to be commended.


Erik Nielsen: Whom have you left out?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: I hear a voice coming from the other side of the chamber. The rudeness of that voice is becoming more and more apparent in this House and in the committees of this House. I will ignore it. It will not go away of its own volition, although it may be taken away from here in a short time by the volition of others.


Erik Nielsen: There is an expert talking.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton also referred to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Although I did not hear his speech, I am sure his remarks were very constructive and informative. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton accused him of being in concert with his party. He, in some ways, thinks it is bad or an evil thing to do that. I remind the hon. member that we on this side, and sometimes they on the other side, attempt to govern this country with a sense of responsibility for the present and the future. Rather than from time to time engaging in destructive snide comments, we are prepared to govern and work constructively for the benefit of this community and Canada. As long as they are prepared to work with us, we will work with them. I am under no illusion.
As the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) said the other day, as a political party, they will only work with us as long as it is in their interest politically to do so. In the meantime, I am prepared to work with them to govern Canada and govern it properly. It seems the others are fearful of this. Day by day, each time we move along, we provide something a little more than they expected. The people of Canada are beginning to see this parliament has been made to work by those who have a willingness to see that Canada is governed properly in these most difficult times. These are not difficult times because we in Canada have a unique situation. It is a world-wide situation which is affecting every man, woman and child in almost every major country of the world. I am referring to the high cost of inflation.
It is said that this government is not doing enough. At least we are doing something. We are doing things that are needed today, tomorrow and in the long range planning for this country. Members opposite have not come up with one alternative or one proposal except the vague idea that
6348

September 7, 1973
Supplementary Retirement Benefits perhaps they would freeze wages and prices. They have not even said that with any great authority or definition.
I am convinced that the public servants in this country and others will benefit greatly from the measures recommended by this government and brought in today by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). I hasten to join with other members, including the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, in saying that they will benefit these people and will be welcomed by them.
I am sure all public servants and other workers in the national capital area will realize this as an act of a responsible government and responsible employer, attempting to set a standard which should be followed. We are not engaged in an auction. We are not engaged in bidding 30, 34 or 38 cents, as were the other parties last week, but attempting to be a responsible employer and to set an example by these very necessary and worthwhile amendments which I heartily endorse.


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, every time an officer or representative of the government, as did the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin) just now, rises to speak about the public service of Canada, we are told that it is one of the finest, if not the finest in the world. One is left to wonder why they have been treated the way they have. Why did- they have to sit still while the cost of living, caused largely by the bumbling of this government, has steadily risen over the past few years? Indeed, a total reduction of 50 per cent in the buying power of the Canadian dollar has taken place since this government took over 10 years ago.
Why have these public servants, perpetually eulogized by members and representatives of the government as the best in the world, had to sit with their miserable 2 per cent as the cost of living rose inexorably 5, 6, 7, 8 and now 50 per cent? One is left to wonder why at this particular stage the government has chosen to remedy this deplorable situation. Could it have any remote connection with the fact that three parliamentary seats in this area, heavily populated by public servants, both working and retired, were lost to the Liberals in the last election? Could a member of parliament be as cynical as to suppose a thing like that? I do not know, but one is left to wonder.
The struggle for a superannuation plan in the public service goes back a long way. In fact, it goes back to 1924, after a struggle of some six years during which the civil service commissioner of that day repeatedly tried to obtain such a plan for his employees. Even when it was established in 1924, it was not regarded as a matter of right. In fact, in the history of the civil service, entitled, "The Biography of an Institution", the reasoning for the institution of the plan is described in this way:
It is believed that a superannuation scheme will prove one of the best means of promoting efficiency in the service. No system of classification or improved methods of administration will be operated satisfactorily in the Civil Service until a comprehensive measure of superannuation is in force. The advantages of superannuation in the public interest are apparent inasmuch as it relieves the Government of the embarrassment and extravagance of retaining the services of officers who have outlived their usefulness; creates a proper flow of promotions; renders the service more mobile; deters efficient officers from leaving the public services for private employment where emolument and opportunity may be greater; helps to attract a better class of applicants for positions

in the service and in general tends to promote efficiency in every way.
That was in 1924. Today, still grudgingly, the government is beginning to accord to its public servants, whom as I have said before are perpetually eulogized as the best in the world, whose age or disability has forced them to retire from active work, the right to begin to catch up with the rampant inflation which the multiplicity of government schemes have failed to check. We have had measure after measure, scheme after scheme and things have gotten worse and worse, just as the Economic Council of Canada warned they would as far back as 1969 if this government did not attack inflation in a different way.
Not too long after President Nixon took office in the United States, he said he was going to try to fine-tune the economy in order to stop inflation, to which one commentator replied that he might just as well try to fine-tune a flood on the Mississippi River. That is what this government has been trying to do. It has failed. Because it has failed, many thousands of people who gave their best in the service of government have been the victims. But while some small reflief was given, unlike the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the hon. member for Ottawa East who has now left the chamber-


An hon. Member:: Ottawa Centre.


Peter Reilly: I mean the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin). I am sorry; he is repeatedly being referred to as the hon. member for Ottawa East. Unlike those hon. members, I am not prepared to extend any congratulation to the government on this move. It comes too late. It does provide a small measure of relief, and I am glad of that. Still, there are a great many faults in this bill as there are in the whole retirement scheme for public servants. I shall try to list a few of the changes I should like to see.
There are a few statistics. There are presently on pension, according to the latest figures available, 44,876 former employees, and maybe now another 10,000: the figures for 1972 are the latest I could obtain. There are 24,401 widows of former civil servants depending on pensions, and 3,840 children, bringing the total affected by this bill, within the public service, to 70,117.
The escalation proposed by the government is based on the consumer price index. I believe it should be based, instead on a wages and salaries index. Since collective bargaining in the public service began only some seven years ago, salaries have risen astronomically by the standards of earlier days, and public servants should receive pension increases which would lift them into line with pensions currently offered to the more highly paid persons now performing precisely the same type of work. The same principle should extend to widows and orphans.
I believe pensions should be calculated on the basis of the best three years of employment, not on the basis of the best six, and I believe there should be an end to sexism in the application of the pension scheme. As the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada pointed out at page 110 of its report, there is yet another shortcoming in the Public Service Superannuation Act. I quote:
September 7, 1973

Under the terms of section 44(1), supplementary death benefits are paid to the widow of a married male contributor. On the death of a married female contributor, they are paid to her estate. A woman can therefore will the supplementary death benefits to someone other than her husband. Since we see marriage as a partnership in which responsibilities and benefits are shared, we believe that the responsibilities of women and men to their spouses should be the same. Therefore, we recommend that the federal Public Service Superannuation Act be amended so that (a) there will be no differences in the provisions on the basis of sex, and (b) the surviving spouse of a contributor will be paid the supplementary death benefits.
I feel this question, in the same way as any other important work condition, should be a subject of collective bargaining; but with a dozen or so unions in the field, even though they do operate through a joint council on some issues, this is often less than practical. However, the present system through which employees and their representatives can make representations to the government is totally unacceptable. The system works this way: there is a superannuation advisory committee whose members, while they may represent employees organizations, are not chosen by those organizations; instead they are appointed by the government itself. The committee may petition the minister for an investigation or for an opportunity to make representations on behalf of retired public servants, but it remains entirely within the minister's discretion to decide whether any consultations should take place.
In place of this paternalistic and outmoded system I propose the creation of a board of trustees some of whose members would be nominated specifically by employees' organizations. Such a board would have the power to make effective recommendations to Treasury Board upon its own initiative. Believe it or not, the present system has been in force since 1928. I quote the following:
While the association met with repeated defeat in their attempts to secure an appeal board or council, they did gain a momentary degree of satisfaction in 1928 with the creation of an advisory committee on the Superannuation Act. In an ill-concealed attempt to quell discontent over the fact that the government was obviously not going to act on the report of the 1928 committee, King's government established the advisory committee in December, 1928. The committee was composed of five representatives from the staff side and five nominees of the government. The associations represented on the committee . . . were picked by the government in a unilateral decision. The committee was to act in an advisory fashion and to report to Treasury Board on matters of a general nature pertaining to the administration of the act, on specific questions referred to it by Treasury Board and on proposed amendments to the act and regulations. Despite the sense of accomplishment and the back-patting which went on in the associations as a result of the creation of the advisory committee, dissatisfaction soon set in. The committee made numerous suggestions, particularly with respect to legislative changes in the act but neither Bennett's nor King's government was prone to accept these changes because they invariably meant increases or wider coverage necessitating greater government expenditures. The dissatisfaction in the service eventually led to the creation of a parliamentary committee on the Superannuation Act in 1938 which in turn produced increased dissatisfaction when its recommendations went unheeded for many years.
So we are still where we were in 1928. The employees who contribute to this pension fund have no effective say in what is done with the money-who should get it, how much should be paid and to whom. It is all up to the Treasury Board, specifically to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) who has received accolades today-not the accolades he deserves.
Supplementary Retirement Benefits


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Peter Reilly: There is really no difference between the administration of this pension plan and the pension plans of any private employer when it comes to administration. The employees have no say at all. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Ottawa Centre mentioned the mail they had received. I, too, have had a lot of mail on this subject but I will read only one of those letters. It reads as follows:
Why did I vote against the government in the last election? Not because of any anti-French-Canadian backlash, I am sure. I am bilingual by choice. My two sons I sent to LaSalle Academy and the University of Ottawa. They are bilingual and proud of it.
I voted against the government because of the ample evidence in so many departments that, vis-a-vis the bureaucracy, the government has failed to govern. The dog is being wagged by a tail that has quite apparently long since passed its level of competence!
For a horrible example of a pea-brained ego trip you should be aware of the lack of empathy with which the superannuated civil servant is treated, each month. Apparently he can no longer be trusted. Each month, in order to receive his superannuation which he has earned, he is required to subscribe to a declaration that he has not been moonlighting or otherwise working for any federal department or for the RCMP.
I will not go on; the letter just becomes more bitter. I should also like to quote from the favourite political authority of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), that veteran of the political wars of the Florentine republic, Niccolo Machiavelli. When dealing with generosity he said this:
I say it would be splendid if one had a reputation for generosity; nonetheless if your actions are influenced by the desire for such a reputation you will come to grief. This is because if your generosity is good and sincere it may pass unnoticed and it will not save you from being reproached for its opposite. If you want to acquire a reputation for generosity, therefore, you have to be ostentatiously lavish; and a prince acting in that fashion will soon squander all his resources, only to be forced in the end, if he wants to maintain his reputation, to lay excessive burdens on the people, to impose extortionate taxes, and to do everything else he can to raise money. This will start to make his subjects hate him, and, since he will have impoverished himself, he will be generally despised. As a result, because of this generosity of his, having injured many and rewarded few, he will be vulnerable to the first minor setback, and the f'rst real danger he encounters will bring him to grief. When he realizes this and tries to retrace his path he will immediately be reputed a miser.
So as a prince cannot practise the virtue of generosity in such a way that he is noted for it, except to his cost, he should if he is prudent not mind being called a miser.
I do not think the right hon. gentleman, or any of his colleagues for that matter, has been overgenerous with public servants. I conclude by saying that I do not deny that when it comes to the virtue of miserliness, they do not lack a certain prudence.


Mr. Ian Arrol (York East):: Mr. Speaker, there is no simple solution to any of the problems in Canada today, except for the simple-minded. The only ones who feel that they indeed have the solution are those who have referred merely to their own wisdom, uncorrupted by research, consultation or reflection. When one does choose to look into a particular problem to seek a solution, one may start with the feeling that one intuitively knows the answer.
26454-37!

September 7, 1973
Supplementary Retirement Benefits The first thing that you are forced to conclude is that, whereas you did have some inkling of the answer to start with, all you have now is an appreciation of the complexities of the matter and the honest admission, "I don't know the answer".
On further research, the seeker after truth can be comforted from a personal standpoint, although dismayed, on behalf of long-suffering humanity, by the realization that nobody knows the solution. When we come to the people who seemingly have the authority in the field of economics and we have before us three Ph.D's in economics, Mr. A, Mr. B and Mr. C, we find that A considers B and C to be utter fools, that B considers A and C to be utter fools, and that economist Ph.D. Mr. C considers A and B to be fools and entirely lacking in knowledge. And an observer might be justified in concluding that each is right about the other.
But if there is one single idea that has been put forward for a solution to the economic problems of Canada, or at least a partial solution, the idea of attaching the cost of living index to pensions and salaries might well be that solution. Indeed, the government is to be commended for having paid heed to those who would promote such an idea because this is a real answer to fear and to insecurity. With the cost of living increase added to pensions and to salaries, gone is the despair of knowing that you are earning less, from the point of view of purchasing power, each year.
The situation has been that if in 1961 someone were fortunate enough to have made provision in that year for a $6,000 retirement in 1973-an amount which in the year 1961 would seem quite good-he would find that by 1973 his $6,000 was worth about $4,000, meaning almost in a real sense a robbery of $2,000. Generally speaking, today half of the people of the age of 65 in Canada are near or below the poverty line.
We also find that those who are earning today a regular salary, in order to catch up with the cost of living increase and share in some of the increasing prosperity in Canada seek a wage increase. Since they did not get what they asked for the previous time-they perhaps received half of what they asked for-this time they might well ask for twice what they asked for last time by way of a percentage increase. When the settlement comes, in many cases though not in all, those who receive it have a feeling of euphoria, that they have got it made because they are now earning 50 cents or $1 an hour more than they earned previously. But then once again comes despair when the raise is swallowed up by the ever-increasing cost of living.
Automatically adding the increase in the cost of living to one's pension would not in itself have an inflationary effect but, rather, a deflationary effect. If we could be assured that next year the purchasing power of the dollar is the same as today, there would not be this excited demand for more and more so that one does not lose more and more.
As it is now, labour with strong unions are now providing their members with $8 an hour and are screaming for $10 an hour. No more than 40 per cent of labour in Canada is unionized. Some 60 per cent of those who labour for a

living do not belong to a union, and of the 40 per cent that do-and that is a generous estimate-a very small percentage are among the big wage earners. However, this small percentage represents the ones who in the name of keeping up with inflation ask for big wage increases, get big wage increases and contribute to a large extent toward activating again this cycle of inflation.
The bill we have before us does not relate directly to wages earned by those in private industry or the pensions they receive. There are some government initiatives which could be taken under this bill. In order to encourage Canadian private enterprises to incorporate a cost of living index into their salary arrangements with their workers, the Canadian government could well attach a cost of living index to the federal minimum wage. There is nothing to stop the government from doing that, and there is everything to suggest that it should, in order to act as an example of what should be done for all.
With the bill before us today the government has given encouragement to those in private industry to attach a cost of living index for the benefit of their members. This is not to say that the only thing required is the bringing about of a cost of living index, or that the workers would not then ask for more money, because increases beyond present wages merely to meet the increase in the cost of living have been a part of the Canadian way of life and should, of course, continue to be. As the nation becomes more prosperous, so should the individual, but not to the extent of society bowing meekly to the demands for $8 an hour for workers some of whom are unskilled now seeking $10 or more an hour in the construction and allied trades.
The time has come for the government, in the name of Canada's long-term survival and in the name of 95 per cent of Canadian citizens who do not now enjoy $10 an hour salaries, to use its influence and legislative power to deny to a few powerful unions the opportunity to obtain wages which make a mockery of the wages received by the average Canadian. These wages unsettle everybody else and force them to either demand more to catch up or to feel despair at what their life experience has taught them: their inability to ever catch up. Nothing is being done to put the lid on extortionate wages and nothing will be done as long as the government is run by an NDP-Liberal coalition. The Liberals fear the power of the NDP to unseat them and the NDP fear the power of unions which are rich and powerful to unseat them.
Short of wage and price controls, the next best measure is to have the cost of living controlled, with initiatives taken by the bill brought into the House today for second reading. Again I would suggest that the government give serious thought to relating the cost of living to the minimum federal wage as an example to industry. This in itself, apart from wage and price controls, might be one single solution that would be meaningful. Otherwise, I suggest, we have a situation where a person is almost robbed by society's lack of concern, through this government, year after year. In conclusion I would commend the government for taking a step in the right direction.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
September 7, 1973
Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, since we have moved so quickly with the disposition of this bill, I wonder if I might ask whether there is consent to proceed with second reading of the bill to amend the Family Allowances Act and the Youth Allowances Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would be willing, Mr. Speaker, but might I be pardoned for asking whether the bill has been printed and circulated?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I understand the bill has been printed and that there are copies readily available.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: There are copies of the bill available. Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the hon. parliamentary secretary. The bill received first reading this morning and the House can only proceed with second reading now by unanimous consent. I would ask whether there is consent to proceed today with second reading.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


FAMILY ALLOWANCES ACT AND YOUTH ALLOWANCES ACT
Marc Lalonde: that Bill C-223, to amend the Family Allowances Act and the Youth Allowances Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is to effect a fuller reform of family allowance legislation, and I hope it will receive second reading before long. For that reason I will limit my remarks on this interim measure to a brief outline of the intent of the bill and the reasons for it being introduced at this time.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put this bill in its proper perspective, that is within the scope of the program which the government has already announced to protect the purchasing power of Canadian consumers. Thanks to the steps outlined therein, we hope to control, at least to some extent, the effects of inflation which Canada, like most other countries of the world, has been recently experiencing.
This bill has been devised to put to better use the mechanisms already available to meet the needs of the Canadian people. Like many other nations throughout the world, Canadians are now suffering the first consequences of inflation, especially in the area of food costs.
The government has already drawn up a program to protect against the corrosive effects of inflation on the purchasing power of all pensions and allowances paid under federal plans. We have already worked out a program to that effect. Old age security pensions and the guaranteed income supplement are now entirely geared to the increase in the consumer price index and the measures
Family Allowances
now before Parliament will provide for a quarterly increase starting next month.
Payments under the Canada Pension Plan will also be completely revalorized to reflect the rise in the consumer price index, subject to the provinces' approval, as required by the Canada Pension Plan legislation. The new payments will come into force on January 1, 1974.
The House has just given second reading to the bill introduced by my hon. colleague the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), bill providing for the full escalation of pensions paid by the government of Canada to its retired employees on the basis of the full increase in the consumer price index.
So it is normal that we examine the plight of another group of society, the three and a half million families which are responsible for seven and a half million children and adolescents. No need to remind my colleagues that last July I introduced the reform bill on family and youth allowances. My colleagues will recall that among other amendments the bill featured an increase in family allowances at an average monthly rate of $20 per child.
That program, which was introduced before the House in July and is subject to approval by parliament, will come into effect next January and further represents an important innovation in the field of universal benefits. As every one knows, it grants the provinces the power to amend family allowance rates on the basis of either age or family size or both at the same time, each province determining the variation best applicable.
That latitude is subject to two conditions, that the rate variation be set so the average payment in any province be equivalent to the national standard, that is to say $20 per child per month, and that the minimum for a child be $12 a month.
Furthermore, under this bill the allowances are escalated on the basis of the cost of living which consequently ensures further increments.
To allow the provinces to determine their own variation if it is their intention to avail themselves of this latitude, we set the middle of October as the deadline for them to make known to us the nature of their respective decisions. As for us, we will have the time required to adjust the rates of each variant of our administrative system and with the consent of the House, we could, as expected, begin making payments early in 1974 under the bill introduced in July.
The time necessary to develop the administrative mechanisms and to consult the provinces cannot be reduced further. It would not therefore be realistic, in order to cope with the present situation, to enforce immediately the reform of family allowances. What we need rather are special measures and it is precisely a special measure th,at we are considering today.
The exceptional increase in food prices confirms the urgency of passing such provisions.
[ English]
When one considers that a family of four with an income of above $10,000 spends approximately 16 per cent of its budget on food, while the same sized family with an income of less than $4,000 spends closer to 28 per cent of

September 7, 1973
Family Allowances
its budget on food, it is obvious that the increase of 20 per cent in the price of food over the past 18 months will have a much greater impact on the low-income family as compared with the higher income family.
Important as these figures are, they should however be put into perspective. For example, in 1971, the latest year for which international figures are available, we find that Canadians spent as an average 19.3 per cent of their budget on food. The only country with a lower percentage at that time was the United States, at 18.3 per cent, whereas in other industrialized countries we find the following figures applied: United Kingdom, 23.7 per cent; West Germany, 24.2 per cent; Sweden, 25 per cent; Japan, 26.6 per cent; France, 27.5 per cent.
When one compares the figure of 19.3 per cent in 1971 with the figure of 38 per cent for Canada some 15 years ago, one can see that the Canadian consumer has seen his lot substantially improved over the years, and that even in spite of the recent increases in the cost of food the Canadian consumer is still in a more favourable position than is the consumer of probably any other country in the world in so far as the allocation of his budget to food is concerned.
I would also draw to the attention of hon. members the fact that the average real income of Canadians has continued to increase substantially in 1973 as compared with 1972, and I would refer hon. members to the statement the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made in the House on September 4 as reported at page 6182 of Hansard. The Prime Minister stated:
[ Translation]
Workers income and corporation benefits have by far exceeded the global rate of inflation in Canada. During the first quarter this year, the real income of individuals, after income tax, went up by an average 6.2 per cent compared with the same period in 1972. If Canadians have a net increase in income, it is due to a large extent to the fact that the financial budgetary reductions of last February have borne fruit.
Therefore, in spite of the substantial increases that we have known in the cost of food we have also to look at the situation in its broader aspects to see the total situation of the economic conditions of Canadians at the present time. The fact is that the present worldwide situation has caught all of us in its grip, and given the present rate of inflation it therefore appears to us that even a few months wait would prove a hardship to many Canadians.
[ Translation]
The bill before us constitutes one aspect of the strategy adopted by the government to fight inflation. This bill, Mr. Speaker, is the second which I have had the privilege of introducing this week to my distinguished colleagues in the House; it is also the second project to be proposed within the program designed essentially to protect the purchasing power of the Canadian consumer. Through this legislation, 3.5 million Canadian families will benefit next month from a monthly allowance of $12 per child.
It is known that it is not for the government itself to relate salaries to the variations in the cost of living. That comes under collective agreements, and both employers
[Mr. LalondeJ
and employees are at liberty to discuss that matter between themselves. On the other hand, we have the power to increase family allowances in order to supplement the salaries of Canadians with dependent children and for whom the increase in the cost of living means still greater financial commitments. As I said before, we have already introduced in the House a bill to that effect when we were proposing to increase the current family allowances up to an average of $20 per month per child starting January next; today, when presenting a bill, we recommend fixing forthwith monthly family allowances to $12 per child and per adolescent under 18.
This legislation thus makes it possible for us to prevent families living on a small employment income from finding it more advantageous to quit working and live entirely on public assistance by becoming recipients of social assistance.
Unlike social welfare benefits, wages do not take into account the size of the family and the resulting financial charges. In most provinces, couples with two or more children receive higher social allowances than the provincial minimum wages.
The working paper on social security which I submitted last spring suggests that an income supplement system be implemented for these people. The development of such a system however requires a detailed study of the political and administrative issues involved and close co-operation with the provinces.
We hope that the work undertaken will be successful and we expect that it will be. The family allowance program is useful in avoiding that the small wage earner be swept over by family charges that he no longer can bear because of the rising cost of living and be forced to live on the fringe of society. This bill brings a temporary solution to the problems of such people.
Therefore it proposes that family allowances be brought up to the minimum level set by the federal government for the general review of the family allowances act and the youth allowances act, namely $12 per child per month. This provision will result in a direct increase in the benefits paid to three million and a half Canadian families, and the amendments contained in this bill to the present provisions will make any person under 18 eligible to family allowances under the existing act.
That increase alone means an average increase of 66 per cent in the family allowances that are now paid to Canadians.
When we attempted to develop an ideal formula to effect the first adjustment of family allowances, we came up against the problem of having to increase them according to the present rates, that is $6 and $8, and in the case of youth allowances, $10 per month.
Now, since the main purpose of that increase was to provide allowances to consumers as soon as possible, we decided on an across-the-board increase, regardless of the child's age.
As a matter of fact, an average Canadian family will receive $30 more from October to December 1973, when the new program will be implemented.
September 7, 1973

In January 1974, the allowances will be changed once more according to the formula determined in each province. And again in 1974, in each province, family allowances will amount to an average of $20 per month per child.
[ English]
Another notable feature of this interim bill lies in the fact that we will not tax these interim payments. It follows that there is a clear-cut increase for every recipient of the family allowance payments at this time and full benefit accruing to them immediately, with a further net increase in January under the reformed family allowances program. These measures will ensure that the maximum amount of purchasing power is maintained for low and middle-income earners alike.
This legislation, following on the measures proposed for an immediate increase in the OAS and GIS payments with allowance for quarterly escalation, demonstrates the manner in which the government is using its powers and its responsibilities under the two universal direct payment programs as one facet of its whole thrust to combat the effects of inflation which we are all now feeling.
With this package we are determined to ensure the maximum value in purchasing power for the Canadian consumer, child or pensioner, low-income, middle-income or higher income Canadian. But the measures I have outlined today are, as I have said, only an interim step. The government continues working to provide the best form of income security possible, and that is a reduction of the rate of inflation itself. In that light, Mr. Speaker, I would urge all hon. members to join me in seeking swift implementation of these measures.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I expected we would have been continuing our discussion on other stages of Bill C-220 and that we might have been able to bring it to its final stage before the afternoon was out. I regret to say that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) who has just spoken did not overextend himself in the courtesy of his notice that we would be moving on to this bill.
When I take part in debate I generally extend to others the courtesy of listening to them; therefore in the present case I did not even have the opportunity to go to my office for my file on family allowances. I had hoped that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) would be responsive to the sentiments expressed in various parts of the House this morning and that we would have moved on to the bill that he was bringing to the baptismal font of this temple of legislative action.
I do not want to begin on a sour note, but I cannot help but notice the difference between this Friday and last Friday. Last Friday it was impossible to find out what, if any, measures would be brought forward on Tuesday; today it seems that all available must be processed this day. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am glad that this bill which emerged only today-one can imagine the length of time that we have been given for reflection upon it-at least is not another FISP bill. For that, we may be profoundly thankful. Not only does it lack
Family Allowances
the inequities of that particular measure but it lacks many of its inexplicabilities, if I may use that inexplicable expression.
I thought the minister adopted a different tone. Apparently he is a different man on Friday than on Tuesday. Tuesday s child was one which leaned hard upon partisanship; today, Friday, he leans on statistics. As I listened to him regale us with the excellence, the magnanimity and the magnitude of this measure I thought of the old saw about the man who drowned in the lake, the average depth of which was one foot. Even without a large staff, statistics can be produced for a given occasion which may be possessed of some appeal.
Since the minister was statistics-bound today, I wonder why he did not tell us what has happened to rents for the people who are raising families in Canada? This would not be such a pleasant item of information. He might also have told us something about the housing situation and the interest rates which are bearing down upon the parents of children. He might have allowed his mind to range as far as the tax on building materials that has been mentioned in this House for many years, and the calls for its removal.
The one "recall" of the earlier performance of the minister is the "You never had it so good" syndrome. Naturally, anyone piloting a piece of legislation through the House wants to make it appear as useful as possible. However, I cannot imagine anyone in a ministerial position, in a country in the economic condition of this one, not admitting the gravity of the situation and the inadequacy of the actions of the government over the years.
There are thousands of Canadians, Mr. Speaker, who never had it so hard. We hear from them, we see them in the supermarkets and on the streets. We get letters from them in our mailboxes on Parliament Hill. These people know, they do not have to wait for the monthly emanation from Statistics Canada to be able to document the problems they are having in providing the needs of a growing family. The cost of education, clothing, housing and also of transportation all those daily needs are rising in cost, inexorably.
I spoke about family allowances when I last dealt with this measure and how, as an income transfer, it related to the days of Mackenzie King. I mentioned how little has been accomplished over the years in terms of an income transfer to people with families. If I said that the $20 figure was not one which would enable the minister to take a bow for exceptional generosity, I can now say clearly and quickly-even without having had the knowledge that he would be bringing in the bill-that this is not a grand, sweeping gesture of magnanimity. It is not an administrative measure which will relieve the people of Canada of the problems they are facing-problems of indifference from a government, incapacity from a government and maladministration from a government.
I wonder what parents think when they see and hear that vocal lady who is now the watchdog of prices and who tells them not to buy if prices are too high. What comfort! What callous indifference in the face of gripping and growing human need! This morning I asked, rhetorically, why the interim measure had to be lower than the long-range one. I listened with the utmost care to the minister's statement and I still do not understand why. I

September 7, 1973
Education
still do not understand the explanation of that $8 difference. Perhaps later in the proceedings the minister will enlighten us on this shrinkage.
I see that it is four o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills, and private bills.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, there has been discussion as to the business to be dealt with in private members' hour, and I believe there is agreement to take notice of motion No. 26 standing in the name of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it agreed that the House proceed with notice of motion No. 26 standing in the name of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate and that the previous motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of taking some initiative in securing the collaboration of the provinces in convening a national conference on education and human resources.
He said: Mr. Speaker, since I have been in this House of Commons I have had on the order paper a private member's motion dealing with the topic of human resource development through education. In previous years my motion was somewhat restrictive in that it involved, it could be argued, this House in the area of curriculum development and suggested tha he federal government should have some presence in thi field of education and in the matter of defining standards, expectations and objectives in education throughout the nation. This year my motion is more carefully worded. It asks that the government do nothing more than consider the advisability of taking some initiative; that is, consider the advisability of securing the collaboration of the provinces so that there might be a federal presence involved in the discussion of education and human resource development.
Before I go any further I might say that I know my motion will be talked out at five o'clock. This has been promised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid). He informed me of this in a brazen approach. I am not going to spend 40 minutes telling the House that that kind of attitude on the part of the parliamentary secretary is unacceptable, as no member

should present a motion for the simple reason of having it talked out after one hour. We do not discuss these motions for the benefit of the media or in order to have them talked out. Moreover, there was a request that I not proceed with the matter because the appropriate members who can talk it out are not present. I suggest that this sort of thing ought to be investigated.
The motion is straightforward and does nothing to tie the hands of the government. I think we all recognize that it is the fundamental right of every Canadian to receive all the education of which he can avail himself so that he may express himself as best he can in social, economic, political and environmental spheres. Every Canadian should be given the benefit of all the human resource development that he is capable of absorbing. The right to a good education is as fundamental as the right to a livelihood, the right to decent housing and the right to an acceptable quality of life. It is not a right which is enjoyed to an equal extent by Canadians throughout this land.
If we had the time to examine the situation in Canada we would find there are more extremes in the field of education than in the field of regional disparities. We would find that there are provinces and parts of provinces in which the educational system is the most progressive in the western world in terms of adequacy of facilities, the use of the school system and the quality of teachers. On the other hand, there are provinces and parts of provinces in which one would find exactly the reverse. You would find little, one-room schools in which teachers teach all grades. You would find schools without toilet facilities, schools without blackboards and without the audio-visual, technical aids that have come to be expected in the larger school systems today.
These are the kinds of disparities one would find in the field of human resource development across this country. That is why I suggest this area should be under the responsibility of the central government, and why, this kind of problem should be considered at the national level.
I will give some reasons for saying why it should be so considered. Every economist who has taken the time to [DOT] investigate the over-all education system has come to the conclusion that there is a heavy and positive correlation between economic development in a region and the level of education in that region. Practically every economist in the world says that in areas where there is prosperity there has been heavy investment in human resource development. There is a heavy and positive correlation between education and prosperity. Economists say that independent of educators, educators presumably having a vested interest in so saying.
At any rate, economists and educators have concluded that if you want economic development in an area, you must train the people in the area and develop them to the greatest potential they can attain. That factor alone ought to be reason enough for the federal government to consider becoming involved in this field.
In this country there is a program of regional development. One of the biggest disadvantages from which we suffer in Canada-this is tied in with the question of regional disparities-has to do with the fact that the quality of education in some provinces is not as high as it is in the more advanced provinces. I spent a couple of years as a
September 7, 1973

student in Alberta. I travelled extensively in the province and visited many schools. I taught and helped in the administration of their school system.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it will take the province I represent in this House another quarter of a century to catch up with Alberta, in terms of our ability to spend money on education and bring our standard of education up to that of Alberta at the present time. This is basically because we do not have the revenue base, we do not have the dollars required to give our people the standard of education they deserve.
I could argue in terms of national unity. The fragmentation existing throughout the country could be attributed to differences in education standards as at present our educational system makes it practically impossible for us to exist as one nation. I am speaking of our being one nation in the sense of being a kind of geographic entity in which the people enjoy a common culture, common expectations, a common outlook and some mobility. In these days you cannot move your family from one province to another without suffering tremendous disadvantages and setbacks. These are the result of the different goals and over-all objectives of the different educational structures within the country.
We have ten totally independent educational structures with totally different objectives and goals. I am not talking so much about physical things such as classrooms, different though they may be, as about the parameters of our educational system. Today our people are tremendously mobile, much more so than when those who founded the constitution gave the provinces responsibility for education. In these days the members of one family within a span of 10 or 15 years might live in every one of our ten provinces. That necessitates some common ground in education. These are a few of the many arguments that one could bring forward. One could bring forward all kinds of statistical details.
The Government of Canada has always recognized, albeit surreptitiously and secretively, that it ought to be involved in the matter of education. Yet no government since confederation has had the guts to say officially that it should be involved in education. The government, today, is involved in education in many ways. It is involved in the education of Indians through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Most of our manpower programs are educational programs, whether they are manpower training programs, on-the-job training programs or school upgrading programs under which people who have little or no scholastic foundation are upgraded in their education to standards at which they can be trained.
As well, there are vocational schools, technical schools, and so on all the way up to university. One could go down the line and see that although the government is behind these educational programs, it does not call what it is doing educational involvement. Under no circumstances does it say that these are matters of education. The latest program which comes to mind is that involving the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. A couple of years ago, when the government started talking about being involved in regional development, the provinces wanted it to become involved in education. What is the
Educa tion
justification for the government's involvement in education?
Governments take an area where there is potential for industrial growth and say that in order for there to be industrial growth an infrastructure must be established. The new word "infrastructure" means water, sewers, roads, industrial parks and things of that nature. Then schools are thrown in as part of the infrastructure. It so happens that when special are designated across the country there is a chance that the provinces can negotiate with the federal government the establishment of schools referred to as DREE schools. I have been advised by officials in one province of Canada that because the provinces have no say over expenditures and no say over these DREE schools are to be built, they cost twice as much to build as they would cost the province.
These schools, by the way, are sometimes expensive and sophisticated structures. Second, they are built in areas where the federal government wants to build them, not in areas where the provinces might think them to be most necessary. Consequently, as I have been advised by people who have been close to this program, the system is not working out at all and there are major disadvantages in most cases to provincial governments involved. I am saying that it is time to cut out this nonsense. Let us get down to basic facts. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is one of the most regressive or reactionary men I have seen in this field.


An hon. Member:: Are you serious?


John Howard Lundrigan: I am absolutely serious, and I can give the hon. member categorical evidence to support my view. I have talked with progressive educators across this country who have pushed for federal involvement in education. There were murmurs from the previous administration that there might be federal involvement in education. Then the Prime Minister came on the scene and I quickly discovered his attitude.
During the first few weeks when I was a member of this House I raised the question of federal involvement in the area of human resource development. I carefully used the phrase "human resource development". The Prime Minister was very quick to point out that this was a categorical and clearcut responsibility of the provinces. I have raised the question several times since then but he will not involve himself in debate. Apparently he assumes that everyone from Quebec would automatically start some kind of gang warfare if the federal government ever became involved in provincial education.
I am convinced that no official of the government of the province of Quebec would be unwilling to allow the federal government to participate in the field of education if it were a matter of trying to provide assistance to the provinces to help overcome the disparities in education across the country. I am sure every provincial educator would object to the federal government trying to direct education in Canada. You can hardly go beyond a teacher in expressing direction. Direction in education is what happens in a classroom. That is the only place it can be talked about meaningfully. If we try to centralize education, we

September 7, 1973
Education
will be asking for trouble. We should not try to direct what eventually goes into the classroom. No one wants to see centralization of power in terms of curriculum and what happens in a classroom.
In terms of trying to help overcome regional disparity and giving Canadians an equal opportunity to develop their human capability and capacity, no official in the Quebec government would be so narrow-minded as to not recognize the need for federal presence. I challenge any minister of education in Quebec to say to his people that he would not recognize the need for federal financial involvement, and perhaps the co-operation of other provinces to arrive at some common goals and objectives across the country. Any Quebec minister who would say that would be placing the narrow political interest of his province ahead of his responsibility to the people.
I am convinced the reason we have economic disparity in Prince Edward Island, in Newfoundland, in parts of northern Canada and in Quebec is that there have never been the available educational opportunities to develop the capabilities of these people. People in these regions do not have the skill to develop their resources. I can speak with some knowledge about the province of Newfoundland. Regardless of the programs and finances available for regional development, we cannot take advantage of them because we do not have the necessary managerial pool. Our people have not had the opportunity to develop their skills in all the fields of industrial and economic development.
Other than Montreal, Quebec City and a few other sophisticated parts of the province of Quebec there is basically the same problem in that province. These people have not had the opportunity. I do not say their educational system has not been up to par, but I know for a fact that up to the past ten years or so Quebec's educational system was one of the retarding factors in the economic development of the province.
It would be wise for the leaders of our provincial governments, including Quebec, to accept a resolution of this nature and get the federal government to recognize that education is the right of all Canadians. It is their right to have a decent livelihood and to develop their potential to the greatest capacity. This would help some our poorer provinces which suffer so much from underdevelopment. They would be able to move ahead much more quickly. I do not say this could happen tomorrow. However, if this problem is not recognized today these provinces will be in the same boat half a century from now.
Some months ago the Newfoundland budget was brought down. I cannot quote the exact figures but I can say a greater percentage of the total budget was allocated to education than in any other province of Canada. At the same time, our expenditure is the most inadequate in terms of the need that exists in any province. I believe the figure was $168 million out of a budget of roughly $500 million. Over 30 per cent of the total budget will go into the field of education.
In dozens of communities in my province there are one-room schools with six or eight grades, and some times ten or eleven. They do not have the proper facilities. Some of them do not even have decent toilet facilities and other things that were expected in most parts of Canada half a

century ago. These are the extremes. We do have some beautiful, modern schools. We have made progress, but our rate of progress is so slow that by the time we reach one level of achievement the rest of Canada has moved rapidly ahead and the gap increases instead of lessening.
I present this motion very seriously. I think I do so with the blessing of every educator in this country. I recently had a meeting with many people involved in graduate studies in a particular university. I was quizzed about the prospect of federal involvement in the field of education. I did not have a lot of advice or encouragement to give them. I advised them to draft a position paper and ask for a meeting with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and others who are involved, in order to present the case that the federal government must recognize that a good education should be a right to be enjoyed by everyone. Once people are educated to their greatest potential the chance of economic development is much greater. There should be common goals, with co-operation from the federal and the provincial people. This would improve national unity and Canadian mobility in a way that would meet modern-day expectations.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker,
I	congratulate the mover of this motion. The intent of his motion is most honourable. I wish I had the facility to speak in English as fast as the hon. member. I have a bad habit of speaking French. I hope the few remarks I will make on the subject will be understood by the hon. member.
I appreciate the hon. member's point about the mobility factor and the fact that in this wide-ranging country of ours the problems of education peculiar to regional disparities are very acute. Like the hon. member, I have had
II	years' experience on a school board. I agree that educational opportunities are not equal, and possibly a meeting of the nature he suggested would be proper.
I remind the hon. member that in 1962 there was a Canadian conference on education held in Montreal. It is with some joy that I note the co-chairman of that conference was an uncle of mine, Mr. Robert Gauthier. I wish to mention some of the things that bother me, as a Franco-Ontarian, about the quality of education. Ontario is a very large province. We have regional disparities as between southern Ontario and northern Ontario. We also suffer from the problem of educational inequality.

The aims of education are as various as those of society itself because, after all, they are determined by the values the society. The Canadian mosaic enables any Canadian citizen to be educated in English throughout Canada. But it is not possible for the minority French-speaking citizens in Alberta to get their education in their mother tonque from primary school to university, and this is unfair. The situation is about the same in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
I believe that a Canadian conference on the problem of equal opportunities would serve a useful purpose in order to find, in cooperation with the provinces, a means, a procedure to enable all Canadians, wherever they live, in Newfoundland or in British Columbia, to further their
September 7, 1973

education in their mother tongue, a social and cultural tool they inherited from their parents.
Of course, this problem goes much beyond the present constitution which gives the provinces autonomy in the area of education. I think a provincial conference would be required to ensure equal opportunities to all Canadians in the tongue of their choice.
I should like to raise another point, which is perhaps more important: the Federal government employs some
275,000	public servants, and recently the adoption of a decentralization policy was announced. We do not have any Canadian government administration school designed to train civil servants. I think the development of a school of this type, like the one they have in France, might be worthwhile.
Of course, efforts are being made by the Treasury Board and the public service, but I do not believe they are very successful; the CAP program, intended for a few hundred persons per year, enables them to develop and better themselves and then reach higher levels.
And I am concerned about the decentralization factor, because in order to have a balanced public service throughout Canada with similar standards, we must set up a government administration school. I hope my suggestion will be looked upon favourably in the government administration.
The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundri-gan) pointed out that the federal government had shown some interest in education. I believe some remedial action is required. One must remember that from 1955 to 1968, the federal government really showed interest in technical education. Through federal subsidies, it enabled the provinces to build composite and trade schools. Such a move was designed to satisfy a Canadian need in the matter of technology and technical sciences, a really pressing need, and the participating provinces obtained federal grants for the construction of composite schools which provide a wide range of technical options and enabled the student to further an education that was formerly considered as possibly incomplete. We know that a technical school was considered as second rate, but it was no more true than it is today. A technician, a technologist is also a first class citizen. It is no sin for a man to labour in his vocation. And not everybody can go to university and get a doctorate or a degree. I feel that this federal program carried out in co-operation with the provinces was successful; it was undertaken under the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), more specifically from 1955 to 1957. Millions were spent. Why is it, for instance, that even today it is impossible for our minority schools in Ontario to obtain French textbooks, teaching audio-visual aids, films and slides, all that necessary teaching material? Because provincial budgets are limited by ceilings, and often federal grants to bilingualism are not given in addition to them but included in them, which to my mind is not fair. It is time to put a stop to that practice whereby provinces include in their general budgets federal funds intended for specific purposes. It is also time that the provinces gave some attention to the educational needs of minorities, perhaps those located in areas such as that of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate and Ontario. Those problems are acute, important; the
Education
provinces, in conjunction with the federal government, could sit at the table and discuss them. As the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate said, this motion does not bind the government; it only expresses an intention, a proposal, which porposal I endorse.
[ English]


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in my view there is no argument against the proposition that a Canadian is a Canadian regardless of where he lives in this country. I think it should be a main objective with us in Canada to make sure this is a country in which opportunities for a good life are as equal as they can be right across the land. That is why some of us are such strong advocates of universal programs in terms of pensions and social security; that is why some of us are such strong advocates of other government programs which raise the level of living and other standards all over Canada.
I fully agree with the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) that basic to all this, basic to the possibility of our attaining equality of opportunity, is the whole question of human resources and in particular the equality of educational opportunity. Even though the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Gauthier) did offer the odd note of criticism here and there, he ended by offering to second the motion put forward by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate and to support the idea that the federal government and the provinces should sit down together and discuss the whole question of human resources and educational opportunities across Canada.
This is the type of motion, I must say, which has been introduced a good many times in various forms during the years I have been here. However, that does not detract one iota from my desire to commend the hon. member for presenting his motion this afternoon. I am glad that thus far we are all in favour of it and I hope that even yet, despite the tradition of what happens to private members' motions in private members' hour, it just might get passed, and in doing so the House of Commons might say to the government: We think this is a good idea, an idea upon which you should act.


Ian MacLachlan Arrol: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the motion introduced by my hon. friend from Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) but with some slight difference in emphasis. I feel that formal education is highly overrated. I feel that the idea of formal education for all up to grades 12 and 13 is a failure. I suggest there is no necessary correlation between the amount of formal education a person has received and the worth of that person as an individual or his success financially. Success is not related significantly to the level of education. I hate to say this, but all modern research shows it: success is related to home background. The output of a school, no matter what facilities it has, is closely related to the backgrounds of its pupils when they enter. If they enter school unaware of literature, and so on, insensitive to it, that is, unfortunately, the way they leave.
26454-SSt

September 7, 1973
Education
I believe that this leads to a situation where, by giving everyone a great deal of education, you have on the one hand either woolly-headed theorists or, in the words of the poet Alexander Pope, bookfilled blockheads-and I suggest we have enough of those in Canada in all fields-or, on the other hand, by giving formal education to grade 12 or 13 you have an army of young people who are educated to become frustrated and bored.
The emphasis lately has been on doing your own thing. It is done in the name of the highest endeavour. It is said there must be development to the full potential, and so on. But this often means having people almost literally playing tiddleywinks or doing whatever interests them. As a result of being forced to receive education, and because it is socially the right thing to do, the whole process has been watered down. Now it is not so much a case of students doing their own thing; the teachers are doing their own thing as well, with the result that standards are lost without there being any formalized examinations.
However, I am still very much in favour of the motion because it presents a tremendous opportunity for the federal government to become involved, in co-operation with the provinces, in such fields as giving financial aid to education in the context of work and performance, education for small businessmen, and such things as that. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Quebec has become involved in this as a private venture, and it is one that could engage the federal government. For the small businessman who may have been a failure in mathematics at school there is now the opportunity to really learn what profit and loss is all about. I am sure we have all experienced meeting someone who has been an utter failure in mathematics until he decides to become an airline pilot, and suddenly overnight he is genius at mathematics. We should view this question in the context of education for tomorrow.
Through the Opportunities for Youth program the federal government could also involve itself in the encouragement of young people, who have ambition and the desire to get out of the four walls concept and into productive activity, to learn on the job. If they set up a business they could learn public relations, accountancy, advertising and about everything relating to that business.
I recognize that in the sciences it is mandatory that an opportunity be made available to attend university. For those who wish to pursue scientific activities, as well as those who have the interest and the imagination to pursue social fields or the world of literature, university is essential. But we do a disservice to the young people of Canada by trying to force them to enter what they feel is an alien atmosphere, this business of four walls. Something must be done about this and I think what should be done is what my colleague for Gander-Twillingate suggested, which is to get together with the provinces, admit that the situation has not been very good, and find out how the federal government might help finance whatever endeavours result from such a conference.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time, on a Friday afternoon, that I

prepared notes expecting to take part in a debate during the private members' hour, but in any case, I rarely have the opportunity to speak. In any event, I have not had much time to prepare for this debate which greatly interests me, and that, for various reasons that I shall spell out in a moment.
The notice of motion introduced by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan)-as the hon. member carefully explained himself-tends, no more no less, to ask the government to reflect on and consider the advisability of calling a national conference on education and human resources. Obviously, the motive is most commendable and valuable. There is no question about that. However, as regards the purpose of the motion the holding of another national conference, I suggest that, to say the least, I have some doubts on this matter because we hold so many national, federal-provincial or constitutional conferences which yield such disappointing results today that I have become somewhat sceptical as to their real value. Of course, time and patience conquer all things, but in this case I would say that I have reservations and the hon. member-I recognize that he is extremely well-meaning- has not quite convinced me of the need or urgency to call such a conference.
The debate may be opened with the prima facie recognition that the provinces have the first and last say in the field of education and there, Mr. Speaker, is the end of the debate, strictly speaking.
The hon. member has drafted his motion in broad enough terms for us to be able to talk of the many aspects of education at the national, provincial or strictly regional level, that is at the level of school districts, for instance.
The provinces have obviously had an acquired right for the past 105 years now, an exclusive jurisdiction over the field of education but, through some fortunate shifting, subsidies, special programs established most of the time, if not always, with the blessing of provincial authorities, the federal government has progressively infiltrated this exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces over education.
In addition to that exclusive jurisdiction enshrined in the Constitution of Canada, there is a traditionally recognized academic freedom not only at the university level but also at the school level in the sense that every province is free to prescribe the courses, the programs, the books it considers likely to further the education of students.
Of course, underlying any social structure is the family responsibility. And the Thomist philosophy I studied when I was in college recognizes that the family, the basic cell of society, has the prime responsibility in the field of education. So we must go back to the roots.
We are now faced with dreadful situations. National bodies dictate national standards and want to impose general standards upon the whole of the Canadian people. And this type of system tends not to solve problems but create dreadful situations. I might have time to further elaborate on that before I conclude my remarks.
The fact is that the subject brought forward by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) -


John Howard Lundrigan: I said that.
September 7, 1973


Eymard G. Corbin: I realize the hon. member said it, but I would like to endorse it.
[ Translation]
The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate speaks like one of those tumultuous rivers in which salmon goes upstream-I must admit that I had an opportunity to fish for Atlantic salmon with him this summer, and this is a compliment I want to pay him. He certainly has the gift of gab and he speaks sometimes so fast, he runs like one of the those cascading streams that I have difficulties following him.
Anyway, it so happens that while I was consulting the library, I found some kind of minutes of the second Canadian conference on education held in Montreal in 1962 and to which my colleague from Ottawa-East (Mr. Gauthier) referred a little earlier.
I found it most interesting to learn that people have been talking about the necessity or usefulness of holding a national conference on education for a long time. I can quote this document, the title is: Educational programs, Programmes d'education, 1962. It was published by the Canadian Conference on Education. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture had specifically submitted the following opinion, which I quote in English:
[ English]
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture recognizes that-
The constitutional prerogatives of the provinces in the field of education exist. Not only should they be respected but they are necessary to give essential flexibility and autonomy in educational policy to the people of the various provinces.

And it is for that specific reason, Mr. Speaker, that I have certain reservations.
And here I sort of go half way with my colleague.

Yet Canada is also a nation. In the opinion of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Canada can, as a nation, properly strive to have national goals and standards that would represent a consensus on basic needs and would contribute to the strengthening of the nation as well as to improving its methods of educational financing and to achieving equality of educational opportunity for its citizens.
[ Translation]
I think that in this resolution, emphasis has been placed on the need to develop general financing programs and on access to education rather than on interference in the formulation of programs and the setting of standards as such.
In this same publication, I also noted another resolution formulated by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, which reads as follows. I quote, in English:

Whereas the school is one of the foundations on which we build the structure of our democratic society-
Education
[ Translation]
As for me, it is rather the family, but for the Canadian Federation, it is the school.

Whereas it is desirable that a high level of education be assured for every boy and girl throughout the nation; and
Whereas the limited field of revenue available to municipalities does not and cannot yield the funds required to meet existing as well as future responsibilities in the sphere of education; and
Whereas under the British North America Act education is a provincial and not a federal responsibility; and
Whereas it is imperative, therefore, that provincial governments be placed in a position whereby they will be able to contribute more substantially to the costs of primary and secondary education:
Therefore be it resolved that the Dominion and Provincial Governments be urged to consider ways and means whereby, through appropriate and mutually agreed upon financial arrangements, the provinces of Canada may more adequately support the local costs of education throughout the nation.

Of course, there have been many changes in our provincial education systems since that resolution was adopted by the second Canadian Conference on Education, but the fact remains and I think that it went to the heart of the problem. In fact, if the federal government gives the provinces the necessary funds to allow them to fulfil their responsibilities and their obligations in the field of education, I think they will quickly come to an agreement and this is the level at which an agreement must be made. We will then have reached the goals described by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan).
I don't see myself at all as the premier of New Brunswick and I have no such aspirations, but let us suppose for a moment that I were, I would see in a very bad eye the federal government inviting me to a conference on that difficult question. My first reaction would be, as it would be for Newfoundland, Quebec, Ontario or British Columbia, to tell the federal government to get lost, to tell them: "This is none of your business, we have exclusive jurisdiction-


John Howard Lundrigan: Leave Newfoundland out, we are broadminded about it.


Eymard G. Corbin: All right; I w'll come back to certain statements you made earlier about the province of Quebec.
[ Translation]
I think that the provinces would refuse to attend or be convened to such a meeting, unless the federal government specified that the only purpose of the conference were to define the means through which the national government could further contribute, but financially only, to the progress of education in Canada, at the level of each province.
They talk of norms-in English, we call them "standards". Of course, as the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Gauthier) has stated earlier, standards vary greatly. This may be the drawback of a free system of education whose foundations are provincial, but this may be fortunate because each region of this country has its own characteristics, traditions and requirements, and education is given

September 7, 1973
Education
first and above all in order to meet the needs of an area, the immediate needs of families and those of the local economy.
Now, I recognize that the Canadian population is becoming more and more mobile and that a 15 year old boy who is now attending school may expect, when he has reached a certain level of technical training, for instance, to move his family no fewer than three or four times before he reaches the age of 65. That is what statisticians tell us. So, it would not be a bad thing if the provinces-and I do mean the provinces-would agree to establish uniform standards so that the student might bring from one province to the other a basic knowledge enabling him to be up to date should his family move for some reason.
Now, on the subject of standards, there is also talk about equality but the imposition of national standards would not necessarily result in equality, for instance as far as bilingualism and access to education in the language of one's choice are concerned. I know quite well that in New Brunswick, as is often said, spoken or taught French is perhaps not of the same quality as that taught in Quebec but we are getting closer and closer precisely because of the help provided by Quebec for the teaching of the French language in our province.
But in New Brunswick we have passed the stage where so-called bilingual education all boiled down to studying French as such. Nowadays in New Brunswick a student can take courses in his mother tongue from grade one to grade 12 inclusive. The province of Quebec also helped enormously our young graduates from New Brunswick colleges by admitting them to its faculties of medicine, dentistry and optometry. That contribution of the province of Quebec to New Brunswick youth is beyond value. Coming back to my hon. friend from Gander-Twillingate who said that the education system in the province of Quebec was quite retarded, 1 think that it is in great need of a boost, I must say that he is not entirely correct. I am not in a position to make comparisons between provinces. I do not want to make any with his province of Newfoundland. For that matter, he warned me not to make any but I must admit that Quebec universities offer an education whose value is recognized throughout the world and that is certainly being appreciated by thousands of Frenchspeaking people in New Brunswick who did not have those institutions at home and who availed themselves of the good offices of the government of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be the one to kill this motion. Still, I would like to add a few words. In principle, I am not against holding a national conference on education, but I fail to see what it would accomplish for the simple reason that the provinces are going to put their foot down and tell the central government "Mind your own business!" If you have money to give us, fine, we will accept it, but don't you dare tell us what to do at home. If our constitution were more flexible, of course we could speak of greater co-operation. I hope the Canadian constitution-at long last-evolves to the point where it will recognize that there are some weaknesses to be corrected today which did not exist 105 years ago, especially in the field of education.

In principle, I do feel that, in the case of a conference on the constitution, the federal and provincial governments should try to find common grounds for an agreement on changing the constitution so as to achieve the objectives advocated by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate; but, for the time being, thinking of it is useless: it is simply unthinkable.
In addition, many an example can be given to illustrate today's abuses in federal and provincial government relations in the field of education. For instance, the federal government has poured millions of dollars since 1971, towards the teaching of the language of the minority, the second language. It grants subsidies to the provincial governments which, to this day, are not required to account for the use of funds granted according to a predetermined formula to which they have agreed.
Fortunately, thanks to the representations made by members from New Brunswick, Ontario and others, the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) obtained this summer that the province of New Brunswick account for the spending of these grants so that the taxpayers may know whether they served the purposes for which they were granted. So, New Brunswick complied with this request of the federal government and from now on for the next fiscal years, it will account for the spending of these sums of money.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks. I would have liked to do a bit more research. Nevertheless, I think that, after all, I expressed the substance of my thoughts. The doubts that I have voiced are justified, I think, because I feel to see what could be accomplished in the present constitutional context through a national conference on education and human resources.


Mrs. Albanie Morin (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) have particularly drawn my attention.
He mentioned our educational system in Quebec and nearly accused it of being responsible for all the province's problems for the last 30 years.


An hon. Member:: This is not new.


Albanie Morin: It is true that the Quebec system has many faults, but there have been many changes since the presentation of the Parent report and I would like to tell you about them.
In the past, our system included three main categories: the traditional classical studies, the business studies and the technical studies. The greatest difficulty was the fact that it was impossible to go from one system to another. If a youth started his classical studies and failed at the grade 10 or 11 level, his career and his whole life were ruined. If he could not change over to science or business studies, he was through. The same applied to the youth who started business studies; he could not register in any of the university schools and the same was true in the case of the student registering in a technical course: there was but one field open to him: trades or technical sciences.
Then, the Parent Report suggested great changes. Nowadays, the student completes the same courses up to grade
September 7, 1973

eight and already in grade nine, there is a system of options enabling him to choose science or commerce or classics but should he stop somewhere along the line, should he be unable to complete whatever course he has undertaken he may switch to another course and that has been a very great reform. However, we have created the CEGEP system in Quebec; it was expected to be a very substantial reform but I am wondering whether it gave the results that were expected. Today, after grade twelve, students may go to a CEGEP where they still have the privilege of an option system: science or classics. At the end of this CEGEP course, the student gets a diploma but there is something lacking here; that diploma, unlike the former B.A., does not seem to be recognized to the same extent in other provinces. Therefore, there should be an agreement-I am not against the Conference on Education-as to the degree granted to college graduates or as to the prerequisites on the part of universities. I think there is something lacking there.
Moreover, some Canadian universities have a credit system while in others, the student must still complete an
Education
academic year. So there is another weakness; should the student fail at the end of his academic year, he must repeat while under the credit system, if he does not get two credits, he can be promoted to the second or third year, provided he registers again in the course, where he failed.
Some Canadian universities have not yet set up such a credit system and, in my opinion, such a reform is called for. Could it not be done at the Conference on Education? I would have no objection, but because of shared powers the provinces have jurisdiction in the field of education, and I wonder if Quebec would agree to such decisions being made along with other government agencies?
Mr. Speaker, it is five o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour appointed for consideration of private members' business has not expired. It being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, September 10, 1973