1974-04-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Montreal-Bourassa: that the first report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, presented to the House on Thursday, April 11, 1974, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgency arising from the fact that for a number of years the department of the Secretary of State provided grants to the National Farmers Union so that farm youth could participate in an exchange program with farm youth in other parts of Canada. In view of the fact that the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) has cancelled the farm youth exchange grants this year, therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House urges the Secretary of State to reinstitute the farm youth exchange program under the auspices of the National Farmers Union.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous
consent of the House to move a motion of very pressing nature.
As automation is replacing a great number of workers nowadays, as this country's labour force is in a quandary and has to contend with insecurity of the future, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this government take immediate measures to establish the guaranteed minimum income.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Rowland: 1.	How many CF-104 aircraft are based at CFB Cold Lake?
2.	Of these aircraft (a) how many are in (i) single configuration (ii) dual configuration (b) how many have been assigned exclusively to a training role (c) how many have been assigned to air defence command (i) as primary duty (ii) a secondary function?
3.	Of the aircraft referred to in Part 2(c) (a) how many have now been refitted with weapons suitable for an interceptor role, how many are slated for such conversion, what is the cost per aircraft for such conversion (b) how many have an all weather capability?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. There are 20 CF-104 aircraft based at CFB Cold Lake.
2.	(a) (i) Ten are single cockpit configuration, (ii) Ten are of dual cockpit configuration, (b) All 20 aircraft are assigned to the training role, (c) None are yet assigned to Air Defence Command as a primary or secondary function. They are however used for NORAD air defence target missions.
3.	(a) None of the aircraft have so far been refitted with weapons suitable for an air interceptor role. However, ten aircraft are scheduled to be equipped with 20 mm cannon and a lead computing gunsight during fiscal year 1974/75.
1498

April 17, 1974
Order Paper Questions
The cost of the refitting program is estimated to be $128,700 per aircraft including prototyping, spares, maintenance equipment and personnel, (b) All CF-104 aircraft have an all-weather flying capability, and, with the modifications noted in 3(a), ten will have an improved capability in the interceptor role.


Mr. Fortin: Is there an agreement between the government and the Government of the Province of Quebec relating to forest access roads and, if so (a) what is the date of the agreement (b) what amount was contributed by the government for each project since January 1, 1968 (c) what is the location of each project?


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: (a) No specific agreement relating to forest access roads has been signed. However, such projects have been approved under the following agreements:-Canada-Quebec Agreement on Special Areas, 1970-1975-Canada-Quebec Agreement on Rural Development (ARDA), 1971-75.-Agreement Covering the Implementation of a Comprehensive Rural Development Plan for the Lower St. Lawrence, Gaspe and iles-de-la-Madeleine Area, 1968-1976. (b) and (c) Projects undertaken since 1968 and expenditures incurred are as follows:
Federal
Localities	Participation $
Port Cartier	2,300,000
Saguenay	197,000
Roberval	199,000
La Sarre	42,000
Matagami	8,000
Kipawa	338,000
Mejiscane	227,000
Manouane Indian Reserve	453,000
Rapid Lake Indian Reserve	56,000
Obedjewan Indian Reserve	331,520
Kipawa Indian Reserve	24,000
Marsoui (Gaspe)	900,00


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of Justice on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal year 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms and individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	In the case of expenditures for publicity and/or information made within the Department by its publicity or information division, what was the amount in each case and the purpose of the expenditure?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: 1. 1972-73, $1,683; 1973-74 to date, $715.
2. Not applicable (departmental facilities). Amounts as above.
3. The Department of Justice has no information division. The amounts expended were for press releases and copies of speeches.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names and addresses of all advertising agencies used by the Department of Public Works since the present Minister assumed his portfolio?
2.	(a) What are the amounts of all advertising contracts given such agencies during this period of time, what are the dates such contracts were awarded and in each case, were tenders or competitive presentations of any kind requested and, if not, who authorized in each case the expenditure of public funds without such tenders or competitive presentations (b) in each case, what was the general subject matter of the advertising contract?
3.	What are the names and addresses of all advertising agencies used by the Department of Public Works during the term of the Minister's immediate predecessor and if any of these agencies has not been used since then, for what reason and on whose decision were changes made?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: The answer to this question is nil, as the Department of Public Works does not have an advertising program.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	In the Canadian Public Service, excluding Crown corporations, boards and agencies, how many women hold positions with salaries above $15,000 annually?
2.	What is the total number of persons of deputy minister rank in the Public Service, excluding Crown corporations, boards and agencies and, of these, how many are of the female sex?
3.	Excluding Crown corporations, boards and agencies, what is the total number of Public Servants and, of these, how many are (a) male (b) female?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. One thousand twenty-nine.
2.	There are 60 persons classified at the deputy minister level in the Public Service, excluding Crown corporations, boards and agencies not defined as a department in the Financial Administration Act. This total includes one female.
3.	The total number of Public Servants as of June 30, 1973 was 296,826 and of these (a) 205,184 were male, and (b) 91,642 were female. (These totals include casual, term, seasonal, and continuous employees.)


Mr. Alexander: By province and territory for each Unemployment Insurance Commission office or any other office issuing or forwarding benefit cheques and for each fiscal year 1971-72 and 1972-73 (a) what was the total amount of overpayment (b) what was the total amount recovered
(c)	what amount has been written off as uncollectable?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: As some district offices serve more than one province, overpayment data is maintained on a regional basis only. Compilation

April 17, 1974

by province would entail substantial difficulty and additional expense.
Atlantic Quebec	Ontario	Prairie	Pacific	Total$ s	$	$	$	$(a)	598,870 2,430,247	2,415,387	787,959	717,150	6,949,613(b)	445,636 1,787,295	1,073,908	623,419	722,581	5,252,839(c)	181,540 786,351	494,553	83,727	65,429	1,611,6001972-73	Atlantic Quebec	Ontario	Prairie	Pacific	Total$ *	$	$	%	S(a)	2,778,815 9,680,798	9,388,033	3,128,945	3,893,522 28,870,113	(b)	1,863,816 7,033,009	6,206,968	2,021,868	2,627,828	19,753,480(c)	157,191 231,519	138,766	63,793	49,494	640,763


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What is the total expenditure to date by (a) the government (b) the Government of Prince Edward Island for program under the Prince Edward Island Development Plan?
2.	What have been the principal areas for which such expenditure was allotted?
3.	On what date is the plan to be completed and what amounts will each government spend from the present time to that date?
4.	What is the estimated number of new full-time jobs created under the Development Plan?


Marcel Prud'homme: 1. To
November 30, 1973 federal contributions have amounted to $52,612,358 and loans provided amounted to $10,413,000. The province's contributions have been consistent with the cost-sharing arrangements as provided under the Comprehensive Development Plan Agreement. However the specific expenditures as of any date can only be obtained by an examination of the financial records of the province and this information is not immediately available through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
2.	The principal areas of expenditures were resource adjustment and development in integrated land management, agriculture, tourism, forestry and fisheries; social development in education, vocational training, housing, urban development and community services; resource supporting and commercial services for transportation, industrial waste disposal, manufacturing, processing and market development; implementation through plan management, staff training and development, public involvement and evaluation.
3.	The agreement terminates March 31, 1984. Under the first phase, a period covering five to seven years, the federal commitment is $88,437,000 in contributions and $36,563,000 in loan funds. The provincial commitment is $117,963,000 for that phase. Subject to further joint federal-provincial negotiations Canada may contribute an additional $100,000,000 and the province an additional $380,000,000 during the period from the end of the first phase of the Plan to March 31, 1984.
Order Paper Questions
4.	A measure is not available to indicate precisely how many new full-time jobs have been created under the Plan. Plan activities during the first years were concentrated on transportation, education, housing and government. The primary aim of these activities is the provision of the supportive social investment necessary for the job creating initiatives to be undertaken in the second phase. Expenditures to date have, however, been an important element in employment growth since 1968. Statistics Canada reports that 1973 employment in Prince Edward Island averaged 39,000 compared with 34,000 in 1968. The 24 per cent growth in employment since 1968 compares with a 10 per cent growth from 1961-68.


Mr. Howie: To what extent and over how many years will DREE assist fruit farmers in New Brunswick and what is the current status of this contemplated program?


Marcel Prud'homme: Until now, DREE has been assisting fruit farmers in New Brunswick indirectly, through both the ARDA Agreement and the RDIA program. Under the ARDA Agreement, and Applied Research and Development (Crops) Sub-program provided the New Brunswick fruit farmers, through the provincial Department of Agriculture and Rural Development at 50-50 cost-sharing, assistance in research, planning and information dissemination. Some research and planning was carried out specifically on the apple industry. A second ARDA program, called Agricultural Resource Conservation and Development Program can assist New Brunswick fruit farmers, through the provincial Department of Agriculture and Rural Development at 50-50 costsharing in carrying out a variety of work under the following: Farm Development, Small Farm Improvement, Sub-Surface Drainage, Erosion Control and Stream Bank Protection Sub-programs. Under the RDIA program, DREE can assist in the cold storage, packaging and processing end of the industry; through incentive grants.


Mr. Howie: 1.	On what date is commencement of construction of a post office on the north side of the river at Fredericton, New Brunswick scheduled?
2.	Until a new post office is constructed, what steps are contemplated to meet the space needs created by the existing facilities?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Departments of Public Works and Post Office as follows: 1. Commencement of construction of a proposed postal building on the north side of the river at Fredericton, New Brunswick, is scheduled for early 1975.
2. The original Queen Street Post Office space is to be utilized in conjunction with the Fredericton Main Post Office at Waggoners Lane as processing and letter carrier space.
27451-32.',

April 17, 1974
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Firth: Have the plans for a new territorial administration building in Whitehorse been approved and, if so (a) on what date is construction (i) due to start (ii) due for completion (b) do the plans include offices for Territorial Councillors and, if so, how many (c) what is the scheduled date for full occupation of the offices?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Yes. (a) (i) Spring of 1974; (ii) Fall of 1976. (b) Plans include three large offices for councillors and room for seven visiting councillors in open landscape area, (c) Summer of 1976.


Mr. Dick: Has the government considered making it a requirement that all food chains and other retailers of food, and all manufacturers of foodstuffs who do advertising on radio, television, in newspapers or by means of door to door circulars, place words in a prominent position on any printed matter, or include in their advertising something to the effect that "this advertising is adding to the cost of the goods sold"?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: No. The Government has not considered making this proposal a requirement in advertising messages. It is not axiomatic that advertising always makes a net addition to the unit cost of goods sold. Before consideration could be given to such a requirement, further evidence would have to be developed indicating that such a notation would be of substantial benefit to the consumer.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	In the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74, how much money was contracted to each of the five regions of Canada by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
2.	What was this in per capita terms for each region?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: 1 and 2.
Field Operations Service Expenditures- Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs
		Total		Expenditures
Region	Year	Expenditures	Population	Per Capita
		$		$
Atlantic	1972-73	915,000	2,081,000	0.441973-74	1,212,000	2,113,000	0.57Quebec	1972-73	2,375,000	6,050,000	0.401973-74	3,163,000	6,081,000	0.52Ontario	1972-73	2,899,000	7,824,000	0.471973-74	3,704,000	7,939,000	0.47*Prairie	1972-73	1,678,000	3,599,000	0.471973-74	2,125,000	3,628,000	0.59**Pacific	1972-73	1,007,000	2,265,000	0.441973-74	1,181,000	2,334,000	0.51
* Includes expenditures for Northwest Territories *'Includes expenditures for Yukon


Mr. Howie: What was the total amount of money actually expended by DREE in each province in either the public or private sector from the date the Department was first organized to March 1, 1974?


Marcel Prud'homme: Province
Newfoundland
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Quebec
Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia Not allocated
Total
Total Expenditures Budgetary and N on-Budgetary April 1, 1969 to February 28, 1974 (* 000's)
215,929
76,614
176,856
218,775
410,572
74,964
84,444
76,631
73,684
29,722
72,780
1,510,971


Mr. Stollery: What was the cost to the Public Service of advertising vacancies for 1971, 1972 and 1973 that were in fact filled from within the Public Service?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: The advertising cost which represents the cost of issuing posters for interdepartmental competitions for which the Public Service Commission is directly responsible is: 197172,	$20,595.14;	1972-73,	$30,307.12;	1973-74,	$11,328.68
(accounts paid to date).
LAWYERS EMPLOYED BY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FEES PAID, JANUARY 1, 1973 to JANUARY 1, 1974


Mr. Howie: What lawyers in the Province of New Brunswick were employed by the Department of Justice from January 1, 1973 to January 1, 1974 and how much was paid to each of them?


Otto Emil Lang: Name
Address
Fees Paid $
Abbis, Chaiker, Appleby, Olmstead and Quinn
Edmundston
3,215.00
2,633.25
Fredericton
April 17, 1974

Name	Address	Fees Paid $Barry, John P.	Saint John	170.00Bell, Edward	St. Andrews	*Brison, Charles Emery	Moncton	221.55Burchill, William J.	Newcastle	1,459.78Casey, Gerald T.	Saint John	2,415.30Chiasson, Paul Emile	Bathurst	598.10Cyr, L. H.	Moncton	*Dube, J. A. Raymond	Dalhousie	715.80Duffie, Theodore E.	Grand Falls	490.00Dutnont, Guy F.	Campbellton	392.00Gilbert, McGldan,	Gillis and Jones	Saint John	20,605.26Godin, Gerard	Shippegan	636.55Hogan, J. J.	Bathurst	*Hoyt, Mockler and Dixon	Fredericton	44,657.00Hoyt, W. L.	Fredericton	4,480.10Hughes, David G.	Fredericton	2,171.90Hughes and Malone	Fredericton	*Keating, Lloyd E.	Moncton	5,739.66Lampert, Irwin	Moncton	663.00Leblanc, Bernard	Moncton	505.32Lebouthillier, Alie A.	Caraquet,	1,579.00Leger, Franklyn O.	Saint John	2,090.50Lordon, Paul	Newcastle	2,123.80Losier, A. J.	Moncton	+McGinley, Eugene	Fredericton	*McKenna, Hubert P.	Fredericton	*McNair, John C.	Fredericton	55.20Maddox, Paul B.	Woodstock	*Malone, Brian	Fredericton	34,502.51Meldrum, W. W.	Sackville	669.72Michaud, Jean Marc	Edmundston	*Michaud, Leblanc,	Robichaud	Buctouche	2,154.53Milton, Irving G.	Moncton	17,741.52Milton, Myron	Moncton	4,241.50Olmstead, David C. R.	Fredericton	2,100.50Pappas, Deno P.	Saint John	90.00Purnell and Brien	Saint John	16,153.25Roy, Clarence	Moncton	1,261.85Roy and Losier	Moncton	816.50Sargeant, Charles A.	Fredericton	265.00Scullin, J. E.	St. Stephen	50.00Shaw, Richard G.	Edmundston	*Somers, E. G.	St. Quentin	330.00Tingley, Richard J.	Campbellton	10,809.07Urquhart, J. W. B.	Hampton	
*In these instances work was assigned during the period in question but accounts have not yet been submitted.


Mr. Harding: 1.	What was the cost of producing and mailing the 1974 Canada Post Office calendars?
2.	How many calendars were produced and mailed?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: 1. $113,392.
2. Five hundred thousand distributed on request through postal outlets.
Order Paper Questions CBC BROCHURE "THE NATIONAL DREAM"


Mr. Neil (Moose Jaw): 1.	How many copies of the brochure "The National Dream" produced by CBC-TV Network Promotion Toronto were printed?
2.	What was the extent of distribution?
3.	What was the total cost of producing and printing the brochure and distributing same?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Thirty-five thousand, six hundred and ninety-five copies were printed. The total included 10,600 copies for the Royal Trust Company and Abitibi Provincial Paper for their own distribution.
2.	The brochure was distributed to newspapers and radio and television stations across Canada, as well as to universities, high schools, elementary schools, Members of the House of Commons and Members of the Senate, Members of Provincial Legislatures, railroad associations and clubs, community leaders, business executives and to individuals who requested copies.
3.	Twelve thousand and twenty-three dollars. This figure represents the net cost after payment to the CBC by the Royal Trust Company and Abitibi Provincial Paper for their connection with the brochure.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	What is the role of Canada within the International Standards Organization?
2.	Does Canada participate in the work of technical committees of the Organization and, if so (a) in how many (b) how many members (c) what was the total cost per year since 1970?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. The Standards Council of Canada represents Canada as the Canadian member of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). The Council ensures effective Canadian participation in the activities of ISO in accordance with the Standards Council of Canada Act. The role of Canada as one of the 56 full members (there are also 14 correspondent members) throughout the world is the development of international standards with a view to facilitating international exchanges of goods and services and to developing cooperation in the sphere of intellectual, scientific, technological and economic activity.
2. Canada participates in the work of technical committees of the ISO. (a) Canada has "P" membership status (participating with voting privileges) on 84 technical committees and "O" membership status (observer and non-voting) on 27 technical committees. It should be noted that membership is by country and not by individuals, delegates to attend meetings being recommended by the responsible Canadian Advisory Committee (CAC) to the Canadian National Committee on the International Organization for Standardization (CNC/ISO) for approval. (b) A total of 175 delegates attended 118 technical committee, sub-committee or working group meetings during the calendar year 1973. (c) The Standards Council of Canada cost per year since 1970 was:

April 17, 1974
Calendar Year
Order Paper Questions
1971	1972	1973
ISO Membership Fees Subsidized Travel Expenses
Financial Assistance for Meetings Hosted by Canada
Total Cost per Year
32,828.58 51,315.54 68,827.89 75,200.00 8,156.91*64,779.92 70,211.96	4,976.00f
993.75
40,985.49 116,095.46 140,033.60 80,176.00
^Financial Assistance commenced July 31, 1971. tto March 31, 1974.
It should be noted that SCC costs for attendance at meetings outside of Canada is a partial contribution only since members provide their time voluntarily when attending both national and international meetings.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Is the Great Plains Project still in existence?
2.	What is the purpose of the project?
3.	What reports have been published to date?
4.	What studies are underway?
5.	What is the cost of the project to date?
6.	When will the project be proceeding to the implementation stage?
7.	What are the priorities of the project?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1 to 7. See
reply to Question No. 630 answered April 15, 1974. Hansard No. 33, page 1411.
* *
*



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Cossitt: What are the names of all those who contested the general election of October 30, 1972 as official candidates of the Liberal Party and, since that date, which specific ones have received appointments or jobs of any kind whatsoever from the government, what is the nature of such appointment or job in each case, what is the exact salary or remuneration in each case and what were the considerations leading to the appointment or job in each case?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION PUBLICITY EXPENDITURES

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms and individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?

3. In the case of expenditures for publicity and/or information made within the Department by its publicity or information division, what was the amount in each case and the purpose of the expenditure?
Return tabled.



U410) MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6.



COPY OF APPLICATION OF &quot;NEW CANADA-TORONTO&quot; RELATING TO MULTICULTURALISM GRANT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 3-Mr. Hellyer:
That an Order of the House do issue for production of copies of the application of "New Canada-Toronto" in respect of the $18,000 grant announced by the Minister of State for Multiculturalism on October 3, 1973 and all correspondence to and from the government in respect thereof.
Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



COPY OF APPLICATION OF &quot;CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION&quot; RELATING TO MULTICULTURALISM GRANT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 4-Mr. Hellyer:
That an Order of the House do issue for production of copies of the application of "Cross-Cultural Communication Centre-Toronto" in respect of the $8,000 grant announced by the Minister of State for Multiculturalism on October 3, 1973 and all correspondence to and from the government in respect thereof.
Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



COPY OF APPLICATION OF &quot;CENTRE CHINOIS DE QUEBEC, ENR., QUEBEC&quot; RELATING TO MULTICULTURALISM GRANT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 5-Mr. Hellyer:
That an Order of the House do issue for production of copies of the application of "Centre Chinois de Quebec, Enr., Quebec" in respect of the $5,000 grant announced by the Minister of State for Multiculturalism on October 3, 1973 and all correspondence to and from the government in respect thereof.
Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



COPY OF APPLICATION OF &quot;BLACK YOUTH TELEVISION WORKSHOP, MONTREAL&quot; RELATING TO MULTICULTURALISM GRANT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 6-Mr. Hellyer:
That an Order of the House do issue for production of copies of the application of "Black Youth Television Workshop, Montreal" in respect of the $6,500 grant announced by the Minister of State for Multiculturalism on October 3, 1973 and all correspondence to and from the government in respect thereof.
Mr. Speaker:: Stand. Shall the remaining notices stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 17, 1974



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister who might feel a little lonely over there if I do not direct some attention to him. I presume the Acting Prime Minister to be the government House leader. Since the threatened shutdown of air, ship and postal services is only the tip of the iceberg of labour unrest that is growing in response to the injustices resulting from runaway inflation in this country, is the government now prepared to treat this inflation as a deepening national emergency and take some immediate action?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In reply to the question posed by the Leader of the Opposition, the government is aware of the labour problems to which he has referred. At the present time each of them is the subject of detailed examination and action. It is not expected that the nature of these labour problems requires the kind of fundamental action that the Leader of the Opposition would put in place.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not claim to have any monopoly on the right way for the government to act. Is the government going to continue to tell the working people of this country that there is no relief in sight?


An hon. Member:: Come on.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Come on is right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What plans does the government have in this inflationary atmosphere to maintain essential services and some semblance of order in the country as more and more groups are apparently deciding that since the government will not do anything to protect them from inflation, they have to try to protect themselves?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should not get overly excited or panicky about the extent of the labour problems which are confronting us at the present time. We propose to deal with them and are dealing with them under the regular procedures provided by the collective bargaining system of this country. If I may reply to the broader question posed by the Leader of the Opposition, it is a matter of fact that, despite the inflationary pressures in this country, the year to year changes in the standard of living of Canadians have shown substantial improvement over the past several years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I had hoped the leader of the House, coming from where he does, would have been a little less insensitive than some of his colleagues toward the problems faced by the working people today. But now that the Minister of Finance has admitted that inflationary expectations have a good deal to do with the upward pressure on housing prices, does the government realize that these expectations are also causing havoc to the regular collective bargaining procedures to which the leader of the House referred, and that these inflationary expectations are endangering the economic stability of the country? Will the hon. gentleman assure the House that some action will be taken, quite apart from any action with respect to the collective bargaining procedure? Will he assure the House that the government intends to do something to dampen and control the inflationary expectations of the country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think that in the light of the atmosphere the Leader of the Opposition is attempting to create surrounding some of these labour problems, it should be pointed out that only one of the disputes in question has direct relevance to the wage factor. This should be borne in mind by the hon. gentleman when he is drawing these far-fetched conclusions. As the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have already indicated to the House, other measures are under consideration by the government in addition to the very significant measures which have already been implemented, and these will be announced either at budget time or when other occasions are open.


FINANCE
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact that the chartered banks will make an additional $100 million as a result of increasing their interest rates from 9 per cent in March to 11 per cent in April, will the minister instruct the financial institutions to roll back the new rates, more especially the mortgage interest rates, or will he impose an excess profits tax to prevent the gouging of the public? What steps does he intend to take?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: These financial institutions are the responsibility of the Minister of Finance and the question should properly be addressed to him.


HOUSING
John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, this question, too, is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact that only 5,500 units were

April 17, 1974
Oral Questions
constructed under the AHOP program last year at an expense of $105 million, which works out to an average mortgage of $21,000, will the minister instruct the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to allocate more money to this program so that more units can be built?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, CMHC's budget is over $1 billion for this calendar year, 1974. We are allocating as many resources as we can to the assisted home ownership and other associated housing programs. I made it clear in my speech in the House a couple of weeks ago that we were reviewing the levels of lending and the income levels under the assisted home ownership program, and this review is underway.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Broadview for a second supplementary, and then the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL WARRANTY SCHEME-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Gilbert: In view of the fact that the Ontario government intends to pass legislation covering warranties on materials and construction of new houses to protect purchasers, is it the intention of the minister to pass similar legislation respecting homes constructed under the National Housing Act and financed by CMHC, and if not, why not?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I take it the hon. member is referring to quotations appearing in this morning's newspaper from the Ontario minister which were not entirely correct. I have called a meeting of federal and provincial housing and consumer groups to work out a national warranty scheme. On Tuesday there was a meeting held by a task force or sub-committee of that group to continue this work. Some of the provinces were represented. I hope all of them will attend the next meeting to be held on May 8. There is a substantial degree of agreement between the plan of the builders and the one that the federal government has proposed, and I would hope that by working co-operatively with builders, consumer groups and the provinces we will soon be able to establish in this country a national home warranty scheme applicable to the purchase of new homes.


NEIGHBOURHOOD IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS-COUNTER PROPOSALS FROM QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Can he tell the House whether he received recently from the Quebec government a counter proposal with regard to the negotiation of a global agreement on Bill C-133 concerning housing? If so, is he willing to accept it or will another proposal be made by Ottawa, and when?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I have received from the minister, in reply to my submitting the standard form neighbourhood improvement agreement to the province of Quebec, modifications to that agreement which are currently under study by myself and my government.


TRANSPORT
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he has been involved in the resolution of the problems of the pilots on the St. Lawrence Seaway, and whether he intends to admit the fact, inflation having gone up at a rate of about 10 per cent, that they are entitled to a justifiable increase, or does he intend to prolong things until such time as the whole economy of this country suffers?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should be aware that under the legislation this area is the responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Transport.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have been dealing with this problem. The difficulty we are facing is that the pilots are now getting $28,000 a year; we are offering $34,000 and they want $39,000. So, I am not sure that it is a question of inflation.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the government House leader and is supplementary to the question of the Leader of the Opposition. In the midst of record high inflation, record high interest rates and strikes that threaten to paralyse the .country, may I ask the government House leader when we can expect the leader of the government back in the House?


An hon. Member:: He does not know.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary North on a supplementary, following which I will see the hon. member for Dauphin.


HOUSING
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Yesterday the minister said that he did
April 17, 1974

not agree with the hypothesis that interest rates on first mortgages were at a level of 11 and 12 per cent, and on second mortgages at 15 and 16 per cent. Today, he sidestepped the question. I should like to ask the minister, since CMHC comes under his jurisdiction, whether he will at least freeze the interest rates charged by that organization so that average people can afford to buy homes and to pay rents that are now on the increase?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the interest rates charged by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under its different forms of lending are set out in the statutes, and we are endeavouring constantly to keep them as low as possible.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Calgary North, but hon. members will appreciate that we are still on the first question. I will see the hon. member for Dauphin immediately after the supplementary.


Mr. Grafftey:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I know I am not permitted to ask a question of law-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi rises on a point of order.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. John's East put a question to the House leader regarding a matter that is on the minds of every member and every Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That is not so.


William Heward Grafftey: I have been given a mandate by the electorate of my riding to ask this question. This week we are faced with record inflation and strikes across the nation. Has the House leader-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member rises on a point of order he should indicate what the point is in order that the Chair might have an opportunity to rule as to whether there is a point of order.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I will then ask my question of the House leader. In view of the circumstances outlined by the hon. member when can we expect the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the rest of the ministers of this government to be in the House to answer questions?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That might be considered a supplementary question but hardly a point of order. For the moment the hon. member for Calgary North has the floor.


Mr. Baldwin:: Where is the Governor General?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the last two questions but I should like to now put this question to the minister. He has talked about the interest rates being set by statute. I should like him now to point out to me and to the country the section of the act under which the interest rates are set for CMHC. He moves about like a yo-yo from time to time, as does the Minister of Finance, and he knows it, but he is not telling this House the facts.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Yo-yo!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That's unparliamentary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, hon. gentlemen opposite certainly do not want any information.


An hon. Member:: They are afraid of it.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


An hon. Member:: It is difficult to get it with you around.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the rate CMHC pays to the Department of Finance for its money is set at the first of each quarter, and I think the hon. member for Calgary North knows what the first of each quarter is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: It is re-loaned by CMHC to the public, the provinces and non-profit housing corporations under various sections of the act which carry differing interest rates, some of them set in accordance with an amendment the hon. member himself moved and to which I was happy to accede on behalf of the government. I am surprised that he is so unaware of his own amendments that he cannot remember them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SUGGESTION GOVERNMENT ADVISE MORTGAGE LENDERS NOT TO INCREASE INTEREST RATES
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I should like to direct my question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Yesterday the Minister of Finance stated that the possibility of 12 per cent interest being charged on first mortgages was a hypothesis but the rates yesterday were quoted as high as 11.5 per cent in an unstable market. Is the government considering advising mortgage lenders to hold the line at 12 per cent on first mortgages so that yesterday's hypothesis does not become today's reality?

April 17, 1974
Oral Questions


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a question that might properly be addressed to the Minister of Finance.


An hon. Member:: Where is he?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I might add, however, that the particular rate to which the hon. member is referring was apparently quoted by a company that had no money to lend.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


NATURAL GAS-LEGALITY OF AWARD OF PRICE INCREASE TO GULF-JUSTIFICATION FOR INCREASE
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the decision announced in yesterday's Globe and Mail that an arbitration tribunal by Gulf Canada and Trans Canada Pipelines has awarded a rate increase to Gulf for the field price of natural gas which is to go from 27 cents per thousand cubic feet to 60 cents per thousand cubic feet beginning November 1, 1974, and to 73 cents per thousand cubic feet beginning November 1, 1975, and in view of the fact that this proposed increase if implemented could raise the cost to the domestic user in eastern Canada by as much as $70 per year with a $300 million cost to Ontario, I would ask the minister what right has this tribunal, in effect, to rule on price increases for natural gas which should be the prerogative of the National Energy Board-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wish the hon. member would ask the question. It seems to me the preamble is a bit long. I am not sure whether he has reached the point of asking the question, but I would hope he would do so at this point.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister what right has this tribunal, in effect, to rule on price increases for natural gas which should be the prerogative of the National Energy Board and is the government planning to take steps to ensure that, in this case and in the future, its power to regulate natural gas prices in interprovincial trade is not eroded.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to concede that there has been a great deal of doubt expressed about the constitutionality of the Alberta law under which the tribunal was purporting to act. However, rather than take legal action in respect of the tribunal I have written the Alberta Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, indeed in advance of this particular decision, suggesting that among the present and other questions that might be the subject of consultation should be the appropriate level of gas prices in Canada. I would hope I would receive an early and favourable reply from the Alberta government in that regard.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will be recognized for a brief supplementary, following which I hope I will be able to recognize the hon. member for Hamilton West.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question again to the minister. In view of the fact that Gulf Oil had a profit of about $102 million in 1973, which was 58 per cent higher than 1972, and in view of the fact that the agreement between Gulf Canada and Trans Canada Pipelines will increase revenues to Gulf Canada by more than $52 million a year with the field price of natural gas at 60 cents per thousand cubic feet-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. I wish to seek the co-operation of hon. members asking questions at this time. This is a speech rather than a question. The hon. member should ask the question as quickly as possible.


Randolph Harding: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a rather complicated issue.


An hon. Member:: And you don't understand it.


Randolph Harding: I felt we should have the background for it. How can this company and the government justify a 122 per cent increase in field gas prices to Canadian consumers this coming November with a further sharp price increase a year later?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows the issue is between the public sector, federal and provincial, and the private sector in the case of the companies. There is, of course, an important question of the level at which the provincial royalties should be set to make certain these funds come to public use. I appreciate the suggestion of the hon. member that there should also be some consideration of federal revenue concerns in relation to the windfall gains to the company involved in this particular case.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General following a question asked by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe. In light of the spreading strikes across the country, contrary to what the minister indicated and in light of the fear expressed by the workers in respect of job and wage security and their concern that the minister will not negotiate technological changes, could the minister now reaffirm what he said in the House yesterday that nobody opposes automation in the Post Office Department or the mechanization of the work.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I wish to repeat what I said yesterday, that it is not the mechanization of postal operations to which unions object but the classification of employees working on those
April 17, 1974

machines and the union leaders want some explanations on the matter. To that effect, I have given the assurance that the manpower committee whose establishment was provided in the collective agreement will give priority to the consideration of coders. I hope that a meeting of that manpower committee will be held during the next hours.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary I want to say now that the minister has flip-flopped because yesterday he indicated that nobody was opposed to automation, and yet he went before the cameras outside and said the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe did have a point. Let me ask the minister this. He said he had given some assurances. Were these assurances given by a written promise that negotiations would be held on technological change?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have not altered outside the House the statements which I made here. In my opinion, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe needs help to defend himself and specify his points-apparently, there is no simultaneous interpretation, Mr. Speaker.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that this is an extremely important matter involving mail not going across the country and involving family allowance cheques and cheques of senior citizens, I hope the translation can be given in order that we can hear the minister's answer. I think it is extremely important.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could reply in English and say to the hon. member that the main question at issue is the classification of coders. We have had discussions with the national executive-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are not answering my question. Answer the question.


André Ouellet: I am repeating what I said in French, Mr. Speaker. The way to deal with this question is through the manpower committee as set forth in the collective agreement and I would hope in the coming hours there will be a meeting of this manpower committee in order to deal with this question.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have one last supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Hamilton West for a supplementary and then the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands who also has a supplementary.


MEETINGS OF MANPOWER COMMITTEE ON AUTOMATION
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, is the minister now telling us that the automation committee which I believe was set up in 1973 is just meeting now for the first time. Had it not met before this, because this is a question of concern to the postal workers, in order to deal with the issue of automation.
Oral Questions


André Ouellet: There have been some meetings. Some of these meetings have not produced what both parties expected the committee could produce. However, we have given an assurance that the deputy minister and myself will take an active part in this up to a conclusion.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In writing?


André Ouellet: In writing, yes.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the postal tie-ups can the minister tell us what contingency plans the government has to ensure the distribution of family allowance cheques which normally would be mailed by the end of this week and also old age pensions cheques.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, we are studying this matter very attentively. We are now having consultations with the Postmaster General while hoping, on the other hand, that postal services will be resumed in time; if not, however, we will take the steps required to have it resumed.


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the senior minister from British Columbia, the Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact that the Minister of Urban Affairs has demanded the resignation of the Pacific region chairman of the National Harbours Board and in view of the fact that the Minister of Transport stated he does not know the reason for the resignation demand, can the minister advise the House what action is being taken in this matter.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Close consultation with the Minister of Urban Affairs and the Minister of Transport.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Since the hon. senior minister from British Columbia apparently arranged the appointment of the chairman, can the minister advise whether the chairman has been given the necessary six months notice of termination of his contract?

April 17, 1974
Oral Questions


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I should make a simple correction. The member of the board in question was appointed by the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I seek the co-operation of hon. members. We are not moving very quickly. I will recognize the hon. member for Vancouver South for a supplementary, and the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings who also has a supplementary.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I will shift the question to the hon. Minister of Transport. Can the minister advise the House whether the chairman was given the necessary six months notice of the termination of his contract on April 15 as is required if his contract is to be terminated in October?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we did not give notice to anybody in British Columbia.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for St. John's East and is directed to the acting House leader. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the President of the Treasury Board, the four senior economic ministers of this government-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


George Harris Hees: -are absent from parliament, may I ask if this is the government's idea of how to run this country and look after its economic problems? If so, this is nothing less than a national disgrace!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Give us a report from Trudeau.


An hon. Member:: How is he making out on the beach?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, the Minister of Finance has been in the House all week. He is absent today but he will be back tomorrow and the remainder of the week, having put through an important measure earlier in the week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is absent on official business, leading a trade mission-


An hon. Member:: To Hawaii!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -first of all to London and later to the Middle East. The President of the Treasury Board is in Vancouver today holding informal meetings with the firefighters-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -about which the Leader of the Opposition was so concerned.


An hon. Member:: And the Prime Minister?


An hon. Member:: Where is the Prime Minister?


An hon. Member:: Let's hear it!


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the Prime Minister, where is he?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will be delighted to finish the answer. I think the answer is improving.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The punch line is, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister is returning to Ottawa and will be back among his friends in the House tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys but the hon. member for Skeena rises on a point of order. I will hear him and return to the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, the point of order I want to make, in case a wrong impression is left with the government House leader, is that it is my view the country would be better off if the Prime Minister stayed in the Barbados.


Mr. Stanbury:: Where is David?


Mr. Chretien:: Where are David and Tommy?


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys has the floor and should be given an opportunity to ask his question or questions.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased that my colleague and dear friend from Cape Breton is in the official capacity which he enjoys today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 17, 1974


Robert Muir: It gives me an excellent opportunity to pose a very good question to him. In light of the fact that the harbingers of doom from General Instruments Corporation arrived in Sydney last night and announced the closure of their plant there, and in light of the fact that 600 employees have already been laid off and another 400 are going to be laid off, could the minister advise what the government is planning to do to assist these people with regard to future employment, particularly in view of the fact that the Premier of Nova Scotia was able to delay this announced closure until after April 2.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Bell:: Very good question!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the phased closure-


An hon. Member:: Phased!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that is to take place at General Instruments Corporation. As my hon. friend has stated, I understand that information to that effect was conveyed to the local people and the union last night in Sydney. I have been in touch with my colleague the Minister of Manpower and Immigration this morning and have discussed this problem with him in the expectation that he will be able to put in place all the available instruments to assist the people so affected. I assure my hon. friend that I am deeply concerned about the matter and I thank him for drawing it to the attention of the government.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I drew it to the attention of the government over the past number of weeks and they have not acted, and yesterday I introduced a motion under Standing Order 43 which was opposed by Liberal members and which probably would have helped the workers at General Instruments Corporation if passed, I do not think I need the minister's thanks!



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Can the minister tell the House whether he intends to implement the recommendation put forward by the Canadian Consumer Council that his department should subsidize consumers or groups of consumers who wish to appear before regulating bodies, in order to avoid that industrial interests be the only ones allowed to appear before these bodies?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, all these recommendations are now under review. Those recommendations relating to taxation are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Finance, but we have already granted special subsidies to the
Oral Questions
Canadian Consumer Association to enable them to develop a special program to secure representation of consumers before public regulatory bodies.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that air traffic controllers are threatening to strike as early as Friday and such a strike would effectively close down every major airport in the country, will the Acting Prime Minister give this House assurance that the Treasury Board is doing its utmost to reach an equitable solution to the wage dispute?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that the Treasury Board is doing its utmost to reach a settlement. I had discussions with the President of the Treasury Board this morning and their meetings will be held this afternoon with the objective of resolving the dispute.


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Transport who is being besieged these days by land, sea and air. In view of the closing down of Halifax International Airport and others which indicate that the trouble with the firefighters is spreading, may I ask the minister what immediate action is being taken to avoid prolongation of this problem apart from sending the head of the Treasury Board to Vancouver which could have a counter-productive effect?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: You can't win in this business. When you are away you get hell, when you are here-


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we have negotiated, and I think this is the proper way of doing it, with the alliance which is the certified bargaining agent for the firefighters. We reached an agreement and now the alliance is getting in touch with all its members in order to ratify or not ratify the understanding. This is true for Halifax and Vancouver. All that is done now, unfortunately, is illegal and it should not be supported by those who think the law should be respected in this country.



FINANCE


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance may I direct my question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. As the building, development and real estate industries anticipate that the government is going

April 17, 1974
Oral Questions
to remove the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials in the budget, can the minister confirm this?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has made his position very clear a number of times on this.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What is it?



REASON FOR CANCELLATION OF FARM YOUTH EXCHANGE GRANTS PROGRAM

Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: Mr. Speaker, I was going to direct my question to the Secretary of State. He was here a few minutes ago. Perhaps I could direct it to the parliamentary secretary, or to the Acting Prime Minister. As the Secretary of State cancelled the farm youth program which was under the auspices of the National Farmers Union, and as Canadian farm youth have far too few opportunities to travel, may I ask the minister why this worthwhile program was cancelled?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not have that information but I will draw the question to the minister's attention and get him to reply.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Regina vs Burnshine, in which the majority of the court held that a person under the age of 22 from British Columbia could be subject to longer sentences under Section 150 of the Prisons and Reformatories Act than he would be in other provinces where sentences are authorized only by the Criminal Code, is the Solicitor General considering an amendment to the Prisons and Reformatories Act to clear up what may be a denial of equality before the law for younger persons in British Columbia, and, in the broader sense, to provide a more realistic conception of equality before the law, as guaranteed in the Canadian Bill of Rights.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the law is presently under review. We hope to have a bill before this House. I might say that the proposed amendments are the subject of discussions with the provinces.
[Mr. Marshall.)



EXAMINATION OF BILL C-22 BY MINISTER OF JUSTICE IN CONNECTION WITH GUARANTEES UNDER BILL OF RIGHTS

Ronald George Atkey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In dealing with the Canadian Bill of Rights, and I address this question to the Solicitor General in the absence of the Minister of Justice, I wonder if the minister could indicate whether the Minister of Justice has yet performed his statutory duty under Section 3 of the Bill of Rights by examining Bill C-22, an act respecting Canadian professional football, to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Bill of Rights, particularly those guaranteeing equality before the law and freedom from discrimination on account of national origin?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the bill with respect to professional football has been drafted by the Department of Justice, under the responsibility of the Minister of Justice.



IMPORTATION OF EGGS FROM UNITED STATES-REQUEST FOR EARLY INTRODUCTION OF BILL C-4

Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I appreciate the fact the minister is away on business rather than a holiday, and I commend him for that. In the absence of the hon. gentleman may I direct my question to the government House leader. Due to the very serious threat to the Canadian egg industry by the increased momentum of egg imports from United States, resulting from the severe and recent drop in their prices, and also keeping in mind the promise of the Minister of Agriculture made in response to a similar question which I asked in this House on April 5, has the leader of the House not been encouraged by the Minister of Agriculture to give this matter serious consideration and to bring forward Bill C-4 immediately? If so, how soon can we expect it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to remember all the .bills we deal with. The hon. member referred to the amendment to the Export and Import Permits Act. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has also been very anxious to have this bill brought forward. I will attempt to bring it forward just as soon as possible, in the hope of getting quick passage.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the senior economic minister, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that the average household debt including

April 17, 1974

mortgages in Canada is about $3,000, and in view of the fact that consumer credit is not regulated by the Bank Act or the Small Loans Act, and consumer credit is increasing, I would ask the minister whether he intends to introduce in this session legislation to regulate the activities of these usurious types of near banks.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to present to Parliament and to the public a policy paper setting out proposals for the revision of the Small Loans Act and the Interest Act within the next month or so.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville will be recognized, and then I will see the hon. member for Fraser Valley East.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure the House that he will also be bringing in regulations to control financial institutions, or will this just be another policy paper?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think these proposals will be quite wide ranging. I will welcome the hon. member's comments when he sees them.



POTENTIAL FLOODING IN SOUTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA-FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN PREVENTIVE MEASURES

Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of the Environment. In view of concern expressed on the news media and in view of a statement issued by the Minister of Lands, Forest and Water Resources of British Columbia to the effect that a potential for floods later this year now exists in southern British Columbia, may I ask if the minister's department is co-operating with the British Columbia government in laying out strategy to meet any such eventuality?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, our engineers are working closely with the provincial authorities in B.C.


Alexander Bell Patterson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister been asked to participate in the activities of the emergency policy committee established to meet any emergency which may arise?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, not at the ministerial level, but our engineers on the west coast always work closely with their provincial counterparts.
Oral Questions



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of the Environnment and Minister of Fisheries.
Could he tell the House if his department has sent inspectors to inquire about hazards of lead poisoning at Canada Metal Company Limited and Toronto Refiners and Smelters Limited, which some time ago obtained an injunction against the CBC to prevent them from broadcasting a report allegedly proving this allegation?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, there have been no direct communications to my department in this connection.



FUNDY TIDAL POWER-REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF REVIEW BOARD REPORT

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the minister in a position to indicate if a determination has been made by the review committee looking into the Fundy Tidal Power Programming Board report? What are the conclusions of that committee and will that information in that report be made available to the public?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the final recommendation of the review board has not been received. We look forward to an early response from the provincial representatives in this regard. It is anticipated that, the final decision having been taken, the board will recommend further studies. We are seeking to arrive at an agreement for further studies for this purpose. I hope we can have this information at an early date so that we can proceed with the next stage of the examination in question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for York-Simcoe and then call orders of the day.



FINANCE


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister, who, in answer to another question, mentioned that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was in the Middle East. Can the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that, included in the minister's negotiations in the Middle East, there will

April 17, 1974
Oral Questions
be no loans similar to the $132.5 million loan that is advertised in today's paper to Iran, bearing in mind that Iran's export revenue from oil alone will push its revenue up to $18 billion for this year, with $300 million of it coming from Canada alone in the form of export revenue?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of the hon. member's representations.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Acting Prime Minister could also take note of my suggestion. I hope the government is proposing future legislation for small businessmen in this country, to ensure that small businessmen who only got $30 million in total loans last year will do better.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a representation. Orders of the day.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I am reluctant to take advantage of this time but I know the Minister of Transport would want me to make this very serious point. It came to my attention during the debate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have no objection to recognizing the hon. member but we have gone beyond the question period. This might be done with the consent of the House. Perhaps the hon. member might be allowed to ask a question.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a point of order. I apologize to the hon. member. I thought he was asking a question.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, it is a point of order which I am sure the Minister of Transport would want me to raise because earlier this week he said the firefighters would find a solution on Tuesday. He said there would be a vote, and a decision made by the firefighters as to whether they would accept the agreement offered by the Treasury Board. Today the minister said that at this point all activities in connection with this strike are illegal. In the same statement, he said that the President of the Treasury Board is in Vancouver talking with the firefighters. Therefore it is obvious that the activities of the President of the Treasury Board are also illegal.
I wish to ask the Minister of Transport whether a decision has now been made to deal directly with the B.C. firefighters, or to continue to bargain with them through their union, the Public Service Alliance?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt very much whether this could be a point of order. I am sure the hon. member would find it difficult to raise that point under any standing order. If the point of order were construed as a question, the minister might be allowed to reply.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am trying to settle this matter. Is the minister going to reply to the hon. member's question?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there is only one point to which I can reply, and that is the first point. It is true that when the first offer was made and communicated to the firefighters, the Alliance thought they could receive a reply right away. However, they had to receive that through the mail. The President of the Treasury Board has been asked by the firefighters to have a loose discussion with them, but we are not going to go over the head of the Alliance.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the minister missed the point.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will realize that is not a point of order. Rather, it is an exchange between the minister and the hon. member which might be pursued after the question period. I have to recognize the hon. member for Edmonton Centre who has a question of privilege.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In answer to repeated requests for an answer to question 319 on the order paper, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) stated yesterday that to answer such a question could involve a cost of $1.5 million. The parliamentary secretary arrived at this figure claiming that the task would involve a search of 300,000 files at a cost of $5 per file.
I have learned that one major department had the answer prepared for it, and it had been forwarded to the minister in March. The task took approximately one week and definitely did not involve a search of all personnel files.
Personnel computer printouts are available which contain personnel positions, and the salary can be easily deducted by most personnel officers familiar with civil service positions and the respective salary levels.
The parliamentary secretary cannot mislead the House. When he arrives I would like to ask him either to resign or refute that statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I merely want to say that when the parliamentary secretary returns to the House he will undoubtedly want to deal with the matter raised by the hon. member.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It is based upon the assumption that members of this House, individually and collectively, have a right to expect that the laws which we have enacted will be reasonably administered, according to the letter and the spirit, by the
April 17, 1974

government and by administrative agencies which are responsible to parliament.
I have in my hand a publication which just came to me through the mail. It was issued by Unemployment Insurance Canada, Pacific Region, and is dated April 1974. On the second page of this document, in reference to the right of a claimant to receive benefits, it says that the obligations and rights-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. He claims to have a question of privilege. The hon. member claims his parliamentary privileges are affected in one way or another. I am not sure the hon. member is referring to a matter which happened within the last hour or so. If not, according to the rules he should have given the required notice. The hon. member cannot rise in the middle of a debate and propose that a matter be given priority over other business simply because he considers it to be a question of privilege. The hon. member should state as quickly as possible his question of privilege, and satisfy the Chair that this is a matter which just came to his attention, and about which he could not have given the notice required by the standing order.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, the document which I have came into my hand within the last hour. On that premise, I am raising it at the earliest possible moment. My question of privilege revolves around the fact that this document states a benefit may be denied if an employee was discharged for not conforming to company policy. I submit that is an affront to this House in as much as in any reasonable understanding I have of the law we enacted it is not the right of a company to determine whether a Canadian is eligible for unemployment insurance.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-19, to amend the Canada Pension Plan, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, last evening I had the opportunity of commencing my intervention in this debate. The introduction was somewhat extended because of certain interjections from across the way. It was not my intention to be so controversial. Nevertheless, I will heed the interjection attributed to the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner) and get to the bill.
We are discussing today a bill that will remove some of the inequities and inadequacies of the Canada Pension
Canada Pension Plan
Plan. To the extent this objective is being attained, we welcome the bill.
The detailed notes on the bill to amend the Canada Pension Plan, attached to the news release announcing the introduction of Bill C-19 on April 5, 1974, state as one of its main provisions the equal treatment of male and female contributors and beneficiaries. I quote:
The bill amends the present provisions of the Canada Pension Plan so the surviving spouses and children of a deceased or disabled female contributor will qualify for benefits under the same conditions as surviving spouses and children of a male contributor.
As the technique to achieve this change involves only the deletion of all references to "widowers" and the substitution of "survivor's pensions", it seems incomprehensible that this provision was not incorporated in the initial legislation. Perhaps the public demand was a contributing factor in the decision to make this essential and logical change.
The Royal Commission on the Status of Women was appointed in 1967, and its terms of reference were:
To inquire into and report upon the status of women in Canada and to recommend what steps might be taken by the federal government to ensure for women equal opportunities with men in all aspects of Canadian society.
With respect to the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan, two amendments were proposed by the commission. The first recommended an extension to the husband and children of a female contributor of the provisions presently applicable to the wife and children of a male contributor. In this connection I should like to refer to a document presented to the recent annual meeting of the Progressive Conservative party. On page 3 of that document, in section 19, the following appears:
The Report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women refers to the fact there are sex differences within the terms of reference of the Canada Pension Plan and recommends that they be removed. Although contributions are equal, regardless of sex or marital status, there are differences in the benefits derived from this source by the dependent or survivor. In this day of shared responsibilities the loss of the income of the female would create as great a hardship as would the loss of the income of the male. Survivor's benefits should be provided for both male and female contributors on a like basis.
The second proposed amendment recommended by the commission was that provision be made for the participation in these plans of the spouse remaining at home. On October 30, 1973, I believed I was voicing the views of many hon. members, some of whom had already so expressed themselves, when I stated, as reported on page 7373 of Hansard of that day:
There is a general oversight in the Canada Pension Plan as it relates to housewives. I know I am not the first member to bring this matter to the attention of the House; others who have preceded me have done so. But I think it is a matter of real concern which should be taken under advisement and dealt with favourably.
It w'ould probably be more correct to say that the Canada Pension Plan does not relate to housewives, and this is why I say it is an oversight. I feel, and I am sure many in my party feel, that the government should devise some mechanism whereby housewives could contribute to the Canada Pension plan and benefit upon retirement or upon reaching retirement age. Of course, there is some question whether a housewife ever retires. In the event of the death of a husband, a housewife could then receive a more adequate income.

April 17, 1974
Canada Pension Plan
This has to do with the possibility of bringing housewives-other terms are used for them now in connection with this particular matter-within the scope of the plan. I should like again to refer to the background paper from which I have previously quoted:
The assumption that the female is always the spouse who remains at home to tend the "home fires" is not currently valid. Therefore, since the spouse who works at home does in fact contribute to the family support by providing goods and services which are invaluable to the family unit, Progressive Conservatives believe this person should share in the benefits of the Canada Pension Plan just as does the partner who is actually registered as being gainfully employed. Amendments will be made to the Canada Pension Plan to give effect to this policy.
I should like to refer in this connection also to the presentation made by the National Farmers Union in 1973 with reference to the position of farm wives. It deals with the same subject but looks at it from the point of view of the lady of the house in the agricultural industry. I will quote one brief section as follows:
Many farm women work as partners with their husbands in performing the duties of farming. The decision whether or not the farming unit wishes to pay an additional annual premium to provide a farm wife with future Canada Pension Plan benefits should be made optional. We request that the necessary amendments to the Canada Pension Plan be effected.
Now I should like to refer to the statement made by the minister in his discussion paper "Housewives and the Canada Pension Plan". I appreciated the view taken by the minister when he stated:
The housewife who remains at home is just as much a producer of goods and services as the paid worker, and in our view she should also have the opportunity to provide for a more financially secure future. Canada has given some of its workers an opportunity to do this through the Canada and the Quebec Pension Plans. To neglect to do the same for some three and one half million other workers in the home is to ignore the essential nature of their work.
In my speech of last October 30, from which I quoted a few minutes ago, I stressed this important aspect. We certainly appreciate the fact that in acting on all these recommendations the government has seen fit to move forward. I believe the minister is sincerely convinced that this is a valid position to take. We appreciate what has been done.
I should also like to read the statement which appears at the bottom of page 2 of the document "Housewives and the Canada Pension Plan", to which I have referred. The minister stated:
For all these reasons, provision must be made for the participation of housewives in the Canada or the Quebec Pension Plan. A comprehensive study will be required to determined the best way of achieving this. Two approaches seem to have considerable merit:
(i)	crediting to the spouse remaining at home a portion of the
contributions of the employed spouse and those contributions made
by the employer on the employed spouse's behalf, and
(ii)	on an optional basis, permitting the spouse at home to contribute
as a self-employed worker.
Each of these proposals has to be weighed to determine its relative advantages or disadvantages, but on the face of it it appears, as the minister says, that both have considerable merit. We on this side of the House are pleased to see the government prepared to adopt the measures we have been advocating, either in this bill or in future legislation. Whatever the pressures, and from whatever their source, this is another step in the direction of making this con-

tributory and portable plan better able to meet the needs of Canadians today.
Another amending provision is that which provides for an escalation in the yearly maximum pensionable earnings by 1214 per cent each year until they catch up to the industrial composite. The decision to make this amendment applicable for the years after 1975 perpetuates, in my view, a somewhat unjust situation. With inflation increasing at the rate of approximately 10 per cent per year, it seems to me that providing for at least full escalation at this time would be to the benefit of the workers of the country. The maximum benefits are meagre enough, without delaying the opportunity of contributing a higher premium to ensure more adequate benefits. The levels are $6,600 in 1974 and $7,400 in 1975, as outlined in Bill C-224 passed last session. I stated then, and I state again now, that those levels are not high enough for 1974 and 1975.
The proposed amendment which would reduce the qualifying level for contributions in any given year from 12 per cent to 10 per cent of the year's maximum pensionable earnings-it would, for 1975, reduce it from $800, as presently established, to $700-is very desirable, as is the intent to delete the present special requirement under which self-employed persons must earn at least 1 lA of the year's basic earnings to qualify as contributors in any year.
It seems to me we must make an attempt to permit every working Canadian to participate in this plan regardless of income. To the extent that these changes will provide greater opportunity for people at lower income levels to participate in the Canada Pension Plan, and in particular increased numbers of fishermen, farmers and other self-employed persons, we commend the minister for his efforts.
The Canada Pension Plan is a contributory plan, and as such I have never felt the government had any right to penalize individuals for whatever they earn after they have retired from regular employment. I agree with those who feel we should encourage people to retire at the usual retirement age. However, life is difficult enough for people of that age without our complicating things more for them by imposing an extra hardship on them when they try to earn a little extra money to help make ends meet.
I am, therefore, pleased to see the proposal in this bill to drop the earnings test for those aged 65 and over. When I spoke on this subject in October I stated I would favour the complete elimination of the earnings test for pensioners aged 65 and over. I made references at that time to a number of letters I had received from pensioners in very difficult straits who were being penalized for earning more than $960 a year. I am sure these people are pleased to see the government has now come round to the point of making this very desirable change.
The last point I would like to make is one that has been made by members from this party on many occasions, and that is that the government should lower the age of retirement for guaranteed income supplement, old age security and Canada Pension Plan purposes to age 60, beginning with an immediate reduction to age 64 and with a yearly reduction thereafter to age 60. As I have said, this sugges-
April 17, 1974

tion has been made many times previously, but we just want to remind the minister once again in the hope that he will give very close study and attention to this area. If he does I am sure he will receive the appreciation of a great many citizens of this country.
In conclusion, I commend the minister for the action that he has taken in this bill and assure him that he has my support for these measures. I urge him, however, to continue to heed the many requests from this side of the House, and from the people of Canada, regarding those other matters that will make the Canada Pension Plan more effective and responsive to the needs of the Canadian people.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak in this debate. I listened with interest during the question period when the House leader for the government party explained the absence of four senior economics ministers. When he came to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), he said that he had gotten a bill through the House this week so consequently had the day off. I presume that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is looking forward to a well deserved day off as soon as we get this bill through the House. There may, of course, be some other bill that he has in mind, and he may be looking to get two days off at once. If so, he can go down to Florida and watch the Dolphins in their spring training. In any case, I am glad the minister is here today and I hope he enjoys whatever time off the House leader gives him on completion of this bill.
The minister has brought forth a very complicated bill. On first reading it I was more perplexed than I was enlightened. One thing I noticed missing was the cost. I do not want to make this any part of the thrust of my speech, but when one buys things in this world one should know what they cost. I am willing to buy this bill, and I am pleased to buy it, but I should like to know what it costs as well. In all of the publicity I have seen and read-and believe me, Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of it in connection with this bill-I have seen no sign of increased contributions on the part of anyone.
There is a story going around the Hill, probably apocryphal, that when the minister introduced the increased family allowances he was asked by a reporter how much it would cost, and he replied that nobody had stopped to work it out.
I can hardly believe that that was the case, but in any event I did come across the cost of this Canada Pension Plan increase in an article by John G. Doherty of the Financial Times. In talking of pension costs he said that the costs assume a 4 per cent rate of inflation. He went on to say:
The employer's contributions will have to be increased in three different ways. First of all, the company must raise its contributions to cover pension benefits currently being earned by its existing employees.
Secondly, the employer must face the fact that his previous contributions for pension rights earned in the past by his current workers made no allowance for escalating benefits. Refunding for this will cost about $16 million.
The employer must also refund another $5 million to cover the cost of increased benefits to existing pensioners.
Canada Pension Plan
All together, the refunding will raise payroll costs by an additional 7.5 per cent a year if the refunding is amortized over 16 years. Thus, the total annual increase in payroll cost will rise by 11.8 per cent considering an assumed rise of only 4 per cent in the cost of living.
I put that on the record simply to balance things off, and to indicate to the people of Canada that they will not get anything for nothing in this world. The government may like to pretend that this money is coming out of its pockets, that it is simply being generous, but in truth it comes out of the recipients' pockets sooner or later. I think this should be part of an open government policy, and I would have increased my admiration for the minister and his staff had he seen fit to do this when he put out all the other publicity kits that heralded this bill.
I should now like to talk about the pensions of servicemen. Servicemen in the armed forces are required to pay into the Canadian Forces Superannuation Fund, from which they draw their pension. They also pay into the Canada Pension Plan which has been integrated with Canadian forces superannuation. I might say that this has created just about as much discussion and unhappiness in the forces as that other integration we sometimes hear about. In any case, the two pensions are now integrated. They are not, however, stacked.
When a serviceman draws his Canada Pension Plan benefit, if he does eventually qualify for it, his CFSA cheque is reduced by part of the amount of the CPP benefit. This is not generally known, and it does create a great deal of unhappiness among servicemen who are unable to see why part of their pension deduction goes to the Canada Pension Plan which is of little or no benefit to them.
Many servicemen suspect that the CFSA fund is very large and perhaps is being used to give body to the CPP fund. In any case, they see no reason or advantage in paying into the fund, from which they will not receive the same material benefit as other contributors. Government employees of all kinds have always wanted open disclosure of the state of their pension funds, but this disclosure seems extremely difficult to get.
Mr. Geoff Johnson pointed this out in an article the other day on disability pensions awarded under the Canada Pension Plan. He said:
Suppose, as a former contributor to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account who is not yet 65, you are now receiving military superannuation.
And suppose that you become entitled to a disability pension under the Canadian or Quebec Pension Plans.
The article continued:
If you are entitled to a disability pension your annuity under the provisions of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act will be reduced accordingly.
Later in the article it was stated:
The reduction takes effect from the date you received the disability pension-and the National Defence Headquarters suggests you let them know right away to "avoid an over-payment of your annuity which would have to be recovered."
What kind of help is this to a disabled person?

April 17, 1974
Canada Pension Plan
Why give him the disability pension in the first place?
Why create all that bookkeeping to achieve precisely nothing?
Those are the kind of difficulties bureaucrats get themselves into when they attempt to look after every possible contingency.
I respectfully suggest that there are several anomalies in Bill C-19 which may cause just as much trouble indeed as exists under the act.
I will not bother you with all the details of the case I have before me, but a constituent of mine who wrote me found that when he was on superannuation, having been employed by HMC Dockyard and retired, and he eventually came to get the Canada Pension Plan they immediately started deducting $18.49 a month from his superannuation pension. It is extremely difficult for these people to understand this bureaucratic jungle talk that goes on in letters of explanation sent back to them. I would only ask you to bear in mind that this is just one sentence from a letter which was supposed to solve this man's predicament. The letter states:
When the Canada Pension Plan came into effect on January 1, 1966, it was decided that in order to avoid increasing the pension deductions of persons required to contribute under the Public Service Superannuation Act, the amount which a public servant would be required to contribute to the Superannuation Account would be reduced by the amount required under the Canada Pension Plan.
That is all one sentence, and if anybody has the heart to go on to the second sentence I would be glad to show them the letter afterwards. The recipient did not understand anything about it, nor did I, and of course we had to ask for further clarification.
I am not a member of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, to which I assume this bill will be referred, but I should hope that committee will approach it in the same fashion as another committee approached the election expenses bill, that is, in a non-partisan way. Many hon. members of that committee contributed a lot in the way of amendments to the bill, of which over 50 were accepted. In fact it was a learning experience for members of that committee.
Let me look specifically at Bill C-19. I think one of the most startling things to read is found on page 1 in the recommendation of His Excellency The Governor General which states that one of the aims of this bill is:
-to provide, in the manner prescribed for equality of status for males, and females under the Act-
I will have quite a bit to say about that, a little bit later.
On page 4, in Clause 7, we find reference to the election of a contributor in respect of self-employed earnings, and if you read further you see that there is reference to contributions of individuals who are members of a religious sect. They can elect not to make contributions, and this is on a once in a lifetime basis. I see no reference to a minimum age at which they will be allowed to excuse themselves, and I hope that the committee will see fit to change this by an amendment designating a specific minimum age because anyone who excuses himself under that election may decide years later he wants to come back in and will be forbidden to do so by the provisions of this bill as it now stands.

This is a very complex bill, so much so that I am sure the parliamentary secretary when he speaks later will want to clarify it.
On page 8 in Clause 10 we find reference to the amount of the maximum pensionable earnings. I can only say that I am very much in agreement with this, but I should like to speak about this matter as it relates to disability pensions referred to on page 12. In the proposed new Section 18 it does not clearly preclude an integrated act such as the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. If an individual is receiving a disability pension from the forces, and these two acts are integrated, I am curious to know whether the disability pension referred to in this bill is a service disability pension or a Canada Pension Plan disability pension. I think that should be clearly defined before this becomes the law of the land.
We note reference at page 25 to the effect that a surviving spouse under age 65 gets 37 V2 per cent plus, and over 65 gets 60 per cent of the pension contributed to on the death of his or her spouse. I suggest that anyone who thinks it only costs a husband of a household 40 per cent of his financial budget to run that household has no appreciation of what it costs. I think a housewife would need more than 60 per cent of her husband's pension in order to survive as a widow, and I suggest that 75 per cent would be a much more reasonable figure.
At page 33 there seems to be a clear contradiction in the explanatory notes in that part which reads:
The repeal of section 69 would remove the restriction in the amount of retirement pension that may be received by persons between 65 and 70 years of age while they are in receipt of employment earnings.
I suggest that one becomes confused when one reads at page 33, Clause 35, which starts out by saying "Sections 68 and 69 ... are repealed." Down at the bottom of the page we get figures and a statement to the effect that a person's pension will be reduced by 50 cents for each dollar which his employment earnings, for the months in the effective period in 1974 after the pension has become payable, but before the individual reaches 70 years of age, exceed that proportion of 12 times $95 that the number of months is of 12. I read this over several times, and eventually came to the conclusion that the government, when it talks in this bill about the effective period in 1974, is really referring to the ineffective period. That is the impression I got, that the effective period in 1974 is that period before this bill becomes an act and before the new amendment becomes law. Certainly that should be referred to as the ineffective period to clear up some of the obvious confusion.
Let me conclude these remarks by referring to page 22 again. I would express my unhappiness about the fact that this bill pretends that women are to get fair treatment under the Canada Pension Plan. The explanatory notes on the righthand page of this bill appear to have been written by a public relations officer rather than the minister, with his fine legal mind. We get a great buildup when we read these explanatory notes at page 22, particularly that statement which reads as follows:
This amendment would provide for equality of status for males and females under the Act.
That is rubbish and irony of the worst sort. The irony is, of course, that the bill provides for money to be paid to the man. How wrong can you be when you pretend to treat
April 17, 1974

females equally. You are giving them the big break in that you are paying money to a man who outlives them. That is ridiculous. I could quote from several press clippings to indicate that the press has been mislead about this clause of the bill. We find in the Toronto Star this heading, "Women to get same benefits as men". Then if we read Clause 25 we find this stated:
(d) a survivor's pension shall be paid to the surviving spouse, as determined pursuant to section 63-
If a woman dies, and if she was the head of the household at the time of death, the surviving spouse with dependent children will get some of the benefits that she has earned. Apparently that is the only concession made to women in this whole bill.
I would like to point out that in clause 25(2) (d) (ii) we have three paragraphs, (A), (B) and (C). This is totally confusing. It says that if the surviving spouse has reached 65 years of age:
(A)	had at the time of the death of the contributor reached 35 years of
age,
(B)	was at the time of the death of the contributor a surviving spouse
with dependent children, or
(C)	is disabled;
My question is does the "or" at the end of paragraph (B) mean that one must have (A) plus (B) on the one hand, or (C) on the other, or does one have the choice of (A), (B) or (C). Surely the minister's writers could have come up with something which would not lead to such confusion.
It confused the Toronto Star which in a headline states, "Women to get same benefits as men". Then the Montreal Star in an article said:
The second-
Referring to changes.
-designed to remove sex discrimination, will turn widows' pensions into survivors' pensions. That means that a husband whose wife has contributed to the plan at her job can collect benefits if she dies.
Mr. Speaker, what would give a fair deal to women would be if the housewife were allowed to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan. This may have been what the minister hoped to receive credit for, while clearly avoiding giving this concession. I agree with the press release which came out today by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women which states, on page two, that they seek recognition of marriage as an economic unit as well as a social partnership. They recommend that during marriage 50 per cent of Canada Pension Plan contributions made by either husband or wife should be credited toward the pension buildup of the other spouse, whether or not the other spouse is in the paid labour market.
To me that would seem to represent justice. I believe this should be incorporated in legislation at the earliest possible time. This childishness of wondering whether to call a wife a house-spouse or house person, or contributor or survivor, possibly is a way to bring about discussion while the minister tries to get out of assuming responsibility. After slamming the minister for coming up with these words, if I may I should like to suggest that we could call the wife "counsel in the house" because counsel are well paid.
Canada Pension Plan
Believe me, wives are worth a lot more than this bill gives them. They have a right to be considered as full-fledged Canadian citizens. This legislation does not give that to them. The legislation does give them the knowledge that if they should die their husbands may be able to receive some monetary reward for having been married to them. I think this bill is an insult to womanhood.
With those words, Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude. I intend to vote for the bill. I hope the changes I have recommended will be accepted during the committee stage. I hope the minister gets this bill through fairly early and enjoys his day off.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take part in this debate on a bill which is good and sound because, in essence, it endeavours to keep pace with changes in our society and the values held by Canadians. I was a little amused by the remarks made today at a certain point by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson), who seemed to claim fatherhood for the measures contained in this bill. I was amused, because we all remember what happened last summer in respect of the measure contained in this bill which would allow individual members of religious sects to be excluded from the provisions of the Canada Pension Plan in certain cases.
At that time another member of the same party took great exception to the measure. I refer to the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). Until I receive notice to the contrary I assume that both the hon. member for Fraser Valley East and the hon. member for Crowfoot belong to the same party.
I find it difficult to understand how one member can claim fatherhood for the measures in this bill while another member of the same party was opposed to them at the time they came before us last. Be that as it may, the Canada Pension Plan came under unwarranted criticism last December by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.
In a letter to the Toronto Star the Canadian Federation of Independent Business mounted an attack on the CPP stating, among other things, that in less than ten years there will be no money in the fund to provide benefits for all those Canadians working at that time. This is not so. The report that was tabled in this House by the chief actuary of the Department of Insurance in 1973 paints quite a different picture in respect of the Canada Pension Plan fund over the next decade. It indicates that if the present Canada Pension Plan contributions rates are maintained, the size of the Canada Pension Plan, far from disappearing as stated by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, will in fact increase from $6.6 billion to $20.3 billion by 1984.
Also the cost of the substantial Canada Pension Plan benefit improvements that were recently introduced by the government, and which came into effect on January 1 this year will be matched by increased revenues and contributions.
Finally, I find it worthwhile noting in connection with this fund, which is perhaps the envy of any other pension plan in the world for its help and substantial content, that approximately up to 70 per cent of Canada Pension Plan

April 17, 1974
Canada Pension Plan
benefits and administrative costs for the next decade are expected to be financed by the interest revenues accruing to the Canada Pension Plan fund. I have here figures that apply to the year 1974. The revenue from contributions is $1,074,000,000. The revenue from interest is $479 million, and the expenditures, the combined cost of benefits and administrative expenses, amounted to $437 million. This demonstrates the fact that revenue from interest at this point in time at least is greater than the cost of benefits and administrative expenses. I would say that represents pretty good management.
There are in this bill a number of very fine amendments which reflect a sense of fairness and social justice which the plan continually wishes to pursue. In addition to the examples that were given last night by the minister and other speakers, I should like to add a few which are worth putting on the record.
For instance the act provides now that when recipients of disability pensions reach age 65, payments of their disability pensions cease and they start receiving retirement pensions. It was originally intended that this change would occur the month after the beneficiary reached age 65, but through a quirk in the wording of the act the change is presently delayed by one month. One of the amendments proposed in this bill would remove this anomaly.
Similarly, there is a one month lag under existing law for the commencement of payment of widows or survivor's pension to a woman upon her reaching age 65. An amendment in the bill will correct this flaw. The same applies in the case of disability pension when that pension comes to a conclusion and the retirement pension takes over.
Another example is that the act now provides that wages earned by a contributor before his death, but paid after his death, cannot be taken into account for purposes of the Canada Pension Plan. An amendment is put forward to delete certain words in a section of the act which will remove this anomaly, taking effect as of January 1, 1975.
Another example is that the act now provides that the earnings of a self-employed person in the year of his death must be prorated whereas those of an employee are not. That means that if a self-employed contributor dies in the month of January, he could only be credited with one-twelfth of his actual earnings in January. The amendment removes this distinction and treats the self-employed person on the same basis as the employee contributor. This action will take place on January 1, 1975.
Another change deals with a contributor who holds two jobs simultaneously and who may expect to be assigned to two different year basic exemptions and may not have contributed on his total eligible earnings. The act allows such a person to elect to contribute on any such extra earnings. The amendments contained in the bill would clarify the wording of the section and extend the time limit for such election, and allow for an election by a representative of an incapacitated or deceased contributor.
It is a good step that the bill provides, in the case of a self-employed person who is not required to remit income tax by instalments, that he not be required to remit the

contribution to the Canada Pension Plan on an instalment basis.
There is another anomaly in the present act which prevents contributors from securing maximum disability pensions, although this is a minor loss in income. Nevertheless the contributor is required by the act to make contributions for a month in which he is not allowed to make a contribution. One of the amendments contained in the bill will remove this anomaly and pave the way for the payment of a maximum disability pension.
Another example, Mr. Speaker, relates to the fact that under the present legislation a survivor benefit which becomes payable in the month of January cannot be escalated in accordance with the cost of living index of the previous year. However, a survivor's benefit which becomes payable in December can be so escaled. In order to correct this anomalous situation in which the earlier pension is higher than the pension starting a month later, an amendment is proposed. It will apply the escalation factor to the pension payable in the month of January.
Another worth-while measure relates to a provision in the act that the required application for any Canada Pension Plan benefit can be made on behalf of an incapacitated contributor. In order to carry this principle to its ultimate conclusion, there are amendments in this bill that will allow appeals to be made on behalf of an incapacitated person at any three of the appeal levels.
Another example worth mentioning relates to the fact that at the present time the act allows for the denial of Canada Pension Plan benefits to persons who do not have a social insurance number. Among other things the bill proposes to remove this kind of penalty, and both ministers who are responsible for SINs will be authorized, along lines similar to those in the legislation governing old age security, to assign social insurance numbers to contributors and beneficiaries. We hope this particular amendment will be of some comfort, though perhaps limited, to the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) who has been struggling with a problem of one of his constituents regarding a social insurance number.
Like all those who have spoken before me, I support the changes contained in this bill and hope that there will be more to come in order to keep pace with the changing thinking in our society, with the changing expectations and attitudes toward work and retirement of Canadians.
Those who have spoken before me have already made the point about the desirability of changing the Canada Pension Plan in future so as to permit volunteer contributions by people who are not employed or self-employed but who do perform a valuable function in society without following a regular work pattern.
In the mail today we received a press release from the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. I should like to read a passage relating to the Canada Pension Plan which appears on page 2:
Recognition of marriage as an economic unit as well as a social partnership is a thrust of the proposal that during marriage 50 per cent of Canada Pension Plan contributions made by either husband or wife should be credited toward the pension build-up of the other spouse, whether or not the other spouse is in the paid labour market.
There is already an awareness in the country that makes it quite clear that a change of this nature would not only
April 17, 1974

be well received but would also reflect both a fact of life in our country and a desire that has been expressed in so many quarters.
Another change which will be most desirable in future is one affecting recipients of workmen's compensation benefits and pensions. These are paid usually to injured workmen or to women who, because of injury, must leave the labour force, sometimes for months or years. Consequently they cannot contribute to the Canada Pension Plan. It would be most desirable if we could treat workmen's Compensation payments as earnings, for purposes of contributing to the Canada Pension Plan. Such measure would be well received and would meet the aspirations and wishes of people, as expressed over the years.
May I suggest another measure which might be brought forward in future. It could be before this House in one year or so. It has to do with reducing the five-year period of contributions which is necessary before one can qualify for a disability pension. Some people who have been involved in accidents or who suffer from progressive diseases but who, nevertheless, have contributed for a few years, find that they have not contributed long enough to the Canada Pension Plan to qualify for a disability pension.
Instead of forcing them to turn to local or provincial welfare, under the Canada Assistance Plan it would be helpful if we could give them access to some form of disability pension, even if that pension is not as large as it would be for those who have met the five-year contribution criterion. At least they would receive the pension. This would help them. Definitely the fund is in such a healthy state that reducing the five-year contribution period to some lesser period would not affect seriously the level of moneys which have been built up in it over the years.
As I have said previously when answering criticisms, the fund is in an extremely healthy condition. If I understand actuarial studies correctly, it will be possible to support expenditures and administrative expenses with revenue from interest up until 1976. Between 1976 and 1984 revenue from interest alone will be high enough to subsidize 50 per cent, if not more, of expenses. So, the fund is in an extremely healthy condition.
Another desirable measure is suggested in the report issued by the Department of National Health and Welfare entitled, "Canada Pension Plan 1973". Page 9 deals in part with international agreements and reads:
On a wider scale, an exploratory three-day meeting was held in July, 1972 with officials of the United States Government to discuss problems related to the introduction of a general reciprocal agreement on social security. A similar meeting was held in September with United Kingdom officials for the same general purpose. In addition, the Government of Italy has expressed interest in negotiating a reciprocal agreement on social security. A meeting was held with Italian officials about a year ago and a further meeting is scheduled for the end of May to be attended by interested officials from both countries. In all three cases, National Revenue was involved from the point of view of coverage and contributions.
There is definitely great potential for international agreements with other countries which will permit the payment of Canada Pension Plan benefits to immigrants.
Canada Pension Plan
Such agreements will take into account total payments of various kinds made to various plans by the immigrant before arriving or settling in Canada. I urge the government to consider such measure. I am sure that such agreements will come about.
Looking to the future, I support the position taken last night eloquently by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He pleaded for a reduction in retirement age. We made great progress when we reduced the age of retirement from 70 to 65. Perhaps the time is ripe for us to give Canadians further options, that is, permit them to retire at an age of their choice. Of course their income from the Canada Pension Plan would be commensurate with their years of contribution and the age of retirement.
Instead of stressing the reduction of retirement age to age 60 it would make better sense, I suggest, if the government gave consideration to a system under which retirement might take place at any age. Of course, the earlier the retirement age, the smaller would be the payment. As I said, the fund is doing well, and will continue to do well for a number of years. It might do even better if we could determine the degree to which Canadians might wish to make larger contributions to the fund.
That brings me to my final point. Under the Canada Pension Plan there is an advisory committee. It is a good institution. It produces good ideas and gives the government an indication how the plan is functioning, what are its weaknesses, how it can be improved and what changes should be introduced from time to time. I see great merit in that institution.
I suggest that the government should consider seriously extending the system of consultation carried on through such advisory committees. It should do this on a broader basis, and consult Canadians regularly. For instance, the government could determine what Canadians think of the plan and how much they would be willing to pay into the fund, to achieve those very things which have been proposed in this debate, among which is earlier retirement.
Methods similar to those used at present could be used. For instance, when people get their monthly Old Age Security or Family Allowance cheques, they often find in the envelope excellent printed material which deals with nutrition or other messages the government wishes to communicate. By similar means the people could be asked at regular intervals what they think the Canada Pension Plan should offer in addition to what it is offering, and how much more they are willing to pay to achieve certain goals. Questionnaires might be sent to recipients of Old Age Security and Family Allowances.
I appreciate that the sample obtained would be very small and far from perfect. Nevertheless, it would be a way of assessing those in receipt of a substantial social security measure as to their views about the Canada Pension Plan, to consult them, and put to them the cost of improvements, as well as asking whether they would support the idea of greater contributions than are made at present. By so doing the government and politicians would be in a better position to guage the will of Canadians as to what the future of the Canada Pension Plan ought to be.

April 17, 1974
Canada Pension Plan
We could determine whether there is the support we seem to sense, but for which we do not have any tangible proof, with regard to retirement earlier than age 65. It would also determine whether there is a willingness on the part of Canadians to make more substantial contributions to the fund which would in turn permit the fund to pay more substantial pensions and make them available at an earlier age.
The Canada Pension Plan is a very fascinating scheme of social security which reinforces the democratic structure of this country. It certainly reinforces the federal-provincial fibre of this nation. As members know, excess moneys in the fund are invested in provincial securities with a term of maturity of 20 years.
Since the inception of the Canada Pension Plan I understand that substantial funds have been invested in this way. In 1972-73 these excess moneys amounted to $971 million, which were invested in securities of the provinces and Crown agencies. From the inception of the plan up until March 31 of last year the total investment amounted to no less than $5 Vi billion, no small sum. It is definitely a source of capital that comes in very handy for the provinces for their own public works and other measures that serve the needs of Canadians in each province of this country.
Apart from the aspect of strengthening the fibre of confederation, there is a potential element in the Canada Pension Plan which is promising and exciting. If we could look beyond the scope of the advisory committee and consult Canadians from coast to coast as to their willingness to continue to respond at the present or lower levels, or hopefully at higher levels in order to make available retirement or disability pensions at a greater rate than at present, that would reflect their willingness and readiness to make these contributions available. By doing it in that way we could truly put into effect a fine concept of democracy, something which I suppose was in the minds of those who originally designed this very fine plan.


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-19 to amend the Canada Pension Plan. During the debate on Bill C-224 we indicated our support for that particular amendment. On this occasion we have also indicated our support for some restriction of the debate so that this bill can have quick passage.
During the last debate we encouraged the minister to take action in many areas where we felt there was discrimination and hardships. At that time I made a personal appeal to the minister to outline in more detail his philosophy regarding the Canada Pension Plan and, in particular, its relationship to the orange paper on social security.
It is true the minister has acted on many of the recommendations we suggested in the last session, but I find it particularly disturbing that he has not responded to the more important and fundamental issue of providing the details that I believe must be available to ensure the intelligent public debate that he purports to be necessary for developing a total security strategy.

Following the federal-provincial conference on February 19 and 20 of this year there were numerous communiques and press releases which indicated a consensus on many of the issues we proposed in the past, including the very important issue of equality. However, it was readily apparent from the releases that the federal government had not addressed itself to the principle of equal rights for women.
They also announced that this major issue relating to women, particularly in those areas of family farms or small businesses, or indeed at home as housewives, should be studied further and referred to the Canada Pension Plan advisory committee and to the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. I would refer to this as a typical example of the shuffle-the-problem type of game.
Earlier this year June Menzies, the vice-chairman of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, presented a discussion paper entitled The Canada Pension Plan and Women. Actually it was presented in January of this year. Surely we are not to believe that the Canada Pension Plan advisory committee has been sitting by idly ignoring these issues and not reporting directly to the minister.
The problem that bothers me most, and I feel it is a real insult to the intelligence of this House, is that in his opening remarks yesterday the minister made reference to the discussion paper on housewives and the Canada Pension Plan, which was presented to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs on April 4. I plan to make some detailed reference to that later.
To summarize, the government and the minister presented to this House the orange paper on social security, of which the Canada Pension Plan is a very vital component. We are presented with ad hoc amendments v/hich I admit add substantially to the existing legislation. However, we have not had access to detailed information from the department, and we have not had the positive statements required of the minister in the proper forum to discuss in detail the total social security program, particularly as it relates to the Canada Pension Plan. Rather, we have been confronted by a smokescreen, first in the presentation of an inadequately detailed orange paper and now with an ill-prepared paper discussing housewives and the Canada Pension Plan. As I already indicated I will be making some comments about that particular discussion paper a little later.
At the outset I referred to several matters which my party supported in the past and which are now included in this bill. They correct some of the vast injustices of the program. As has been done by other members, I wish to congratulate the minister for bringing in these changes. The main purpose of this bill is to ensure that benefits are paid to survivors of female contributors on an equal basis with survivors of male contributors. We have long recognized this discriminatory feature against female contributors, and have repeatedly requested these changes over the last few years. It is also important to note the provinces have requested similar changes in the past, notably at the most recent federal-provincial conference. In effect the amounts of the benefits paid on application will depend on the same age, health and dependent children qualifications as now apply to widows.
April 17, 1974

The repeal of the disincentive to work between ages of 65 and 70 has long been recommended by many organizations, including the Advisory Committee of the Canada Pension Plan.
The statistics related to low income indicate that when the head of the household is between the ages of 65 to 69, the incidence of low income is 26.7 per cent; when he is 70 years of age or older, 29.1 per cent. The low income incidence among unattached individuals in the same age categories is of 50 per cent and 65.5 per cent.
With such a high incidence of low incomes among the aged, and with the difficulties our senior citizens have experienced in living with rampant inflation and a spiralling cost of living, I find it difficult to comprehend why this disincentive was originally introduced into the plan.
The completion of adjusting the years maximum pensionable earnings is an additional feature of the bill, along with a new formula for determining the year's basic exemption. Again these proposals are in keeping with the recommendations of the federal-provincial conference. I must add, however, that this is a further example of inadequate information being disseminated to the public. I have been contacted by several small businesses and labour groups who do not comprehend the impact these proposed changes will have on their businesses, many of them marginal in operation, or on the take home pay of those working in such businesses. Surely the minister can supply such data so that the individuals concerned may fully understand the impact of the changes.
The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) made reference to Bill C-190 when he spoke a few moments ago. May I simply say I was personally pleased to see the amendments proposed in Bill C-190 during the last session included in the present bill. The presentation made by the Old Order of Amish and Mennonites to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Services was for me a moving experience. Their belief that their own religious community, not the government or any outside insurance plan, should carry the responsibilities for the welfare and support of its members is a refreshing testimony to the community spirit. Their contribution to the surrounding community, their fellow man, and to the international community is an example all Canadians could seek to emulate.
Several technical changes have been introduced. They include provisions to improve the appeal system, provisions for self-employed to remit CPP contributions on an instalment basis, changes more in keeping with present divorce laws, provision for payment of disabled contributors, child benefits for natural or legally adopted children acquired by pensioners after the onset of disability, provision for the write-off of certain debts, relaxation of the four year limit on employee corrections to records of earnings, and the repeal of the prohibition which prevents persons who do not have a social insurance number from receiving CPP benefits.
A major problem which has not been adequately covered is one related to the delay in processing applications made not only on retirement but in particular by those applying for permanent disability pensions. In addition, since the
Canada Pension Plan
program is convenient for many employees, consideration should be given to allowing them to invest money towards their retirement above the present legal limits, if they so desire.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the fundamental issue I raised in the House on October 30, 1973, and referred to in my opening comments today. What role does the CPP play in the entire social security strategy? The Annual Report on Health and Welfare for 1972-73, referring to the Canada Pension Plan implies we are dealing with a social insurance plan:
The Canada Pension Plan was established by act of Parliament which received Royal Assent on April 3, 1965, and was proclaimed in force on May 5 of the same year. The plan is designed to be entirely self-supporting; all benefits and administrative costs are financed from contributions of employees, employers and self-employed persons, together with the interest earned from the investment of funds.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt the impression conveyed to the Canadian public is that this is a social insurance program. It must be re-emphasized that the Canada Pension Plan was introduced as a contributory social insurance program for members of the Canadian labour force, with three basic objectives:
1.	To guarantee an income-related pension to every member of the labour force.
2.	To provide basic social insurance to each labour force member and dependents in the event of death or total disability.
3.	To provide a source of capital to the provinces.
We have established a program which is complex and poorly understood by the Canadian people. The government and the minister have convinced the majority of Canadians that the Canada Pension Plan is a pure social insurance program when in reality it contains many non-earnings-related benefits, giving it many features consistent with a welfare program.
We have a government which talks of a social security strategy, which makes ad hoc amendments to existing legislation, which distracts us with working papers, but which refuses to define the role of the CPP within the context of an over-all income security policy.
Let me give an illustration from my speech last year. When the guaranteed income supplement payments began in 1967, the year in which the Canada Pension Plan commenced, the Guaranteed Income Supplement was initially intended as a temporary program to be phased out when the CPP matured in 1967.
In the 1970 white paper on income security the government proposed to establish the guaranteed income supplement as a permanent program, to continue universal old age security payments, and to amend the Canada Pension Plan. The proposed CPP amendments were to eliminate two problems as defined by the white paper: first, gaps remaining in the income security system, particularly for widows and disabled people; secondly, CPP contributions and benefits had not kept pace with the growth in average Canadian wages. The suggested changes in the CPP amendments were to increase substantially widows and disability benefits, and to increase retirement benefits
1522

April 17, 1974
Canada Pension Plan
through selective increases in the earnings ceilings. These changes obviously emphasized the welfare aspects of the plan.
By design we have a government that discusses the development of a social insurance strategy in which the CPP has received top priority. The government has given the impression that this is a form of pure social insurance and refuses to define, or what is more likely cannot define, the role of the Canada Pension Plan in our fragmented social security system. In effect we have a plan which has features of social insurance, therefore not requiring internal subsidies. In addition, we have a plan which has welfare features, including subsidies paid by the taxpayers, similar to other income support programs. And, what is most tragic, these subsidies in many instances are paid to those with the least need rather than to that large segment living in or near poverty.
At the outset I indicated that I wanted to spend some time discussing what I feel to be a most important document, and that is the discussion paper on housewives and the Canada Pension Plan which was introduced to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs on April 4, 1974. I have some comments I wish to make about this, but to comment properly, Mr. Speaker, and with complete understanding, I should like to quote from the discussion paper and then make some observations following that.
The introduction to this paper on housewives and the Canada Pension Plan is as follows:
This is a time of reappraisal concerning the position of women in society and in the home. Certain traditional assumptions and values are being questioned and changed. This relates both to the increasing participation of women in the economic work force of the nation, and to changing attitudes concerning the position of women within the fundamental unit of Canadian society-the family.
This basic reappraisal bears upon the Canada Pension Plan in two main respects: (1) certain provisions within the plan accord different treatment to male and female contributors and beneficiaries, and this has been questioned; (2) views have been expressed that housewives who remain at home, and do not draw salaries as members of the working force, should be enabled to participate in the Canada Pension Plan.
Action is now underway with respect to the first issue. The government of Canada, with the full agreement of all provincial governments, is placing legislation before the 1974 session of parliament to establish full equality of treatment for male and female contributors and beneficiaries.
The second issue was discussed by the federal and provincial welfare ministers at a meeting in Edmonton in February, 1974, as a part of their review of the social security system. All governments recognized that there were complex difficulties associated with the implementation of this objective. The ministers agreed, however, that the various possible approaches to meeting this objective should be given serious study. The issues involved need to be examined not only by governments, but by the public at large. This paper has been prepared, therefore, in the hope that it will provoke wider public discussion of the issues, and that from this discussion the best answers may emerge.
It should be noted that while this paper speaks of the "housewife", since it is most frequently the woman who remains at home to look after the interests of the family unit, the same principles, of course, apply also in cases when men remain at home for this purpose. However, the term "housewife" was used in preference to the more general but less appealing term "housespouse".
This is the issue as defined in this paper:
The central features of the issue, the considerations involved, and the practical range of options for the future were set forth clearly by

the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. In the words of the Commission:
"With rare exceptions, the woman who stays at home depends on her husband for money. While she may receive a family allowance cheque, the money is spent on the cost of keeping a child and cannot be regarded as payment for its care. Unfortunately we have no over-all solution for the financial dependency of housewives. But there is one area in which steps could be taken to give them some financial independence at least in their later years. Housewives should be entitled to pensions in their own right under the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan.
"The housewife who remains at home is just as much a producer of goods and services as the paid worker, and in our view she should also have the opportunity to provide for a more financially secure future. Canada has given some of its workers an opportunity to do this through the Canada and the Quebec Pension Plans. To neglect to do the same for some three and one-half million other workers in the home is to ignore the essential nature of their work.
"The Canada and the Quebec Pension Plans do not entirely ignore housewives since they provide for a pension for a widow of a contributor. In other words, these plans recognize that a widow should benefit from her husband's contributions.
"This is in keeping with the concept of marriage as a partnership. But in recognizing only the rights of a widow to a pension on the basis of her husband's contributions, the plans go only part way. For example, in the case of a marriage breakdown, the former wife loses all claim to a widow's pension. This can cause hardship when the breakdown occurs late in life and the wife has had insufficient time to build up a reasonable pension through her own paid work. A second wife may reap the benefits of the contributions made by the husband during his first marriage.
"Even if a divorced or separated woman enters paid employment, the pension she earns may be adversely affected by the years she spent in the home as a housewife. Pensions are related to earnings and her earnings prior to, during and after marriage are averaged over the number of years she could have been employed, and this includes the time that she remained in the home. While some provision is made for reducing the number of years to be averaged, there will be cases in which a divorced or separated woman will be unable to work a sufficient number of years to make up for a non-earning period as a housewife.
"For all of these reasons provision must be made for the participation of housewives in the Canada or the Quebec Pension Plan. A comprehensive study will be required to determine the best way of achieving this... However, two approaches seem to us to have considerable merit...
"(i) crediting to the spouse remaining at home a portion of the contributions of the employed spouse and those contributions made by the employer on the employed spouse's behalf, and (ii) on an optional basis, permitting the spouse at home to contribute as a self-employed worker."
This document in many ways, I feel, is a perfect camouflage of the government's inability to ensure women's full participation as contributors to, and recipients of benefits from, the CPP. As I indicated earlier, as with the orange paper we have been presented with little information to promote intelligent debate.
Under the present plan, which I indicated earlier was subsidized by the government in many instances, will the minister be prepared to subsidize a rich 64 year old housewife who can contribute to the Canada Pension Plan rather than utilize that subsidy to assist the poor 64 year old housewife who cannot contribute to the Canada Pension Plan? Would he subsidize a 64 year old housewife under the CPP and ignore one who is 84 years of age?
There is no intelligent way of discussing this document or this paper without presenting dollar amounts involved
April 17, 1974

per person. When we are being asked to make a choice, on a personal basis or otherwise, in respect of any financial matter or, in this instance, when government spending is involved, we must ask for two important sets of figures: first the dollars you will pay and, secondly, the dollars you will get back. Let me turn as an example to the bottom of page 4, and I should like to quote from this page which deals with mandatory alternatives. It states:
This approach would certainly give recognition to work in the home as regular employment, and would provide a measure of financial independence to the housewife. However, it seems unlikely that most Canadians would find this to be a satisfactory alternative. It is necessary to ask how many Canadian families would consider it acceptable for the government to intervene in this way in the financial arrangements made between husband and wife? Also, how many families would consider it acceptable to be required to make additional Pension Plan contributions from the same level of family income?
I would simply suggest in respect of such a question that Canadians cannot make an honest appraisal, in order to give an honest answer to that kind of question, without a knowledge as to the dollars in and dollars out to which I referred previously.
The crux of the issue in this document relates to the second point on page 2. I quoted this before but I want to come back to it. It states:
"(ii) on an optional basis, permitting the spouse at home to contribute as a self-employed worker."
The housewife very frequently wants to be included under the Canada Pension Plan at the same contribution rates and with the same benefit rate as any other Canadian, whether it be her husband, a career woman or someone else. I suggest that this working paper makes no attempt to address itself to this problem but simply waffles by summarizing five points at page 10, proposing these as an , answer to the problem in respect of equal rights as between men and women. Let me quote this, Mr. Speaker: The most important considerations, however, are issues involving basic social equity, and the future operation of the Canada Pension Plan, and private insurance and pension plans. These issues may be summarized as follows:
1.	If housewives are allowed to participate in the Canada Pension Plan on a voluntary basis, this option would tend to favour wives in families having the willingness and financial ability to participate. Wives in lower income families would have an extremely limited capacity to take advantage of such an opportunity.
2.	Can the needs of wives at home be considered separate and apart from those of other individuals who undergo long periods of no earnings because of unemployment, ill health, extended education, and other reasons?
3.	If housewives with earnings are permitted to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan on a voluntary basis, should any provision for voluntary participation be extended to housewives with part-time earnings, and other part-time and low income workers?
4.	If an opportunity were extended to some or all wage earners to supplement their Canada Pension Plan coverage on a voluntary basis, a situation would be created whereby wage earners could transfer their coverage under private pension plans to the Canada Pension Plan. The differences in funding arrangements between the Canada Pension Plan and private plans would provide a substantial incentive for many to make such transfers. If this were done on a large scale, it could seriously undermine the position of private pension plans.
5.	Actuarial reports which the government has tabled in Parliament from time to time indicate that the financial provisions of the Canada Pension Plan will have to be reviewed at some future date. If such a future review should lead to an increase in contribution rates, would volunteer participants be allowed to reduce or withdraw their
Canada Pension Plan
participation? If this were permitted, the increased costs of the pensions credits, accumulated by the volunteer participants would be passed on to the participants who are required to contribute to the Plan on a compulsory basis. The equity of such an arrangement could be the subject of serious criticism if the bulk of volunteer participants came from higher income families, and if large numbers of compulsory participants were comprised of low wage earners. These consequences could be avoided if volunteer participants, once allowed to participate, were required to maintain their participation; or, if allowed to reduce or withdraw their participation, were required to accept a reduction in the value of their accumulated pension credits. Such alternatives, however, would likely be considered as acts of bad faith on the part of the government.
As I suggested previously, if the minister is truly interested in resolving this critical issue of equal rights for men and women involved with the Canada Pension Plan, he could help by presenting simple dollar examples and illustrations for various individuals or people involved.
Referring again to page 8 of this paper let me quote from paragraph (b) which states:
The family could be allowed to assign a dollar value to work in the home (perhaps within some prescribed limits), which would be over and above to wages earned by the husband, and contributions could be made in the name of the housewife based on this amount. This would permit the housewife to build up her own pension credits without any decrease in the family unit's basic protection. However, it would also mean that the family would have to pay additional contributions to the Plan out of the same level of income.
I should like to emphasize again that this is another example of why the Canadian family could not make a valued judgment of such a statement without a dollar presentation, or a proper analysis in respect of a particular family. I strongly urge the minister to present such figures to the House, or to the standing committee, so that an appropriate analysis can be made.
I am deeply concerned about a basic point that has not been discussed in this particular working paper to which I have been referring. If we consider the pensions payable to retired married couples and those payable to a retired person living alone, whether he be single, divorced, a widow or a widower, using as an example old age security, we find that a couple will get exactly twice the amount a single person receives; and if we look at the guaranteed income supplement we find that a couple receives almost twice the amount a single person receives. The minister stated to the House and to the standing committee that the general pattern around the world in respect of government pensions would indicate that a couple receives almost twice the pension received by a single person. That being so, surely a couple should receive under the Canada Pension Plan an amount exactly double that received by a single person?
If this logic is good, then surely splitting the Canada Pension Plan credits, as one of the alternatives suggested, would be at odds with the existing plan and would be of no value? Therefore, only by bringing in housewives with the same contribution rates and the same benefit rates as workers will we achieve this particular end.
The hon. member from British Columbia who spoke earlier referred to the policy paper on women presented to our national convention, and I agree with the two statements he made. If the minister is sincere in implementing this important principle of equality as between men and women by removing the injustices and discrimination against women, surely he will present a detailed dollar
27451-33 (

April 17, 1974
Canada Pension Plan
analysis of the various proposals, illustrating individual examples.
Only in this way can we have a proper analysis and appropriate decisions with regard to the plan and regain the confidence of the people of Canada. If the minister in searching for a solution, and wishing to gain the support of the House in these areas I have talked about, would present this particular material to the standing committee, or to the House, and consider the facts I have raised, I think this would go a long way toward improving the program and giving equal rights to men and women across Canada.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak during this debate on the second reading of Bill C-19 to amend the Canada Pension Plan. This is the second major bill to amend the Canada Pension Plan that the government has introduced since it began, a year ago, a review with the provinces of Canada's social security system. The first bill was passed by Parliament last session.
The bill we are debating will fulfil the commitment respecting the first round of agreements with regard to the Canada Pension Plan reached with the provinces in October last year, and will give effect to the second round of agreements that were concluded with the provinces just two months ago in Edmonton. It is important to summarize the main features of the bill. It proposes full equality of treatment for male and female contributors and beneficiaries under the Canada Pension Plan.
It proposes repeal of the earnings and retirement tests under this plan so that contributors aged 65 and over can draw all Canada Pension Plan retirement benefits they have earned without regard to subsequent earnings. It proposes a new formula for determining the year's maximum pensionable earnings, which is the earnings ceiling for the plan, so that future benefits and revenue will reflect the advances in the Canadian wage level that have been occurring during the last decade.
The new formula also provides that once the base for calculating new benefits and determining fund revenues is brought up to date it will keep pace with further increases in the average earnings of Canadian industrial workers. Bill C-19 proposes modification in the current formula for determining the basic exemption for the plan so that Canadians at low income levels will have a greater opportunity to participate more fully in the Canada Pension Plan.
The bill re-introduces the provisions that were placed before Parliament last session in Bill C-190 regarding the exemption of persons from the plan on grounds of religious conviction. I notice the hon. member who spoke so long on that particular aspect just appeared and now appears to be disappearing. Then there is the liberalization of the provisions dealing with payment of legal expenses, the measures concerning financial administration of the plan, as well as the negotiation of international agreements. These proposals enjoyed wide support in Parliament but could not be enacted before the end of the last session.

This bill contains a large number of technical amendments that rectify minor errors, inequities and anomalies the department has uncovered in the administration of the plan. Generally speaking these technical proposals do not affect a large number of contributors and beneficiaries but are important to those directly affected. In almost all instances they operate to their advantage.
The review of the Canada Pension Plan has not been completed. Priority subjects are still outstanding. These include the coverage of housewives, early retirement provisions under the plan, the structure and level of the Canada Pension Plan disability and survivor benefits, and the degree to which the needs of the disabled, orphans, widows and widowers should be met by a social insurance program such as the Canada Pension Plan, and the extent to which these needs should be met by income supplementation programs.
Everyone recognizes there are very complex problems raised by the various proposals that have been received concerning the participation of housewives. It is felt that it would be unwise to come to a hasty conclusion before these problems can be thoroughly studied. Various possibilities, such as voluntary contribution and the splitting of pension credits, should be carefully examined during the ensuing years.
It is also desirable to have substantial public discussion of the issues involved. This matter has been referred to the Canada Pension Plan advisory committee and to the advisory Council on the Status of Women for their consideration. In order to have a discussion of the issue within Parliament, the minister has tabled before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs a paper entitled "Housewives and the Canada Pension Plan". These initiatives of the minister should provoke public discussion of the issue both inside and outside Parliament. This will assist in determining what are the best answers.
At the same time work will continue on the other studies mentioned, and it is expected that this will be finished within the target period for completing the review of Canada's social security system. The result of these and other studies cannot of course be predicted, but it may well be they will call for the introduction of a further bill to amend the Canada Pension Plan.
Let us examine more closely the major provisions of Bill C-19. The most noteworthy changes proposed by the bill in terms of principle are the provisions for the equal treatment of male and female contributors and beneficiaries. We can take pleasure in seeing them in the bill. The equal treatment of Canadian men and women is a principle to which this government is firmly committed, and is being reflected in further legislation to be considered during the current session of Parliament. The discussion paper recently tabled in the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs states:
This is a time of reappraisal concerning the position of women in society and in the home. Certain traditional assumptions and values are being questioned and changed. This relates both to the increasing participation of women in the economic work force of the nation, and to changing attitudes concerning the position of women within the fundamental unit of Canadian society-the family.
It is most interesting in this regard to introduce here the thoughts of my own wife, that there comes a time in the
April 17, 1974

family unit when a man is so occupied, as we are here in Ottawa, that the woman realizes there is a part she can usefully play in life, and that she should look for a means by which she can be an equal contributor to the productivity of the nation.
Bill C-19 provides striking and tangible evidence of the rate and degree to which traditional assumptions and attitudes on the role of women in Canadian society have changed. The end of the traditional phase of the Canada Pension Plan lies about two years in the future, yet before the plan is fully mature we are already concluding that we should remove the basic distinctions between males and females which were built into the plan with a broad measure of public support a few short years ago.
Distinctions to be abolished by Bill C-19 include the provision in the Canada Pension Plan that upon the death of the male contributor the surviving widow is automatically eligible for a pension equal to 60 per cent of her husband's actual or imputed retirement pension if she is 65 or older. If the surviving widow is between 45 and 65 years of age, or below age 45 and is disabled or has dependent children, she is eligible for a pension equal to 37 V2 per cent of her husband's actual or imputed retirement pension, plus a flat rate component which now amounts to some $33.76 a month. Lesser amounts are paid to widows between 35 and 45 years of age, and not disabled, or who do not have dependent children.
In addition, when a male contributor dies or becomes disabled, his children automatically become eligible for a benefit that at present amounts to $33.76 per month for each child, or some variation for families with more than four children. On the other hand, when a female contributor dies or becomes disabled, her surviving widower is eligible for a widower's pension only when he is disabled and dependent upon his wife, and the children become eligible for benefit only if they were wholly or substantially maintained by their mother. These differences, it should be noted, have existed notwithstanding the fact that the contribution rate to the plan is the same for male and female contributors.
Bill C-19 proposes the complete removal of these distinctions. The effect of this change, if and when enacted, will be that surviving spouses and children of deceased or disabled female contributors will, in future, qualify for the same benefits, and under the same conditions as those that now apply in respect of the surviving spouses and children of male contributors. The current provision which limits the payment of one benefit for each child will be maintained, and it will be paid upon the death or disability of the first spouse.
An important clause in the bill proposes retroactive eligibility, but not retroactive payment, for the surviving spouses and children of female contributors who died or became disabled prior to proclamation of this bill. In other words, the bill proposes that after proclamation widowers and the children of female contributors who died, or became disabled prior to proclamation, will from that point in time become eligible to receive benefits as though the Canada Pension Plan had always accorded equal treatment to male and female contributors and beneficiaries.
Canada Pension Plan
This particular proposal of the bill will, it is estimated, benefit about 30,000 individuals.
Those who may be affected by this retroactive feature should note that benefits under the Canada Pension Plan are only payable upon application. Potential beneficiaries of female contributors who died or became disabled prior to proclamation of the bill should consult a CPP district office about their eligibility for a benefit as soon as possible after the bill comes into force.
Another important group of provisions in Bill C-19 deal with the repeal of the earnings and retirement tests. The Canada Pension Plan at present provides that retirement pensions can only be paid to contributors between the ages of 65 and 70 if they have retired from regular employment. Furthermore, if a pensioner, after retirement and under the age of 70, draws wages in excess of $95 a month, the act now requires that his CPP pension be reduced by 50 per cent of his wages between $95 and $155 a month, and by the full amount of his employment earnings in excess of $155 a month.
Bill C-19 proposes the removal of all these restrictions, and so, if and when the bill becomes law, all contributors who are 65 years of age or older will be able to draw all of the retirement pension they have earned whether or not they continue to work and receive wages. It is estimated that these changes will provide an immediate increase for about 5,000 current CPP retirement pensioners, and will result in the payment of perhaps 30,000 additional retirement pensions in 1975.
The removal of the earnings and retirement tests from the Canada Pension Plan could prove to be one of the more costly reforms. It could, over the next 10 to 15 years, turn out to be more costly even than providing full escalation of CPP benefits in accordance with increases in the cost of living. Much will depend upon the number of contributors who will decide to work beyond age 65 and to apply for CPP retirement pensions when they reach age 65.
Virtually half of the contributors who applied for CPP retirement pensions during 1973 were 66 years of age or older, and the proportion of applicants who were 67 years or older was slightly in excess of 30 per cent of all applicants for 1973 CPP retirement pensions. This is interesting in the face of the frequently expressed assumption that most Canadians will shortly be wanting to retire by age 60 or even less. The experience with the Canada Pension Plan indicates that notwithstanding the criticisms of some that retirement at age 65 is an outdated concept, we are still a considerable distance from having universal observance of the age 65 retirement practice. Consequently if contributors who hitherto have been delaying their applications for CPP retirement pensions now decide, in overwhelming proportions, to apply for retirement pensions as soon as they reach age 65, it could have a substantial financial impact on the plan.
Of course persons between 65 and 70 still have the option of not taking their retirement pension, but continuing to contribute to the fund to build up their eventual benefit. A proportion of contributors may conclude that it is in their interest to do this.

April 17, 1974
Canada Pension Plan
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to turn to the provisions of the bill that deal with the YMPE, or earnings ceiling of the plan. The earnings ceiling, as members are aware, plays a critical role in shaping the revenue and benefit structure of the Canada Pension Plan.
At the October meeting of federal-provincial welfare ministers it was agreed that the CPP earnings ceiling should be brought into line with the one applying to the Quebec Pension Plan, and should then be increased by 12 V2 per cent a year until it caught up to the average earnings of Canadian industrial workers and, once this was achieved, the ceiling should be kept in line with the earnings of the average Canadian industrial workers. The first steps toward carrying out this agreement were taken when parliament, last session, passed the bill to establish the plan's YMPE at $6,000 for 1974 and at $7,400 for 1975. Bill C-19 contains the proposals for carrying out the other elements of this agreement.
Bill C-19, and the bill passed in the last session, go a long way toward establishing fair and equitable treatment for the nation's retired, disabled, widows, widowers and orphans.
Maximum initial retirement pensions under the plan now stand at $101.41 a month. If the bill is passed, initial maximum CPP retirement pensions should reach a level of about $250 a month by 1980, and $350 a month by 1985. This represents an increase of close to 250 per cent in about ten years' time.
Maximum CPP disability pensions now stand at $125.95 a month. Passage of the bill should raise these pensions to about $225 a month by 1980, and $315 a month by 1985. This represents an increase of close to 170 per cent in ten years' time.
Maximum CPP widow and widower pensions for beneficiaries under the age of 65 now stand at $79.86 a month. Passage of the bill should raise these pensions to about $135 a month by 1980, and $185 a month by 1985. This represents an increase of over 130 per cent in ten years' time.
Maximum CPP widow and widower pensions for beneficiaries 65 years of age and older now stand at $73.75 a month. Passage of the bill should raise these pensions to about $145 a month by 1980, and to $210 a month by 1985. This represents an increase of over 180 per cent in the next ten years.
Basic orphans and disabled contributor child benefits now stand at $33.76 a month. These should rise to about $45 a month by 1980 and $55 a month by 1985.
The increase in child benefits is not provided by this bill, but was accomplished by the bill that Parliament passed last session. This bill does, however, propose that in future they should also be paid in respect of the children of female contributors who die or become disabled. All of these increased benefit rates would be fully escalated thereafter according to increases in the cost of living. It should also be noted that in 1985 we are likely to have three times the 500,000 CPP beneficiaries that we now have.

The updating of the earnings formula that is now in the plan provides that all contributor earnings are updated according to movements in the YMPE; so, sharp increases in the YMPE produce a sharp updating of past earnings at all levels.
These increases in CPP benefits are quite substantial. Still, they do not tell the full story of achievement that has been realized in our social security reforms. During the last year other parts of our social security system have been modernized and, when these improvements are combined with Bill C-19, they produce results of almost dramatic proportions.
For example the income situation of a couple at retirement in a single wage earner family should be considered. A little over a year ago the maximum CPP/OAS income of this couple was about $245 a month; today it is $320 a month. In 1980 it may be in excess of $525 a month; and in 1985 it should be in the order of $700 a month. Seven hundred dollars a month is reasonably close to the average wage of today's industrial worker.
Members might reflect upon the situation of the widow under 65 years of age, with four children under the age of 18. A little over a year ago her CPP survivor benefit and family allowance payments would have amounted to about $200 a month; today they are about $295 a month. In 1980 they should be over $400 a month; and in 1985 they could be in the order of $550 a month. The government is justified in taking considerable pride in this record of achievements.
The Canada Pension Plan has an earnings exemption, called the year's basic exemption, which sets the minimum annual earnings an individual must have in order to contribute to the plan. This exemption is now set at 12 per cent of the earnings ceiling. The possibility therefore arises that if the earnings ceiling is increased quickly, substantial numbers of contributors at the bottom end of the income scale could lose the continuity of their CPP coverage, and so lose some of the advantages of this bill. To prevent this from happening the bill proposes that the basic exemption formula be altered from 12 to 10 per cent of the earnings ceiling. This change, therefore, will provide greater opportunities for people at the lower income levels to participate more fully in the Canada Pension Plan.
The bill also proposes deletion of a special provision that has applied to self-employed persons, namely, the requirement that they must earn at least one and one third of the year's basic exemption to qualify as contributors under the plan. It is proposed that this distinction be removed so that employees and self-employed persons will be on the same footing for exemption purposes. This measure should assist a number of self-employed Canadians in seasonal activities like farming and fishing, where fluctuating conditions sometimes reduce incomes to marginal levels, in maintaining the continuity of their CPP coverage.
There are numerous proposals in the bill which can be labelled as miscellaneous, technical and administrative amendments. The minister has taken the opportunity presented by the bill to carry out some house cleaning in what is a very complex act. These proposals, which for the most part rectify inequities, anomalies, errors, and
April 17, 1974

ambiguities that have been uncovered over a period of time, should be incorporated as a tidying up procedure.
I should like to draw the House's attention to the fact that CPP benefit payments, and the costs associated with administering the plan, are not paid from tax revenues, but come out of the earnings of the Canada Pension Plan investment fund and contributions. Bill C-19 proposes no change in this aspect of the plan. There is every likelihood that the new CPP benefit levels will, in the coming years, obviate the need for some payments to be made from the Guaranteed Income Supplement, the Canada Assistance Plan, and a wide range of other programs that are financed out of general tax revenues. Bill C-19 proposes no change in existing CPP contribution rates.
Some of the costs of the new benefit levels will come out of the substantial amounts of additional contribution revenues that will be generated by the new earnings ceilings for 1974 and 1975 that were established last year and by the new earnings ceiling formula that is contained in this bill. This revenue source will probably produce additional contribution revenues of over $100 million in 1974, $200 million in 1975, $300 million in 1977, and higher amounts, naturally, in subsequent years. The rest will come from the revenue producing features that are now in the plan.
Since the operation of the Canada Pension Plan began, all benefit payments and administrative expenses of the plan have been paid out of interest earned by the Canada Pension Plan investment fund. Contributions, in effect, have all been invested in the purchase of substantial amounts of provincial securities.
This situation should continue to prevail throughout 1974, as it is estimated that interest credited to the plan during 1974 will be in the range of $475 to $500 million, while benefit payments and administrative expenses will amount to around $470 million.
The amendments that were made to the plan last year, and the ones now being proposed, therefore have substantial implications for the financial structure of the plan toward the end of the century. Consequently the revenue-producing features of the plan will have to be reviewed much sooner than would otherwise be the case.
If the bill is passed it is anticipated that the balance in the Canada Pension Plan account will continue to grow over the next 15 years. This time frame could, of course, change if additional amendments to the plan are made at the end of the social security review. In any event, there should be ample time to carry out an orderly review of the plan's financial structure and to develop a well-planned approach to maintaining the plan on a sound and responsible financial course.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I consider that Bill C-19 is an imaginative and responsible approach to bringing the Canada Pension Plan into harmony with contemporary values and attitudes in Canadian society. I consider that the bill will bring the plan into line with the economic facts of Canadian life now and in the future. Furthermore, if the bill is passed into law it will allow the Canada Pension Plan to play a vital role in the new charter the government is writing for this country's aged, disabled, widows, widowers, orphans and those in need. I hope that
Canada Pension Plan
the bill will attract the overwhelming support of Canadians inside and outside parliament.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-19. At first blush, after reading the newspaper reports, I thought the act would give equal rights to male and female contributors. In fact the news release put out by the Department of National Health and Welfare, dated April 5, states:
Mr. Lalonde stated that a major purpose of the Bill, as indicated in the Throne Speech, is to establish equal treatment for male and female contributors and beneficiaries. This is in accordance with the agreement reached by the federal and provincial Ministers of Welfare at their meeting in Edmonton last February.
From reading the provisions of this bill it does not in fact give equal treatment. The news release is pure and simple window dressing.
When he spoke earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) went into detail on the provisions in the bill. He established beyond a doubt that there is not equality as far as male and female contributors are concerned. The bill does, however, give a survivor pension to widowers. This provision has been needed for a long time. There are many instances where a husband has been disabled and unable to work and the wife has been the breadwinner. There has been no provision for survivor benefits for the husband if she should pass on.
I welcome the removal of the earnings test for people between the ages of 65 and 70. I recall many instances in the practice of law where farmers, in particular, retired at age 65 and applied for Canada Pension Plan benefits. They either had wheat on hand, or would be receiving wheat board payments sometime in the future. They received the Canada Pension Plan benefits. When filing their income tax returns the following year they had to include grain sales and wheat board payments as part of their income. The result was they received letters shortly after filing their returns, stating they had been overpaid and asking for a refund of their Canada Pension Plan benefits. Basically this change is welcome.
There are other instances of people who retire at 65, people who had not earned that much during their lifetime. Their assets are such that they are not able to make ends meet. Even utilizing their Canada Pension Plan benefits they have to supplement their income. They find that, as a result of working to supplement their income, they lose part of their Canada Pension Plan benefits. This change in the act will do away with that inequity and I welcome it.
I also welcome the change in clause 8 which provides, and I quote:
-that income earned by a contributor but not actually received before his death be included as part of that contributor's contributory salary and wages.
Anyone involved in the handling of estates would have found this to be an inequity. It has created problems. Fortunately the government has seen fit, possibly because of representations, to make the necessary change in this act.
I also welcome the changes with regard to clauses applying to self-employed persons. The former requirement was that they had to earn at least one and one third of the

April 17, 1974
Canada Pension Plan
year's basic exemption to qualify as a contributor. The changes will enable a person who is self employed to contribute without complying with this provision.
The minister's news release of April 5 stated:
These changes will provide greater opportunity for people at lower income levels to participate in the Canada Pension Plan. In particular, increased numbers of farmers, fishermen and other self-employed persons will be enabled to improve their protection under the Plan.
I am interested in the reference to farmers. On March 19 of last year I submitted the following motion to this House:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Canada Pension Plan Act so as to allow farmers the option to make Canada Pension Plan contributions regardless of their net income.
There was a reason for submitting that motion for the consideration of the House. Farmers are in a difficult situation when it comes to their income. Their income is cyclical in nature. They are faced with the variations of price on the international market, with drought, with losses due to grasshopper infestation. Consequently their income fluctuates from year to year.
A farmer might have no taxable income for three years and then, for two years, he might have a substantial amount of income. During the three years in which he had little or no taxable income he is not able to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan. In the two years in which he does receive a substantial amount of income he is able to contribute the maximum. He is, of course, able to average his income over a five year period and as a result he becomes taxable each year.
By becoming taxable each year he pays taxes based on the rates for each taxation year, but there is no provision for him to make CPP contributions. In other words while, in effect, his income has been taxable for those five years he can only make contributions for, say, two years. The result is that when he comes to collect payments on retirement the amount he is entitled to receive is reduced, despite the fact that during the over-all period he has possibly received substantially more income than a person earning wages over the same period.
I suggested, when I spoke on my motion, that these facts should be taken into consideration, and that the government should consider changes in the act allowing a farmer the option of making contributions to the plan regardless of his net income. The answer I received was to the effect that the plan was not actuarially sound. This came as a surprise to me. I had always assumed that the plan would be actuarially sound, in other words that it would pay its way.
I was told subsequently that, at the rate at which benefits were being paid out, the plan would go into the red some time in the 80's. Later I was advised that, as a result of the increase in the benefits payable last year, the plan would go into the red some time in the late 70's. It seems to me that if we do not examine the whole concept of this scheme we shall create a situation in which our children, and their children, will be paying for the benefits we ourselves will be receiving. I believe the plan must be actuarilly sound, and I suggest to the minister that he take

a hard look at it and give thought to arranging it in such a way that it will pay for itself without becoming a burden on our children.
There are one or two further comments I should like to make. At times there is undue delay in paying benefits-to widows, in particular. I have found that the regional offices are very efficient. I refer particularly to the office in Regina. When I was practising law I know that after a widow had gone there to complete the necessary documentation, the representatives of the administration locally would have the documents ready in a matter of a week or ten days. Naturally, having made an application and having been told the documentation was complete, the widow expected she would be receiving benefits within, say, a month or six weeks. This was the exception rather than the rule.
When I inquired about the delays the answer I received was that they arose in Ottawa-the red tape was there. I have known cases where a widow had to wait for as long as six months before receiving payments under the plan. And not only were payments delayed. In many instances, when the husband died later than the month of June, widows would receive five or six months of benefit payments in the following year, say, in January. Under the Income Tax Act these back payments are counted as income in the year in which they are received. Mr. Speaker, I have seen situations in which widows have paid income tax on as many as 18 months of benefits.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Douglas Charles Neil: If that money had been paid to them prior to the end of the year, or if there was some provision in the Income Tax Act whereby benefits so received could have been considered as income in the previous year, no tax would have been payable at all. These are instances where the widows concerned had very little in the way of estates. I said it was a shame. As a matter of fact when I was practising law I wrote several letters to the Minister of National Revenue in this regard.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: All ignored, I suppose.


Douglas Charles Neil: Yes, as a matter of fact they were all ignored.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Douglas Charles Neil: I believe there are several other hon. members who would like to take part in this debate so I shall not proceed further with my comments. I am happy with the bill as far as it goes, but there are many changes which could be considered. I hope my comments about payments which come in after the end of the year will be taken into consideration by the minister, and by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury), and that changes will be made accordingly.


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my comments on Bill C-190 I should like to echo the words of the hon. member who has just preceded me. Basically I am satisfied with the amendments, but I think that some matters which ought to have been included have been omitted, and that the government has not gone far enough in certain respects.
April 17, 1974

Basically I agree with the argument in favour of equality as between male and female contributors. The situation of the female contributor has been improved by placing her on the same basis as far as dependents are concerned. I think we shall probably be called upon to review the whole subject to arrive at a fair and equitable formula which will enable housewives to participate in this plan. I appreciate the difficulties. I have read the minister's paper with interest, and I hope he will be able to produce a sensible solution.
I have never been able to understand the section in the present act which, in effect, instituted a means test at the age of 65. It did not make sense to me that if you contributed to a plan which was the same as any other insurance plan, and which paid a universal benefit, your pension would be reduced by the amount of your outside earnings. So I am glad that the minister has seen fit to abolish what was, in effect, a means test at the age of 65.
The changes in the formula for the year's maximum pensionable earnings ceiling, which will result in a change in the formula for benefits will, I know, be accepted cheerfully by all contributors to the plan. It is probably long past the time when this plan should have been modernized and adapted to make it more compatible with the present d^v cost of living.
However, I should just like to reaffirm what other hon. members who have spoken before me said, that we are rapidly reaching the stage where we must be very careful in all this tinkering with, and adjusting of, the CPP. I feel we are rapidly getting to the point where we might get into the same kind of mess the Unemployment Insurance Act is in. That was a good act until the government decided to monkey around and to make out of it a trough for catching votes in 1971 by broadening its provisions. This made the plan no longer actuarially sound. I hope this will be a lesson to the minister, and that before we go on to make any more generous amendments to the act we will make sure that the present fund, and the payments to be made, will be sufficient to take care of the increased benefits that are being provided.
Having said that, and having complimented the minister for bringing in these amendments to the act, I am a little disappointed that certain other amendments have not been made. The Canada Pension Plan is basically a good plan; I do not think anyone would question that. I think it is part of our social planning. Individuals have been able to incorporate the plan into their own private arrangements, which I think is probably the only way a good many Canadians have been able to develop any kind of retirement pension for themselves.
As I say, it is a good plan, and I think most are happy with it, but there is one class of contributor that is, I think, discriminated against. I do not know whether it is because of the wording of the act or because of the way the act is being interpreted, but the chief complaints I get about the CPP come from those who have to retire from work before the age of 65. On applying for the pension, in many cases they are refused because they do not come within the definition of "disability" under the act. I think this is my chief complaint with the amendments we are studying today.
Canada Pension Plan
The definition of "disabled person" is contained in section 43(2) (a) of the act. That section reads as follows:
(2) For the purposes of this Act,
(a) a person shall be considered to be disabled only if he is determined in prescribed manner to be suffering from a severe and
prolonged mental or physical disability-
I do not know what is meant by "prescribed manner", but it seems to me that if a person has a medical certificate from a qualified medical practitioner to the effect that he is incapable of working, and that further work would be injurious to his health, then that should be sufficient to qualify him for the Canada pension to which he has contributed since the plan came into force. "Prescribed manner" would seem to me to indicate that an examination by a qualified medical practitioner should be sufficient.
The subsection goes on to provide:
-a disability is severe only if by reason thereof the person in respect of whom the determination is made is incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation-
If an applicant's doctor advises him that, by reason of heart failure or a lung condition, or any other physical disability, further work is injurious to his health and might in fact result in his death, then surely that should be sufficient to qualify him under the disability section of the act for a pension. In fact the subsection goes on to refer to illness or disability that is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death.
I had a case the other day of a woman who had had one coronary and two cardiac arrests. Her doctor certified that she should not even take part in any light work. Certainly if anything is likely to result in death, it is cardiac arrest. This woman applied for her pension but was refused. In fact she was told, even though she had her own doctor's certificate, to get another medical examination.
Therein, Mr. Speaker, lies the rub. I come from a small town, and like most small towns in this country there is a shortage of doctors. It is hard enough to get one medical examination done by your own physician, but when you are told that your own physician's report cannot be accepted and that you will have to get an outside opinion, you find it takes 60 to 90 days, if you are lucky, to get an appointment with another doctor. I do not know whether the officials of the Canada Pension Plan are hoping these people will die within the 90 days while they are waiting for the other opinion or what, but I sometimes wonder.
This situation is serious enough, but much to my surprise only last week I discovered that in the city of Moncton-I do not know whether this applies to other cities-there are no doctors either capable of rendering a professional opinion that is acceptable to the department or willing to examine patients sent to them by the Canada Pension Plan administration. I do not know whether this is because the fee that the CPP pays is not high enough, or whether the doctors there are simply fed up with this business of having their professional judgment questioned; but we now have the ridiculous situation where people with serious heart conditions, emphysema, or other serious disabilities are told there is no doctor in Moncton qualified or willing to give the CPP a satisfactory report, and so they have to go to Halifax or Saint John.
1530

April 17, 1974
Canada Pension Plan
When senior citizens who have had two or three heart attacks, and do not know how long they are going to last, are told that they have to take a bus, train or plane trip to Halifax, some 200 miles away from Moncton, to undergo a medical examination, the frustration and excitement are enough to knock them off.
I could not believe that this was the practice of the CPP, so I called the local office. The first reply to me was: "Oh no, this is only done in exceptional cases". When I asked what the exceptional cases were, I discovered they were heart cases and lung cases in particular. I consider these the two most common causes of physical disability necessitating early retirement from work, and I found the situation almost unbelievable.
I do not know whether this is a policy that has been laid down by the minister or his officials. People in the local office always say their hands are tied, that there is nothing they can do about it because it is determined by the Ottawa office. If that is the case I certainly feel that Section 43 should be revised in order to make clear what is meant by substantial or gainful occupation.
How disabled must you be before you are incapable of other work? Must you be a basket case, or bedridden? When a person has suffered three or four serious heart attacks, surely the fact that he is able to walk does not mean he is able to work, but this seems to be the interpretation placed on this section by officials administering the plan. These are the people who are suffering.
It is all right to say that there is an appeal provision, but anyone who has had any experience with the appeal procedure under the Canada Pension Plan will know that there is an initial three-month delay before you can get another medical opinion, and that medical opinion may not be accepted before the commencement of the appeal procedure. This is where the delay and frustration begin.
I remember an appeal a few years ago when it took 15 months from the time the application was put in until the appeal was disposed of finally. I cannot see the justice in decisions which delay the payment of benefits to persons who have been forced to pay into the plan because deductions were made from salary. Where is the justice in forcing these people to wait 15 months because officials of the department are not prepared to interpret the regulations as they should be interpreted, or because there is not sufficient staff to look after the applications?
Perhaps the wording of this section could be changed, or something could be made clear in respect of the interpretation of what is a substantial or gainful occupation. Is it fair to suggest that because an individual has been a carpenter, and cannot work with his disability, there is no reason why he cannot be a nightwatchman or perhaps run an elevator? This is one of the things that has bothered me. I use elevators quite a bit and, as many others, I am not happy having somebody operating an elevator who is so disabled this is the only type of job he can do. It does not make sense to tell a person who has had three or four heart attacks that he should take a job as a nightwatchman. I do not think we want a person who is apt to drop dead at any moment on that kind of a job.
I was happy to hear the minister refer to upcoming revisions. He talked about many things and I cannot find the exact reference, but he did say that amendments would cover several areas. There was reference to disability payments, but no reference to a definition of disability. The proposed bill makes reference to a clarification of the definition of disabled children, but does not make any reference to what is a disability, or what procedure must be followed for these people to qualify.
As I indicated earlier, I am in favour of the amendments and appreciate them as far as they go, but I hope the amendments the minister has promised to bring in will take into consideration this whole section I have mentioned. It may be possible to improve it by legislation, or it may be that all that is required is a direction to the officials regarding interpretation. When this goes to the committee I hope this will be one of the matters considered, so that this category of people now being discriminated against will be able to obtain the fair treatment they are entitled to as contributors under the act.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to contribute to this debate I am in somewhat of a quandry as to whether I should begin or call it six o'clock.


An hon. Member:: Call it six o'clock.


Donald W. Munro: May I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, April 18, 1974