1974-04-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the incarceration for the past month of four Canadian students in an Iranian jail, as well as the large numbers of requests received by Canadian Embassies around the world for help on drug charges. I, therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan):
That this House instruct the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) to issue a directive to all high schools, colleges and universities in Canada outlining the dangers and possible penalties that tourists face when arrested on drug charges in a foreign country.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: No!


Some hon. Members:: Agreed!


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time under the terms of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely the drastic lay-off of employees at the General Instruments Corporation plant at Sydney, wherein the work force has been reduced from approximately 1,000 employees to the vicinity of 400 employees in the past few weeks.
In view of the fact that it appears close to impossible to secure from the corporation their intentions as far as their future operations at Sydney are concerned, the fact that certain pieces of equipment have been removed from the plant and the hardship that is being caused as a result of
this mass lay-off, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) immediately cause an investigation to be carried out to lend whatever assistance is possible to assist those employees affected by the lay-offs, ascertain as a result of the investigation what the future holds for this plant and also if those who have been laid off will be rehired. And, the minister's report back to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion is also proposed to the House under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and requires unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No!


Some hon. Members:: Agreed!


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43. The words of the motion speak for themselves so I shall not indulge in any preamble. I move:
That this House deems, since spokesmen for the official opposition have questioned the continuing of the government's tax concessions to corporations, that the requirements of subsection (3) of section 125.1 of the Income Tax Act regarding a motion supported by 60 members have been met, and that it is therefore in order for the House, within 15 days, to debate a motion calling for the discontinuance of the corporate tax deductions granted by last session's Bill C-192.
The motion is seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens).


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure about the hon. member's seconder. In any event, I will inquire if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No!


Some hon. Members:: Agreed!


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.

April 16, 1974
Report on Regulatory Boards and Agencies


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely the unacceptable delays in the payments of unemployment insurance benefits. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That this House instruct the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in charge of the Unemployment Insurance Commission to table as soon as possible the new Unemployment Insurance Act, as announced in the Throne Speech, or the candies speech.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. 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.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, notice of the following motion was given to the government House leader well in advance, and he has had time to consider it. I would therefore move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the report on the Consumer Interest in Regulatory Boards and Agencies by the Canadian Consumer Council, released on April 15th, by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member for St. John's East, and seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, 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.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY FAILURE OF GOVERNMENT TO GRANT ALLOTTED DAY
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move a motion for the adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration and falling within the responsibilities of the government under the heading of supply, as admitted by the President of the Privy Council, namely, the refusal of the government to grant an allotted day within the provisions of Standing Order 58.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has given the Chair the required notice under the provisions of Standing Order 26. This has given the Chair an opportunity to reflect on the important point raised by the hon. member. In passing, may I thank the hon. member for the background documents submitted by instalments to the Chair, which have been found both interesting and intellectually stimulating.
As all hon. members know, Standing Order 58 is the governing order in relation to the matter raised by the hon. member for Peace River and deals, generally speaking, with the businesses of supply and ways and means. Under that Standing Order, at the commencement of each session, there is designated by motion a continuing order of the day. The parliamentary timetable for the consideration of business under Standing Order 56 is divided into three distinct periods. One of these periods terminates not later than December 10, and during that time five sitting days shall be allotted to the business of supply. The second period of the timetable expires not later than March 26 of each year, and during that time a further seven days is allotted. This brings us to the third distinct period, which ends not later than June 30. In each of the periods, and more particularly for the purposes of the current problem, two days may, at the option of members in opposition, be declared to be non-confidence days.
The question the Chair has to determine is whether or not, during the period commencing March 27 and expiring on June 30, that the hon. member refers to as "the refusal of the government to grant an allotted day" is the foundation for an adjournment debate under Standing Order 26. The requirements of Standing Order 26 are well known to all hon. members. Section 5 of the Standing Order states that in determining whether a matter should have urgent consideration Mr. Speaker "shall have regard to the extent to which it concerns the administrative responsibilities of the government or could come within the scope of ministerial action-"
Precedents extending over a long period of time indicate that these words always have been interpreted as referring to a sudden emergency requiring immediate ministerial intervention. The Standing Order has never been interpreted as applying to the operation of other Standing Orders. In this particular instance, the hon. member's proposed motion seeks precisely to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing the operation of Standing Order
April 16, 1974

58, a situation which in my view is not contemplated by subsection (5) of Standing Order 26.
In the circumstances, I am afraid I cannot agree with the contention of the hon. member for Peace River that an adjournment debate under the provisions of Standing Order 26 can be invoked to debate the application or the interpretation of another Standing Order.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It concerns the question I asked the parliamentary secretary yesterday when he was reading the answers to the questions on the order paper. The parliamentary secretary was misleading the House when he stated it would cost the government $1.5 million to answer Question No. 319 standing in my name on the order paper. If the parliamentary secretary has proof of this accounting, I would like him to present it to the House so that the rest of the members can have a look at it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It concerns a very dangerous practice that seems to be creeping into our proceedings. In the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) yesterday, a very important study which had been commissioned by the Canadian Consumer Council was released by the minister's office. The study deals with the consumer interest in regulatory boards and agencies. It has been in the minister's hands since June. We understand the minister has every right to have this document as long as it is necessary for him to understand it. We further understand it takes the minister a little longer than most to be able to absorb what is in these documents.
My point of order is that this document more properly should have been placed before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 41. I raise this point to get the guidance of Your Honour, because if parliament is sitting and if ministers are allowed to circumvent the rules in this way, I see no purpose in parliament being in session in the first instance. This very important document should be officially laid on the table of the House under Standing Order 41. I say the minister is in contempt of this House by circumventing the rules and releasing this study outside the House yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) requires a ruling of the Chair. He has raised a point of order. There being no further debate, I wonder whether it would be helpful for the Chair to make a ruling.
This standing order clearly provides a way for ministers of the Crown to table documents. It was introduced several years ago in order to make it easier for members of the ministry to table documents without points of order and without debate. I am not sure the standing order can be interpreted as imposing an obligation on ministers to table documents in the House under Standing Order 41. That may be so, although I do not think I could interpret the standing order as it now stands in that way.
It may well be that the standing order was designed and devised to make it possible for ministers to table their documents, and to encourage them to table them in the
Oral Questions
House rather than publish them outside the House. My impression is this general rule has been followed for some time. I have not observed, nor have I sought to observe or study, whether there has been a departure from that rule. I will perhaps look at the matter in this light. However, my ruling on the point of order raised by the hon. member will have to be that I cannot interpret the standing order as imposing an obligation on the minister to table the document or to publicize the document under the terms of Standing Order 41.


Mr. Stevens:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Before I took my seat in the chamber I understand the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre proposed a motion of which, perhaps inadvertantly, he suggested I was the seconder. Possibly he intended to mention the name of the hon. member for York South, not York-Simcoe, because I had never seen the motion before.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On that point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that it was a question of privilege, not a point of order, though the hon. member did make a point which was more in the nature of a point of order than a question of privilege. Anyway, he is on the record now as divorcing himself from the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise, then, on a point of order. I do not accept the accusation of having made a mistake. I deliberately named the hon. member for York-Simcoe because I took him at his word-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That is where you made your mistake.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not follow my words yesterday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I certainly did. Read Hansard.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: A question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the move over the weekend by the Bank of Canada to increase the bank rate has been interpreted by managers of money as being a signal to tighten the screws on credit, and has already led to increases charged by the chartered banks and so on down the line, and since it is

April 16, 1974
Oral Questions
clearly leading to a substantial change in the monetary thrust, I should like to ask the minister whether it is a firm indicator that the bank, and in association with the bank the government of this country, are again resorting to the discredited approach of drastic tightening and slowdown to deal with inflation-in other words, whether we are back again to the discredited policy of 1969 and 1970?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Without accepting the preamble advanced by the hon. gentleman, the answer is, no.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since this move by the bank will clearly lead to a general increase in credit costs, in particular to higher mortgage rates and higher operating costs for small businesses, costs which are in themselves inflationary since they make for higher prices, I should like to ask the minister whether it is the government's intention that this should happen, or, if not, what the government proposes to do.


John Napier Turner: The government takes the view that an undue increase in the money supply, which would have occurred had interest rates remained as they were, would have been more inflationary than the results of the allegation set forth in the hon. gentleman's preamble. As a matter of fact, the government might well receive an endorsement from the speeches by the hon. gentleman's colleague, the hon. member for Don Valley.


REASON FOR INCREASE IN PRIME RATE BY BANK OF CANADA
Robert Lorne Stanfield: should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether it would not be nearer the truth to say that the Bank of Canada felt it necessary to take this drastic action to increase the bank rate, with resulting severe increases in the cost of goods for Canadians across the board, because of the lack of any other policy on the part of the government to deal with the inflationary expectations of the people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker, that would not be nearer the truth.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the recent report about the grounding of an Imperial Oil tanker in the St. Lawrence waterway with a resulting serious oil spill in that waterway, I would ask the minister whether he would inform the House of the extent of the oil spill and the measures being used to contain it.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this spill occurred in American waters, not Canadian waters, but as the water comes down, of course,

the spill constitutes a danger. We have taken immediate and appropriate measures. The ship has been boomed so that the oil does not flow into Canadian waters. I hope that the Americans, with our help, can handle this spill.


GROUNDING OF TANKER IN ST. LAWRENCE-ASSURANCE OF USE OF QUALIFIED PILOTS
Randolph Harding: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister give the House the reasons for the grounding of the tanker in this waterway, as it was obviously off course, and did it have a properly qualified pilot on board?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is part of the normal inquiry that the Americans are supposed to hold, because in this case they are responsible for this section.


Randolph Harding: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the inherent dangers involved in ships using the St. Lawrence River without fully qualified pilots, I would ask the minister what steps are being taken to ensure that all ships in this area be required to utilize only those pilots fully qualified.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there is no obligation under the law at the moment to have pilots in this section. It may be the shipowners and pilots association will decide to change their minds, and perhaps the department can discuss it with the Americans. Up to now, however, there has been no obligation to have pilots aboard in this section of the river.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Postmaster General.
On television last night, the minister looked rather annoyed at the goons who have been intimidating the Montreal postal workers. Is he in a position to tell this House where the negotiations stand with the Montreal postal workers union, negotiations meant to insure an early settlement of the dispute?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, according to the latest news, a great many workers have returned to work in Montreal. There has been enough mail handling to enable postmen to deliver the mail at the beginning of the afternoon. Incidentally, the postmen are very anxious to do their work. I trust this good example will be followed by all Montreal employees and I hope the situation will be cleared up very soon.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question to the Postmaster General.
April 16, 1974

Can the minister assure the House that the employees who have gone back to work are adequately protected against the hired muscle boys who are now intimidating these people?


André Ouellet: As much as possible, Mr. Speaker, security measures are being taken so as to enable all our employees wishing to work to fulfill their task according to the clauses of the collective agreement which stipulates that no strike must take place before the expiration of the agreement, that is by the end of December this year.


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: I would like to put a supplementary question to the Postmaster General.
In view of the very real technological changes and therefore the difficulties that postal workers are having in Montreal, is the minister prepared to postpone the deadline of the postal code operation in order to negotiate with union representatives concerning all the consequences that this new system may have on employees and guarantee job security?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's comments indicate that he does not know what he is talking about.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; I will recognize the hon. member-

I recognize the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe. [English]
I notice that the hon. member for Mackenzie has been trying for sometime today as he was yersterday to ask a question and 1 will recognize him in due course. [Translation]
For the time being, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe has the floor.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I wish once again to ask the Postmaster General a question.
Although I may be willing to submit to the hon. member's arrogance, unionized workers in Montreal will not.
Would the hon. member kindly reply to my very precise question and advise the unionized employees of the Post Office whether he intends to grant them job security and postpone the deadline for the introduction of the postal code operation in order to facilitate the present round of bargaining? Is the hon. minister willing to reply to this question, instead of giving new evidence of his well-demonstrated arrogance?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, union leaders have not asked for any postponement. They only asked that the classifications of a number of employees be reconsidered. The statements made are nonequivocal in this respect. Nobody opposes automation in the Post Office Department or the mechanization of our work. While the hon. member is asking us to postpone the mechanization process, this is not even what is being asked by the very employees concerned.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for St. John's East on a supplementary, to be followed by the hon. member for Broadview and then the hon. member for Calgary North.


FINANCE
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the most recent figures indicate an upward trend in unemployment in the Atlantic provinces, and in view of the fact that the latest survey shows that high interest rates are operating counterproductive to the government's regional development policies, I would ask what steps the minister proposes to take to offset the effect of these high interest rates on regional development, especially in the Atlantic provinces?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the fiscal policies of the government include the initiatives proposed and fulfilled by my colleague the Minister for Regional Economic Expansion, and the Atlantic province region is one of the prime beneficiaries of those policies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBLE CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT POLICY ON EXCHANGE RATE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday when the minister was trying to explain the policies the government has followed he suggested that one reason for the rise in the interest rate in Canada was related to the international situation, yet consistently he has said in this House that the government's policy in respect of the exchange rate is to let it float freely. I would ask the minister today whether there has been a pronounced change in the government's policy in respect of the exchange rate, and what it is?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: That's absolutely ridiculous.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBLE INCREASE IN MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES- GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PROTECT PURCHASERS OF HOMES
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the predicted increase in mortgage interest rates of one per cent, making a $40,000 mortgage at 11 Vi per cent interest cost an additional $8,205, thereby increasing the
1458

April 16, 1974
Oral Questions
monthly mortgage payments by $27.45 a month for a period of 25 years, what immediate steps will the minister take to protect the purchasers of homes against these unconscionable increases?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. gentleman uses the word "predicted" in his preamble he converts the question into a hypothetical one which I feel should better be-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Broadview on a last supplementary question, and then the hon. member for Calgary North.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Finance assure the people who will be purchasing homes under the social housing policies of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that the present rates will be frozen and that no increases will take place?


An hon. Member:: Don't hold your breath.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that assurance but I can assure the hon. gentleman and the people that the thrust of the policy of my colleague will continue to achieve the results it is achieving-


An hon. Member:: Yes, high prices and more inflation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: And fewer houses.


John Napier Turner: -including the fact that the first quarter results show housing starts are again at a record level.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Certainly record prices.


POSSIBILITY HIGHER MORTGAGE RATES CAUSED BY INCREASE IN BANK RATE DESIGNED TO CURB DEMAND FOR HOUSES-SUGGESTED INCREASE IN SUBSIDIZED MORTGAGE PROGRAM
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question in relation to the bank rate. In view of the fact that the bank rate increase will be reflected in higher mortgage rates for those who wish to own homes, is the bank rate increase intended by the minister and his government to curb the consumer demand for housing and thus alleviate the demand side of the housing crisis?


John Napier Turner: No, Sir.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister this one further supplementary question? In view of the fact that bank rate increases will, of course, make first mortgage rates climb to 12 per cent and second mortgage rates to as high as 16 per cent, thus making it even more difficult for the average Canadian to own a home, does the minister, when talking this over with his colleague the

Minister of State for Urban Affairs responsible for housing, intend to increase the subsidized mortgage program to compensate for those who have been forced to drop out of the commercial mortgage market due to prohibitively high interest rates?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's question is founded on a hypothesis he has created for himself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


HOUSING
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should then like to direct this question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs who is responsible for housing. In light of the high interest rates of 12 per cent on first mortgages and as high as 16 per cent on second mortgages, about which the Minister of Finance does not seem to care, does he have any program to freeze rents at present levels, which are, of course, eroding the incomes of not only old age pensioners but all those on fixed incomes?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the hypothesis of the hon. member's question, I must say that programs under the National Housing Act are aimed directly at those people the hon. member's question mentions, to provide them with housing.


An hon. Member:: They are aimed, but they are not hitting the target.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I would mention specifically the program referred to by the hon. member, namely the assisted Home Ownership Program which is a subsidized assistance program.


THE BUDGET
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Will the fact that the Bank of Canada has increased its interest rate by one per cent have an effect on the date the minister will bring down his budget, or is this in line with government policy?


John Napier Turner: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: No what?


Stanley James Korchinski: Does that mean it will have no effect on the date he will bring down his budget, or no this is not in line with government policy?


John Napier Turner: No-
April 16, 1974


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is a little difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff in this question.


An hon. Member:: You don't even know the difference.


John Napier Turner: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker, the action by the Governor of the Bank of Canada will not affect the date of the budget.


BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader. In light of the refusal of the government to make available an allotted day for the opposition before the budget, which will result in 13 allotted days being concentrated within the period of 22 sitting days, a clear violation of the spirit of the rules and a breach of the undertaking by the Prime Minister, will the government House leader consult with his colleagues in respect of reviving the Committee of Supply for five of the opposition days, permitting the opposition to choose the department's estimates to be debated in the Committee of Supply, in order that the people of Canada will have the chance, through their elected representatives, to say what they think about the number one issue in this country today?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the implicit assumption in the hon. member's question that the government can survive a budget and will be able to continue into the normal supply period. I have always had a hankering for the Committee of Supply, and I certainly would consider some method by which that objective could be achieved in the Committee of Supply or with Mr. Speaker in the Chair, so that members could deal with the estimates. I certainly would consider that.


Gerald William Baldwin: I thank the hon. gentleman for what he is saying, which is of course in accordance with what the procedure committee proposed in its first report last session. Will the government House leader then consider adopting this suggestion within the next ten days so that we will not have to wait until a period after the budget when we will have all these days concentrated together, which will not be good parliamentary practice?


Mr. Hees:: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not think I can commit myself to the timing of any allotted day, but I certainly will keep in mind the general advice that the hon. member has given.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Prince George on a supplementary, and then the hon. member for Bellechasse.


REASON FOR FAILURE TO GRANT OPPOSITION DAY
George Harris Hees: You said George, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognized the hon. member.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. Since the present week gives the government five days which the government did not expect to have for its legislative program, could the Acting Prime Minister give one good reason why the government will not allow an opposition day to be held this week in this found time?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost confidence in the leader of the House who has done such an excellent job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Let's put it to a vote.


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


HOUSING
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Since several municipalities in Quebec cannot fully benefit from Bill C-133 because no overall agreement has been concluded by Ottawa and Quebec, will the minister tell the House whether such an agreement is about to be signed and, if not, what prevents the conclusion of this agreement?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, it has not been signed simply because it is still being negotiated between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Quebec.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
I remember distinctly that the minister declared at the beginning of the session that negotiations were getting to an end. May I ask once more whether we can hope that an agreement will be reached and signed in the near future so that an encouraging answer may be given to municipalities?
27451-29 J

April 16, 1974
Oral Questions


Stanley Ronald Basford: I, along with the hon. member, would certainly hope so.


FINANCE
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, but in his absence perhaps I could direct it to the Acting Prime Minister.
Considering that the problems of investment financing resulting from a higher bank rate are likely to be most easily overcome by the established industrial base of central Canada, which has more extensive capital reserves to draw upon, does the minister anticipate any worsening of regional disparities as the result of the expensive credit policies of the Bank of Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.


J. Robert Howie: Has the minister consulted with his colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, as to whether additional regional stimulative measures will be required in order to compensate for the increased financing difficulties faced by firms considering plant establishment or expansion in areas of regional disparity?


Mitchell William Sharp: I can assure the hon. gentleman that if such difficulties do arise there would be such consultations and such action.


REQUEST FOR AMOUNT OF EXPORTS AND NAMES OF UNITED STATES CORPORATIONS USING DISC
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of a report made public in the United States yesterday that more than a quarter of U.S. exports to Canada were funnelled through the DISC program, and that this includes most if not all companies which take part in the auto pact, and in view of the government's declaration in April, 1972, that DISC subsidized exports are a violation of the auto pact, what steps is the government taking and has the minister been in contact with American government officials with regard to this matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons the Minister of Finance introduced his special concessions for Canadian manufacturers was to offset actions of this kind. I think the success of this program has shown that, in fact, we have done extremely well.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am not interested in a speech on behalf of CMA, Mr. Speaker, I am interested in knowing what this government is doing, especially in view of the fact

that reports yesterday indicated that U.S. automobile companies may have saved some $400 million in taxes because of DISC. I want to know whether or not the Acting Prime Minister knows what companies are taking advantage of DISC and how much of their exports have been channelled through the DISC program. Could he give some definitive answers?


Mitchell William Sharp: I cannot give a positive answer. We do not know which companies are taking advantage of DISC, but it was in response to measures like this that the government of Canada introduced the measures that are now on the books and that have enabled us to do so well in competition with the U.S.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will be recognized for a further supplementary, after which I will see the hon. member for Red Deer.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the fact that the minister is saying he does not know what companies are taking advantage of DISC or what is happening, will the minister undertake to contact U.S. officials to find out which companies are taking advantage of DISC and to what extent? Will he make that undertaking to the House?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not personally know which companies are taking advantage of DISC but the hon. gentleman will recall that the government has a surveillance program which enables it to watch the situation. We cannot, of course, reveal the tax position of any particular Canadian or particular corporations.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Would the minister inform the House what his position is as Minister of Transport, in view of the fact the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board stated that the government will purchase 4,000 hopper cars, the Canadian Wheat Board offered to buy 4,000 hoppers cars under certain conditions, and the CPR and CNR said that the supply of railway cars is not the problem?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I understand the wording of the question, but I would like to know exactly what the hon. member wishes to know. I think the Minister of Justice announced that we were going to buy 4,000 hopper cars.


Some hon. Members:: When?


Jean Marchand: I think that they have to ask for submissions to find somebody who would build them.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: 1980.


Jean Marchand: If the hon. member knows the answer, let him put it in Hansard, but I think he is
April 16, 1974

wrong. The answer is: as soon as they can be built. We were told by the Wheat Board that they intended to do the same. As to what date, it would be preferable to ask the Minister of Justice himself.


Thomas Gordon Towers: I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. Does the Canadian Wheat Board have jurisdiction to purchase hopper cars without the approval of the grain producers?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, that is an even more appropriate question for the Minister of Justice.


FINANCE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the remarkable statement by the Minister of Finance yesterday in the House that the budget was being delayed because of the uncertainties in the economy surrounding oil price increases, and in view of the further fact that on January 22 the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources presented on behalf of the government a very specific forecast to the First Ministers Conference on Energy indicating the impact of the oil situation on the consumer price index, could the Minister of Finance today tell us either the date of the budget or the real reason why the government does not want to present it to the House immediately?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's preamble just does not hang together.


Claude Wagner: You are going to hang.


John Napier Turner: I said yesterday that one of the reasons for delaying the budget was to ascertain the results of the first ministers' conference in dividing the benefits and burdens of the $5 million potential revenue and $5 million potential burden in sharing the oil price situation in Canada. That having been done, that situation is being satisfied; that is what I put to the House yesterday.


PARTICIPATION BY DEPARTMENT IN PREPARATIONS FOR CONFERENCE ON ENERGY
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In spite of the fact that is not what the minister said yesterday, I wonder if I could ask if he or members of his department had any hand in the paper presented by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to the first ministers' conference in January?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, without revealing the total ingredients and participation in government policy, I can say that the Depart-
Oral Questions
ment of Finance was involved in any statement of my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and in the preparation leading up to the Prime Minister's participation in the meeting of first ministers.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. I should like to ask if and when the governor of the Bank of Canada will have a budget to present to the House?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is not within his terms of reference as approved by parliament.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Can the hon. gentleman tell us briefly how negotiations are proceeding with regard to the difficulties in the St. Lawrence River with the pilots and at the same time can he indicate whether the problems with the firefighters are completely resolved?


An hon. Member:: And how about the postmen?


An hon. Member:: How about the controllers?


Jean Marchand: And the
whole report on labour relations in Canada! Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows I am not the one who negotiates for all these groups. As far as the pilots are concerned, I met with them for two hours this morning and we tried to find a solution. We hope we are on the right track, but I am not sure it would be accepted the way it was presented. As far as the firefighters are concerned, this is a problem between the alliance and the firefighters. I am still hopeful that the firefighters are going to follow the advice of their union.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to be brief with my supplementary. In view of the fact that Treasury Board pay policies, which appear to be regional pay as far as the west is concerned and national pay in the east, appear to be root causes in both these situations as well as others, does the minister intend to make representations to the President of the Treasury Board to take a fresh approach in this whole matter?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think if you look at the two problems you will see they are different because the airport firefighters in British Columbia want to compare themselves with the Vancouver firefighters, and the St. Lawrence pilots want to compare themselves

April 16, 1974
Oral Questions
with the British Columbia pilots, so it is not exactly the same thing.


HOUSING
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, supplementary to one asked by the hon. member for Calgary North to which he replied that the government did not accept the hypothesis on mortgage rates. Could the minister indicate what interest rates home owners who are presently contemplating building homes in Canada could anticipate, and what relief the minister has in mind for middle income people who presently cannot afford housing and are not eligible for housing programs?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the interest rate would depend upon the agency from which the prospective home owner intended to borrow. My answer to the hon. member for Calgary North referred to assisted home ownership programs which start interest rates at 9 per cent and effectively subsidizes them, given certain income conditions, down to 6 per cent.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question to the Postmaster General.
I expect a very good answer in any event. Did the union first ask that a policy be established for the retirement of older employees to increase job security and if it did, can the minister say whether he is in favour of such a policy?


André Ouellet: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the union has made such a request.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General pertaining to a recent incident of violence committed by a convict in Millhaven penitentiary who assaulted and seriously injured a guard, Mr. Izard, last Sunday, April 14, when the latter was performing his duties. Will the minister investigate this offence and deal with it forthwith?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, this incident is already under investigation by the Ontario provincial police and the inmate who attacked the officer has been put in disassociation.


Mr. Andre:: You mean he is free!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, could I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs? Following upon the information given to the House yesterday by the Minister of Transport that representations would be made to the United States government in the hope of bringing some pressure to bear upon railroads in the United States to return Canadian railway cars to Canada, can the minister tell the House whether he has yet made those representations to the United States government and what response he got?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my department may already have done so but I expect if they have not already done so I will be getting word today.


ABANDONMENT OF STUDY OF SUPPLY OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES-ADVICE TO STUDENTS-POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact students hired in March to work on the National Sports and Recreational Facilities Supply and Demand Study were informed on April 1 that this project would not be continued because federal funds were not forthcoming, and in view of one student reporting that he was advised by his regional co-ordinator not to contact his member of parliament as this would not assist passage of this project through Treasury Board and might put undue pressure on the minister and also not to advise the press, would the minister tell the House if this advice was given generally to the students affected and was the minister aware of it?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Would the minister inform the House what alternative employment or compensation may be offered to the close to 100 young people affected by being deprived of summer job opportunities by this change of government policy?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, there have been various possibilities in terms of employment in the economy general-

ly and there is also the federal program for student employment this summer.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the fact that farm credit loans recently were allowed to rise from 7 per cent to 8!4 per cent, further increasing the cost of farm inputs and in turn higher consumer costs and now the prime bank rate has been allowed to rise to 814 per cent, can the minister assure the House that the cost of farm credit loans will not further increase?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, before any interest rate is changed on Farm Credit Corporations loans it will be duly considered, that is for sure.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Lincoln and also the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster whom I meant to recognize a moment ago.


POSSIBLE MEASURES TO LOWER LEVELS OF LAKES ONTARIO AND ERIE-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Kenneth J. Higson (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact that Mr. Cohen and Mr. Herter, co-chairmen of the International Joint Commission are of the opinion that the commission itself does not have the power to initiate studies relating to measures which might be undertaken to reduce the dangerously high water levels of lakes Ontario and Erie, but must on the other hand rely on the initiatives of the governments of Canada and the United States. Can the minister advise the House what measures are being taken or contemplated by the government to assure that the water levels are reduced to the maximum extent possible?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, references have been made from time to time to the International Joint Commission jointly by Canada and the United States. I know that numerous studies have been carried out, and the International Joint Commission have advised that little can be done to affect the levels substantially. Further studies are under way.


Kenneth James Higson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have almost reached the end of the question period. The hon. member for Lincoln may ask a supplementary, followed by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster and the hon. member for
Oral Questions
Esquimalt-Saanich, who also has a supplementary, after which we will call orders of the day.


Kenneth James Higson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What has been the government's response to the request from the International Joint Commission's lake level board with regard to studying the feasibility of better controlling and possibly increasing the flow of water from the Great Lakes down through the St. Lawrence River?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have committed additional staff and moneys to carrying out these investigations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In fairness, before I recognize the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster I should recognize the hon. member for Montreal-Bourassa.


POSSIBILITY OF AGREEMENT WITH QUEBEC ON WATER LEVELS AROUND MONTREAL
Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Montreal-Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Can the minister tell the House whether an agreement has recently been signed concerning the control of rising waters in the Montreal area?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry; I did not hear the first part of the question.


Mr. Trudel:: Mr. Speaker, may I put my question again to the minister?
Can he tell the House whether an agreement has recently been signed with the province of Quebec with regard to the control of rising waters in the Montreal area?


John (Jack) Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, but there are discussions going on with the province of Quebec in this connection.


HARBOURS
Mr. Tom Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It concerns the Atlantic area. Now that the minister's departmental officials have made an assessment of the multimillion dollar fire damage to the port of Saint John, will the minister accede to the request of the city of Saint John for a top-level meeting, hopefully attended by the minister himself, to assess the entire port development as it affects the future of that city?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am ready to meet with the mayor of the city of Saint John. I know the situation there is serious. I presume that they will get in touch with Mr. Taylor, the head of the National Harbours Board. Up to now Mr. Taylor has

April 16, 1974
Loans Acts Amendments
not given any report to me. As soon as I get one I will let the hon. member know.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich on a supplementary and then call orders of the day.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I hoped again today to address a question to the President of the Treasury Board. I like to think that he is presiding over one or other of the bargaining sessions which, hopefully, are going on at this time. In his absence, may I ask a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Central Nova. I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the present rash of labour disputes and strikes has caused the government to urge Treasury Board to act more expeditiously in its contract bargaining, particularly in areas where employees are providing essential services such as airport firefighters?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague the Minister of Transport, I do not think that this is the essence of the problem. The problem relates to the fact that the members of the union have not followed the lead of their leaders.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-14, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, be read the third time and do pass, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Howard.
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, just before ten o'clock last night I had been pointing out that it is difficult for the small businessman to accumulate capital. Capital accumulated in a farm or business has often been used for purposes of a retirement pension for the owner and his wife. The advent of the basic old age pension, the Canada Pension Plan and the provision for increasing the size of these pensions in accordance with the increase in the cost of living has made the accumulation of an annuity for use after the normal retirement age of 65 almost superfluous. Certainly it is less important. No

amount of saving which the normal person is able to do can match what the government has offered by indexing the cost of living as it applies to the basic old age pension and the Canada Pension Plan. Therefore, the accumulation of capital to be used as retirement income is much less important now than it was even four or five years ago. Indeed, one could enter one's retirement years in a shroud, so to speak, and still be assured of a fairly reasonable living because of state help.
What I am saying is that we are entering a new era in which there are new attitudes toward accumulation of capital. People think differently about savings. This, of course, has a great deal to do with the legislation before us. Today, five of the major banks set their prime lending rate at 10.5 per cent following the move of the central bank. They did this to stimulate savings because at present inflation rates one can borrow money virtually at zero cost: the rate of inflation is greater than the rate of interest. One would be foolish not to borrow money under such circumstances.
In today's Globe and Mail appears an article by a member of the C.D. Howe Research Institute. The author points out that our savings will supply insufficient capital for our needs in the 1970s and 1980s. That fact will affect the workings of this legislation. Will our financial institutions have enough funds to make this bill effective? Furthermore, the article points out that a high proportion of people in the 20 to 35-year age group save relatively little of their income. This proportion will remain high for the next decade. The author makes one assumption which I feel is not likely to be fulfilled. He assumes that with rising personal incomes people will save more. The evidence does not bear him out because as the state, by paying the Canada pension and the basic old age pension, will look after people in their retirement years, it seems evident that savings will not be that important.
This bill will not do much to help the small businessman in the short term. The sharp increase in the Bank of Canada lending rate has come about in response to the increase in the number of bank loans. The banks evidently were running out of money to lend. It is difficult to say who was getting these loans. It appears that some of this money was used for purposes of liquidity. Apparently it has not been lent to those whom this legislation is supposed to help.
That brings me to this point: business has not been able to expand in the last few years and now we are paying the penalty by seeing shortage of supply and lack of capacity for the production of goods. The minister suggested shortly after introducing the bill that losses in connection with farm improvement loans have been remarkably low, amounting to about one-fifth of one per cent of the face value of loans. That may be so. The significant fact is that we are facing a real shortage of supply of agricultural products, which indicates that the loan program has been administered too rigidly.
One of the prime causes of inflation is the steadily expanding tendency of governments to spend more and more of the gross national product. The increase in the bank rate of interest is designed to cut down consumer demand and is a modest effort to moderate the increase in the money supply. That brings me to this point: this bill
April 16, 1974

will not be effective unless money can be directed, through the medium of small loans, to farmers, fishermen and small businessmen. A good deal of it will be lent by the banks. To keep costs down, the government should reduce the increase in its rate of spending.
Most government spending is inflationary because it consists of transfer payments which are spent immediately. Savings could be redirected through such institutions as the Industrial Development Bank which could be told to take greater risks with small loans so that small businessmen have access to capital. The administration of these loans acts could take greater risks in order to aid small businessmen, farmers and fishermen. I have some serious doubts whether raising the ceiling on these loans will be as beneficial as it should be unless certain directions are taken in lending money to individuals, farmers in particular. Unfortunately, governments federal and provincial become so involved in lending money to the agricultural industry that not much private money is left for investing. In other words, we look to this type of legislation for much of our total investment in farming.
As far as farming is concerned, we are in general agreement that the family farm is one of the best units for agricultural production and for the fabric of our rural countryside. When one considers that in the Soviet Union the state is considering extending farm units so there will be emerging many larger farms, we might ponder the philosophy of enlarging farm units even more. I reject the point of view that we need abnormally large farm units. However, we must recognize that in this country, and particularly in the farmlands of western Canada, very large acreages are being farmed as units with a minimum number of families involved. Much of the reason for these large-sized units has been the availability of government-financed loans obtained by individuals who would not have been able to expand had they had to depend on private money. In other words, governments both federal and provincial have made possible larger units than the private lending institutions would have allowed.
In this bill which extends the loan limits we have the elements of an undesirable feature, and this will be used by owners of large farms to acquire even larger units. If these loans could be earmarked for individuals with smaller operations, it would help them become more self-sufficient and more viable. At the same time, it would ensure that large-scale operators would have to acquire their money from private lending institutions for any expansion they wish to undertake. This is preferable to the suggestion that farm sizes should be limited by legislation.
Farm improvement loans might well have the social function of preserving small farms and assisting new and young farmers to become established. They might well have to assume more risks than those in which the lending institutions are currently involved. Farm population has dropped from almost 40 per cent at the beginning of World War II to 7 or 8 per cent at the present time. Many people consider this abnormally low. With the worsening energy shortage it is evident that more individuals will have to become involved in food production. Indeed, a great deal of food has always been produced by units which were
Loans Acts Amendments
considered by the so-called agricultural experts to be inefficient.
We have to realize that the term "viable unit" has many different aspects and means many different things within an individual's life. I think the banks which are involved in the loan operation under this legislation could take more risks and give small and new operators more risk capital. The aspect of the bill which raises the limits will not let the operator become more viable or the new operator become established unless direction is given to lending institutions that these people should have a preferred position.
Turning to small business, this is an area in which I am very interested. I sincerely believe that small business provides a very strong pivot in our economy. It provides a built-in flexibility that large corporations cannot match. While it may not always be efficient, enough of it is efficient to make it an extremely valuable component of our society. In addition to the lending aspect or liability of small business, the most important thing for small business is that government leaves them alone. They are deluged with inspectors and advisers who create work and are an unnecessary expense for government. This is a much greater problem for small businesses than that of raising money. In fact, if governments could limit their demands on the management of small business it would go a long way toward making small business more viable. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on this bill.


William Charles Frank: Mr. Speaker, I again rise to speak on Bill C-14 because of great personal concern and obligation to many of my constituents, namely, small businessmen and their allied suppliers. When I spoke during the second reading debate on this bill last Wednesday I had the impression there would be an opportunity to move an amendment. Because we receive limited warning as to when a bill will be brought before the House I expected to have that opportunity when the bill was at the standing committee stage. However, immediately following second reading the House went into committee of the whole which, according to my limited knowledge of parliamentary procedure, did not allow for amendments.
The content of the amendment I would have moved would have counteracted what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) said was not in the bill when answering a question put to him by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) in committee of the whole. I quote from page 1396 of Hansard:
I have a further question, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the small business loans. Is this going to allow for the operation of the business, or is it strictly for the purchase of property and machinery?
The minister replied:
It is not for working capital, Mr. Chairman.
Having experienced first-hand the need for such working capital in my own business in the early stages of its existence, I feel very strongly that the minister, along with the amendments that were included in the bill, should have given very serious consideration to a provision for working capital. Perhaps it is quite easy for the Department of Finance to overlook the importance of and the necessity for working capital. The minister and his
1466

April 16, 1974
Loans Acts Amendments
department are so accustomed to being big spenders that they cannot comprehend the plight of small business owners. They obviously do not appreciate the fact that the only way many small business owners can survive is to take out only enough money after meeting employee payroll and operating expenses to provide the bare essentials for their families.
The absence of working capital is not nearly as evident in the two segments of the bill dealing into the Farm Improvement Loans Act, and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. These two areas are not involved in having accounts receivable to contend with to the same extent as the small businessman. As I have stated before, the most crucial area that has contributed to the bankruptcy of small businesses has been the lack of working capital. The business is launched, in many cases, with very little surplus cash in the bank. In many cases, if the owner could trade the overabundance of enthusiasm he must have possessed in order to have had the nerve to start the enterprise in the first place, for some working capital he would not have too many financial problems as he progressed. However, this is not the case, as the minister indicated. The bank demands sufficient collateral before lending small business any money. This in essence proves, even if the loan is granted, just how necessary it was in the first place.
Mr. Speaker, the necessity for freer working capital has always seemed so evident that I cannot help but wonder why it has not exercised a more important influence in the structuring of this bill and similar bills over the years since the introduction of the act. The most obvious reason working capital is not considered is that receivables have not nearly the collateral value of physical structures, equipment or real estate. However, take away receivables and most business would not need to exist. So they are, Mr. Speaker, an important cog in the cycle of success. But for banks to use this excuse to support their negative approach to small business loans only supports my further argument that banks should have some degree of obligation to make loans supported by applications which obviously if approved would help the advancement of Canadian products and also create more employment.
We have ambitious young people and, yes, some not so young who, given financial encouragement beyond the normal guidelines laid down for lending money, would continue to create the ideas necessary to keep alive the free enterprise system which has been so significant in our first century of Canadian progress. I have many constituents who are interested in starting a business or looking for ways to continue one already in progress. But by the time they have checked the sources of capital and the red tape involved, they are either discouraged from pursuing their dream of a business of their own or ready to throw up their hands in frustration at being able to continue the one they already have.
Mr. Speaker, we spend a lot of time debating how to encourage more Canadian investment. One obvious way would be to encourage the banks to show some compassion to our small business community, thus discouraging them from having eventually to sell out to foreign investors in order to keep from ultimate bankruptcy. But the only way

I can see banks ever doing this is to make it obligatory for them to loan to at least a percentage of applicants. The minister in committee of the whole stated as follows:
I suppose the best way to know what is going on in terms of refused applications is for members, when they are approached by their constituents regarding refused loans, to inform me of these complaints and I will make inquiries directly from the bank concerned to find out what the reasons were for the refusal. I am prepared to do that on a continuing basis.
To me, Mr. Speaker, that sounds like a very diplomatic way of passing the buck, and as far as I am concerned the taxpayer sees far too much evidence of buck-passing now. There must be guidelines laid down so that the banks and their potential customers know what could take place. I do not blame the banks for not wanting to be any more involved than is necessary, and past lending statistics will bear this out. The fact is that from the date the Small Businesses Loans Act came into effect in January, 1961, until September, 1973, approximately $283 million was lent for all of Canada. This is about $23 million per year on average. But something is wrong when we find the loans total for small business was no more in 1973 than in 1972, being about $15 million per year. And now Mr. Speaker, with the recent turn of events of the central bank's interest rate increasing, we will probably see less activity than before. Not only will we see growth restriction, but small business owners already in a bind for working capital will find increased costs in maintaining inventory and receivables because of an interest rate of probably 12 per cent.
Many businesses in the past have had to resort to shortterm loans of 12 per cent, or even much higher, from private sources but now they will be faced with 12 per cent from even the banks, and heaven knows how high from private sources. I am afraid this could be the so-called straw that broke the camel's back. Mr. Speaker, many very credible businesses have already exhausted their credit supply. There have been many legitimate reasons for this increase in the cost of doing business. If they are retailers, an increase in the price of the merchandise they sell means more inventory cost. If they are small manufacturers, the increased cost of maintaining inventory also applies. In both cases their cost of maintaining higher receivables will increase.
No one denies business today is strong, and all types of small business is no exception; but with runaway inflation so evident in every phase of our economy, many small businesses could be unknowingly accelerating themselves right into bankruptcy. Unhappily, the government has proven itself bankrupt of any solutions which might slow down this inflation. The inflation we see all around us is not totally induced from outside, as this government would have the Canadian people believe. Better than half of the now well over 10 per cent total inflation rate could be slowed down by a responsible government. It is obvious that we cannot expect any new ideas for fighting inflation from this government, but for the sake of Canada's future let us hope we shall not have to wait too long before the Canadian people have the opportunity to change the government.
As was stated earlier by my colleague from Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly) 60 per cent of the labour force in Canada is supported by small or medium-sized business. That statement in itself should be encouragement to take another
April 16, 1974

hard look at just how little these amendments will actually do for small business. Mr. Speaker, couple that statement with the fact that even though actual farmers represent only 5 per cent of Canadians, when you include all segments of our economy allied to agriculture the figure is raised to 70 per cent. This government is looking over or, perhaps I should be saying, overlooking a lot of people who I am afraid have been taking too much for granted.
However, Mr. Speaker, I realize it is too late at this stage to do any more than remind the architects of this bill, whoever they may be, of some of its shortcomings. The real changes will have to wait until the citizens of Canada have the opportunity to vote out of office this government which seems determined to stay in power even though their incompetence is becoming more and more evident week by week.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of participating in the debate on Bill C-14. Although in past years I had the opportunity of serving on the Standing Committee on Fisheries, changes in the electoral boundaries removed from my riding practically all the area in which fishing was an important matter of concern. The result is that at the present time I am inclined to leave discussion of the fisheries aspect to my hon. friends whose constituents are more concerned with that industry.
Nevertheless, in case there should be some misunderstanding, I want to state emphatically that I still have a strong interest in the fishing industry. When we remember the part the Fraser River system plays in maintaining these resources, it is understandable that such an interest should continue. However, it is my desire today to comment on the provisions of the bill which relate to agriculture, an industry of major proportions and consequence in my riding. I should like to deal, too, with the aspects of the bill which affect small businesses of which there are a great many in Fraser Valley East.
When I spoke on the budget last year, I stated that small business in Canada generates more employment, real growth, tax revenue, and bears more of the cost burden of government than does so-called big business. Small businesses are the backbone of the Canadian business community. For as my colleague from Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) pointed out the other day, they create over 50 per cent of the nation's gross national product and pay close to 50 per cent of the taxes collected by the government, while employing more than 50 per cent-I think the suggestion has even been 60 per cent-of the people working in Canada.
Canada, as was the case with most developed countries, had as its dominant form of enterprise before World War II, small business. I do not mean that there were no large corporations before that, but I do mean that the bulk of all manufacturing and trade was in the hands of family business and regional organizations. In 1951 the dominion bureau of statistics showed that 90 per cent of all retail stores, service establishments, wholesalers and manufacturers had less than 15 employees and accounted for over 30 per cent of the gross national expenditure.
Loans Acts Amendments
Moving to the present day, Mr. Speaker, much of the output of our farms and factories is distributed to consumers through wholesale and independent retail stores. Many people who have studied economics have pointed out that the destruction of the small merchant carries with it a number of unfortunate and undesirable consequences, such as a depression in real estate values of business properties, a decline in tax revenues to municipalities, a complete displacement of normal credit arrangements within the community, and increased unemployment.
As well I should like to quote a former minister of the Crown, the Hon. E. Davie Fulton. Speaking in the House on May 30, 1960, as reported at page 4341 of Hansard, he said:
-the best and soundest economy is that economy which is based upon the maximum participation of the greatest possible number of independent operators in that economy, and that it is an unsound economy which relies for its operations either on the employment of everybody by the government or the employment of everybody by some giant corporation or corporations. Our objective, therefore, and our philosophy in this field is to bring the maximum reconciliation in the way of the protection of small businessmen, on the one hand, and the interests of the community, of the consumers and of society generally, on the other.
That is still the philosophy of this party when it comes to small business. This bill shows the government is taking a step in the right direction, however, in raising the gross revenue allowable portion from $500,000 to $1 million and the amount of the loan from $25,000 to $50,000. As I say, this is a step, but I am sure the government has come to grips with the real problem. Small business in Canada is fighting for its very survival.
Part of the problem is that all businesses are valued either by the federal government from the point of view of assessing capital gains, or by provincial governments for estate tax purposes, either on the basis of seven times the profits or the net assets value, whichever is higher. Both levels of government assess the small business as though it were a pile of cash in the bank or on the desk from which each can take its shares, and possibly more than its share. It is wrong, I feel, to look on small business in this manner. It is not a pile of cash on the table; it is a vital, dynamic enterprise and should be treated as such. We must ensure that conditions remain favourable for small business to grow and thrive. This can be done through stimulative and expansionary tax regulations.
There have been many instances in which the taxes have been so onerous and the available funds so scant that small businesses have had to be sold in order to satisfy the tax collector. Because of this, those who have been the proud owners of businesses that have been in the family for generations are forced to sell out and compete on an inadequate labour market. It is my position, and the position of this party, that provision should be made for Canadian citizens to invest in the equity of Canadian-owned small business. We believe that the credit, which will be 50 per cent of qualified investments to a maximum of $5,000 each year, should either be offset against the person's income tax or rebated directly to him. This means that a Canadian who invests, for example, $1,000 in a qualified business or company will receive a credit of $500 against his income.
1468

April 16, 1974
Loans Acts Amendments
Another matter of great concern to the small businessman is the proliferation of duties imposed upon him by government, for which there is no compensation. The records dealing with unemployment insurance, taxes, workmen's compensation and statistical data of various kinds require hours of additional work per week and, of course, these many additional hours of work must of necessity be compensated for in higher prices for the goods and services provided. This is a matter that is constantly being raised by constituents engaged in small businesses who cannot see any adequate justification for many of the records they are required to maintain. As an aside, one constituent discussed with me the seemingly ridiculous demand made upon him by an income tax official who, in spite of the fact that his income tax forms had been filed and the auditors had been out to check his books and records and had confirmed their accuracy, warned him against destroying the files as he must store them indefinitely in case they wished to audit them again at some time in the future.
There are a multitude of demands and restrictions which, taken individually, are seemingly insignificant but which when accumulated make the small businessman wonder whether it is worth the trouble to remain in business. The small businessman provides a personalized service to the community in the conduct of his business as well as in his participation in community projects and activities. On the other hand, the large supermarket complex tends to be impersonal and perhaps aloof from community activities. In many instances the small business is found in areas where the population is of lower density than large urban communities, but here as well the small businessman provides a service that is worth preserving. The small businesses of our nation are operated by individuals who are not expecting to become giants in business or multimillionaires, but who desire to provide for themselves and their families a decent and respectable standard of living while contributing to the social, cultural and economic life of the community.
The small businessman is faced with another serious problem today, and that is how to cope with the results of the inflationary spiral in the matter of help. Many have stated their inability to obtain help even in areas of high unemployment. The rejoinder to that may well be that if a business cannot afford to hire help at the going rate, the owner had better shut up shop. But the question is, what is going to happen if thousands more do close up shop and go on to the labour market? Not only will we have the unemployment picture aggravated; we will have a great many intensely independent, public spirited individuals who are disillusioned and bitter over the fact that government action, or inaction, has forced them to close their doors.
In the Speech from the Throne the government promised counselling services as well as financial assistance for small business, but I am not convinced that the measures proposed will solve the problems faced by small businessmen. This will require much more adequate and far reaching measures. However, this bill may assist them in meeting for the moment the crisis of inflation, taxation, and a completely unnecessary and burdensome maze of red tape so far as their efforts to be responsible and worthy members of society are concerned.

I shall now proceed to another subject, although I would have liked to continue on the matter of small businesses. Let me refer to the bill as it relates to the agricultural industry. Canadians in this category are seemingly a vanishing breed. As pointed out in the National Farmers' Union submission to the government of Canada on March 14, 1973, the census statistics of 1971 indicate that Canada suffered a net loss in the number of farms of 64,394 from the census figures of 1966. This was considerably higher than the previous five-year period of 1961 to 1966 when the number of farms decreased by something over 50,000. In fact, it is about a 28 per cent increase.
These figures must be saying something to us; they must be telling us that in spite of the shortage of jobs on the labour market, thousands of Canadians are finding it impossible to overcome the obstacles in the path of continuing to maintain and operate a farm. Cost of land and equipment is such that ever-increasing amounts of capital are required and the returns are not sufficient to justify the risk of expansion at the current cost of money obtained on the open market. The provisions of Bill C-14 as they relate to agriculture are welcome, but in light of present developments it is questionable if even the expanded credit facilities proposed will meet the needs of today. As has been pointed out in this debate, it is questionable if even $100,000 is sufficient to establish a viable working agricultural unit.
The point has been raised that legislation providing for increased credit will be of little value if lending agencies can find a more lucrative investment in other areas requiring capital. I think sufficient illustrations have been given us during this debate to indicate that this is not a hypothetical situation, and it is possible that a very careful monitoring program will be required to ensure that what has been done theoretically by law will in fact become a practical program as far as the farming community is concerned.
I would just say in conclusion that while welcoming the amendments which are before us today, and without questioning the fact that they will assist these various areas of our economy to a degree, they fall far short of meeting the needs in the areas of fisheries, small business and agriculture today.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I should like to continue with the views so well expressed by the previous speaker, recognizing that in relation to the scope of this bill it is a shame a debate has to be undertaken by this House at all, since it provides the small business community and the small farming and fishing communities with so little. Indeed, considering the time devoted to this bill, it might well be said that never have so many words been said to accomplish so little for so few. Yet it is justifiable that the House deal with this bill in view of the significance of the issue. The significance of small business and the farming and fishing communities to the well-being of Canada as we have known it and would like to know it in the future cannot be overestimated. It is fundamental to the character of the Canada we have known and prized that the individual should have an
April 16, 1974

opportunity of entering into a business supporting himself and providing work for others.
The fact is that Canada needs leadership to preserve that tradition, and the present government, particularly with NDP support, is veering away from it. Canada is on its way to becoming a corporate and collective state in which the vast majority of people make their living in the employ either of big corporations or of big governments. One of the things this debate on the small business, farm and fisheries loans bill indicates to me and to the country is that we must try to recover the opportunity Canadians have traditionally enjoyed of entering enterprises on their own, of supporting the family farm and those participating in the important fisheries industry.
I think it is significant, when we look at statistics on income received by Canadians over the past 12 years, to note that the percentage of the national income enjoyed by small businesses has fallen from 10.4 per cent to 7.5 per cent, while at the same time the income for corporations has increased from 13.8 per cent to 16.3 per cent, with the income of governments increasing even more. At this time, governments in Canada at the three levels combined represent almost 40 per cent of our gross national product. Between governments and corporations well over half the income of this country is being monopolized. Therefore, I think we ought to be asking the government which has introduced this bill why more has not been done, and why it does not propose that Canada take a giant leap forward in assisting people to go into business and stay in business or to undertake family farming.
We certainly welcome the fact the government proposes that legislation in respect of small businesses loans should be changed so that loans will become available to businesses grossing $1 million a year and loans increased to $50,000. But when we realize that since 1961, when the small business loans system was introduced by the previous Progressive Conservative government, in all that time only $290 million in loans has been provided, the highest record for a year being one in which $30 million was made available to small businessmen, we see how triflingly little this small business loans administration means to the small business people of Canada.
I think it is evident to anyone who looks at the spending record of the government that this is almost nothing at all when compared with what the government puts into LIP, OFY and all the other alphabet soup organizations which have been funded with hundreds of millions of dollars. We then begin to see how this bill is in fact nothing more than economic tokenism and I would hope that the House is generally apprised of the benefits these amendments will provide to small businesses and how little they will actually achieve.
I think more benefit would accrue to small businesses if the government would consider some of the measures which I will now suggest. The first is an increase in information services provided by the government to small businessmen seeking financing of this kind. The fact is that all too few men are aware of what is available and all too few find themselves able to make the most of the opportunity that is provided. What we need is the government financing and undertaking an information and public relations program in order that small businessmen
Loans Acts Amendments
and other people willing to go into business will be aware of the financing available to them. Very frequently they have to come to members of parliament or to other public officers and ask for the basic information which should have been made known to them and which too often is almost hidden from them. So I hope the minister will consider this kind of information program as a basic way of helping the small business community to make the most of the financial opportunity that the act provides.
The second thing for which I would hope is that we might add to the incentive program so that greater assistance might be made available to people wanting to undertake the risks of private enterprise. The kind of incentive that could be made available is analogous to the kind of incentive that has been given to the big corporations, incentive that has been given through the various tax write-offs that are now part of our economy. If these are justified for big corporations, surely something comparable should be available to small businessmen, not necessarily in the manufacturing or the processing industries but those which play a vital part in the economy through the various small service companies they provide. I would hope that much more in the way of tax incentives could be made available to these people.
In my own municipality, the borough of Scarborough, part of metro Toronto, the industrial register indicates somewhat in excess of 1,800 different companies and firms doing business. One is impressed in looking through that register to see that the vast majority of those businesses employ fewer than 25 people. Basically, our municipality is comprised of very small companies and one-man firms. These people are providing the majority of the jobs available in that community but they are having the greatest difficulty staying in business. They need tax incentives, they need financial assistance and all too little of it is being provided by the government under the present legislation.
A third recommendation that I would make to the government is simply to get off the backs of the ordinary small businessmen and give them an opportunity to do their daily work without having to spend so much time working for the government. One of the complaints made most frequently to me by the small businessmen in the community I represent concerns the time they have to devote to answering questionnaires, filling out forms and tabulating statistics, all at no charge to the government but at their own cost. This work often is done by the businessman himself or by his wife at night, on weekends or in the little spare time they have available to provide the government with information which the government may or may not use.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Recently I received from one constituent a copy of a form that had been sent to him by Statistics Canada. He complained that this was a typical example of the civil servants creating work for themselves. He says that no small businessman can answer questions of this kind with any kind of accuracy; he simply does not have the staff or equipment to provide the precise,

April 16, 1974
Loans Acts Amendments
detailed information that the government demands of him. So one thing we would say is, "Get off the back of the small businessman and give him time to do his work. If you want to make work for the civil service, at least do not require the small businessman to help you do it."
Fourth, one of the things that the government could do most effectively in assisting the small businessman is to help the labour market become available to him again. One of the most common complaints of people striving to keep open a small factory, a store or some other enterprise is the difficulty of getting help at a time when unemployment insurance payments are increasing, when the premiums being levied upon these employers are being increased. At this time these employers find they simply cannot fill the job vancancies that they have. In one community, for example, some companies have sold out in the last 12 months to large corporations simply because of their discouragement at having suffered through being unable to hire employees who would help carry on this kind of enterprise and be self-supporting.
So I would say that surely the government cannot be content with the kind of tokenism that it has put before parliament. Surely it is not deceiving anyone but itself when it says that this is a fulfilment of the commitment made in the Speech from the Throne. If we are going to take the giant leap forward that this part of the economic community requires, we certainly need much more than the government has put before us. I hope that, not only for economic reasons but much more for social reasons, we in parliament will find the opportunity to take that leap forward.
Important as the small business community is economically, it is of even greater significance socially. We should recognize that the real value of the small business is the opportunity it gives the individual man or woman to fulfil himself or herself in a private and free enterprise that he or she is able to undertake, maintain and shape. Surely the day has not gone by when that is an opportunity before every Canadian willing to make the effort. Surely the day has not come when this parliament and this country will supinely accept the corporatism and collectivism now represented by this government and its New Democrat allies.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say only a few words on bill C-14 which is designed to help farmers, small businessmen and fishermen obtain new credits which means that they will be allowed to get into further debts at prohibitive interest rates. Everyone knows that the current interest rate for small business amounts to 12 and even 12.5 per cent. For instance, if a small businessman borrowed, say, $10,000 over ten years at 12 per cent this means that in 10 years he will have to reimburse $22,000 in capital and interest.
Yesterday, my colleagues from Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) and for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) have amply elaborated on the help we intend to extend to the farmers and even small businesmen. I think that the best way to truly help them would be to exempt them from taxes as is being done for major companies. The small businessmen should be helped in exactly the same way and they would not think of closing their doors as they do today. The farmers

would not think of leaving their land or of selling their livestock because it is no longer a paying proposition. Allowing them to get into more debts only postpones bankruptcy.
Some day the present government or another one will have to consider other solutions than collective indebtness for farmers and small businessmen and this is why the Social Crediters have been suggesting for a long time that we resort to the Bank of Canada. Some people are beginning to admit-


An hon. Member:: Here we go again!


David Réal Caouette: I hear an hon. member saying: Here we go again! He will see that some day. People have already laughed at our request in the area of pension and social welfare benefits. Today they say: Here we go again! Something will have to be done also in this area as we cannot keep on in this direction. This is why we say: Let us be the master of our credit through the Bank of Canada and then we will be able to help efficiently entrepreneurs, small businessmen, farmers, fishermen and the whole population. Mr. Speaker, that is all I had to say on this bill.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The question is on the amendment to the main motion. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Frank Howard: I rise on a quesiton of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I regret I was not able to catch Your Honour's eye at the moment immediately following the reporting of the result of the vote by the Clerk and Your Honour's declaration with regard to the amendment. The question of privilege I wish to raise is this: there may appear on Votes and Proceedings, as a result of the vote which has just been
Loans Acts Amendments
taken, an indication alongside the names of some hon. members that they voted in a manner contrary to their wishes and ideas, and if Your Honour does find I have a prima facie case of privilege I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
That the votes cast by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain, the hon. member for Hamilton West-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat. The hon. member knows that by longstanding practice it is completely wrong to reflect on a vote, and the hon. member is doing this when he calls into question the votes cast by other hon. members.


Mr. Alexander:: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I must take issue with the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who has shown irresponsibility-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Speaking personally and for your information, Mr. Speaker, I can say this: anything which that hon. member moves, I will vote against.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rose on what he called a question of privilege. I suggested to him that there is no privilege and that it is irregular in every respect to raise the matter in this way. The hon. member knows very well, I am sure, that he did not propose an amendment as he attempted to do a moment ago. The hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) is rising on a question of privilege.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege simply because my name was mentioned by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I think his problem in this regard is simply his inability to read my remarks, or perhaps to understand what he read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Skeena rising on a question of privilege?


Frank Howard: Or a point of order, Mr. Speaker, whichever way it is classified. I just want to point out the insincerity and two-facedness of the Conservative Party which have just shown themselves.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I refer the hon. member to Standing Order 35, which I am sure he as well as every other hon. member knows. Standing Order 35 provides that no member may reflect upon any vote of the House, etc.
The question has been put. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Turner, Ottawa-Carleton) agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

April 16, 1974
Canada Pension Plan


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Marc 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-19 is the second important bill amending the Canada Pension Plan introduced by the government in the House within a year that is since, in co-operation with the provinces, it undertook a reform of the social security system in Canada. The first bill was passed by Parliament during the last session. Among other things, it provided pension increases from 8 to 20 per cent to some 500,000 contributors to the plan, it guaranteed full rise of present and future allowances on the basis of the future increases in the cost of living and finally it set the ceiling of acceptable earnings under the plan for the years 1974 and 1975.
Provided it meets with the approval of Parliament, the bill in question today would implement the commitments made through the first series of agreements on the Canada Pension Plan reached in Ottawa with the provinces in October 1973. Similarly, this bill would also implement the second series of federal-provincial agreements arrived at two months ago at the Edmonton conference. The main points of the bill to be studied today could be summarized thus:
1.	It would provide for complete equality of status of all contributors and beneficiaries under the Canada Pension Plan, whether male or female;
2.	It would do away with the means test and the criterion according to which the eligibility of a contributor to a pension is determined; this means that persons of 65 and more would be entitled to a retirement pension regardless of what money they might earn at a later date;
3.	It sets out a formula for the calculation of maximum eligible earnings under the plan, that is the year's maximum pensionable earnings, so that levels of benefits and cash receipts may reflect increased salary rates as witnessed in the past decade. Under that formula once an adequate basis for the calculation of levels of benefits and cash receipts is brought up-to-date it will then be possible to align that basis on the average salaries and wages of workers in Canadian industry;
4.	It would amend the present formula used to determine the annual basic exemption under the plan; that formula would have the advantage of giving greater access to Canadians on lower incomes who could then fully participate in the Canada Pension Plan;
5.	It would reintroduce for approval by Parliament the provisions set out in Bill C-190 which would exclude from the plan certain categories of people who would wish not to participate on the grounds of their religious beliefs; the provisions dealing with the reimbursement of legal expenses would be softened, and certain other steps would be taken with respect to the financial administration of the plan and the negotiation of international agreements.

Although they received very favourable support from Parliament those proposals could not be passed before the end of the last session.
6.	Finally, it incorporates many technical amendments to correct a few minor mistakes and certain ambiguities or anomalies which can be found in the present text and which the department responsible for the implementation of the plan noted lately. In principle the technical amendments would not affect most contributors and recipients but it would be a different case altogether for those who are directly concerned, and those corrections would benefit almost all those people.
Mr. Speaker, hon. members will obviously have noted, when I pointed out earlier that the passage of Bill C-19 would respect the commitments made under the first and second series of agreements concluded with the provinces, that I deliberately avoided using the word "final" in speaking of these series of agreements.
In my opinion, the Canada Pension Plan revision is far from being definitely completed. Among the other priorities that we have yet to settle and that we are considering in this regard, and I am thinking among other things about the provisions that have to be brought in to ensure coverage under the plan for housewives, about suggestions advocating preretirement, about the need for having clear-cut levels of disability and survival benefits, and last but non least about this other question being raised concerning invalids, orphans, widows and widowers, that is to what extent would the needs of these persons be best met through social insurance programs, such as the Canada Pension Plan, rather than through income supplement plans?
As to the participation of the homemakers, I had the opportunity of discussing the matter with my provincial counterparts during our last meeting in February, at Edmonton. I should rightfully say that we have all acknowledged the complexity of the problems caused by the various proposals concerning the participation of homemakers. So we thought it would be unwise to try to draw hasty conclusions before being able to carry through the overall examination of every aspect of the problem.
Nevertheless, we agreed upon the advantages of certain alternatives, among which voluntary contributions and pension credit sharing would surely deserve a thorough review in 1974.
We shared the view that it would certainly be desirable that a public debate be held on this matter and all related aspects. Finally, we decided to refer it to the advisory committee on the Canada Pension Plan as well as the advisory committee on the status of women for consideration and additional comments.
I would say in addition that I think it is most important to put this matter before the House and for this purpose, I filed a few days ago before the standing committee on health, welfare and social affairs a document intitled "Housewives and the Canada Pension Plan".
In this regard, I read with the highest interest in last Tuesday's Hansard the debate about the private bill put forward by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) and in particular the suggestion of the hon. members for Waterloo-Cambridge and Vancouver Kings-
April 16, 1974

way (Mrs. Maclnnis) that the old age security plan might well prove to be a more efficient mechanism than the Canada Pension Plan as regards housewive's contribution.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do hope that these measures will be subjected to more discussion, both within and without Parliament, and that these debates will bring about valuable solutions. At the same time, research will continue on the studies I mentioned and I have every reason to believe that they will be successfully completed within the time limits we have set to achieve the review of the social security system in Canada. Though it may be too early to foretell the results of these studies as well as other studies that will be carried out in this area, they might call for the introduction of a third bill that would provide for further amendments to the Canada Pension Plan.
With your leave, Mr. Speaker, I would now deal with the provisions of Bill C-19 that in my opinion are the most important.
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, and I take particular pleasure in being able to include them in this bill. The equal treatment of Canadian men and women is, of course, 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 I recently tabled in the House Standing 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.
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 transitional phase of the Canada Pension Plan still lies about two years off 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 only a few short years ago.
What exactly are the distinctions that are to be abolished by Bill C-19? The Canada Pension Plan now provides that upon the death of a male contributor, a surviving widow is automatically eligible for a pension that is 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 is below the age of 45 and is disabled or has dependent children, she is eligible for a pension that is equal to 37 V4 per cent of her husband's actual or imputed retirement pension plus a flat rate component which now amounts to $33.76 a month. Lesser amounts are paid to widows who are between 35
Canada Pension Plan
and 45 years of age and are not disabled or 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 subject to some variation for those in families having 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 if he is disabled and was dependent upon his wife, and the children become eligible for a 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.
The bill 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.
I would also like to draw the attention of hon. members to an important clause in the bill that 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 on become eligible to receive benefits as though the Canada Pension Plan had always accorded equal treatment to male and female contributors and beneficiaries. This particular proposal of the bill will, it is estimated, benefit about 30,000 individuals.
I would like to take this opportunity to remind those who may be affected by this retroactive feature that benefits under the Canada Pension Plan are only payable upon application. I would suggest, therefore, that potential beneficiaries of female contributors "who died or became disabled prior to proclamation of the bill should consult a Canada Pension Plan district office about their eligibility for a benefit as soon after the bill comes into force as possible. I would also propose to draw this to the attention of those who may be affected by this measure by means of inserts in the appropriate federal cheques issued to individuals by the government.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, notices of motions.

April 16, 1974
Abolition of the Senate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp)-Communications- Cablevision-Request for early approval of applications to improve reception in Manitoba; the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)-Health-Incidence of silicosis among uranium workers-Action by Minister of Labour; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquar-rie)-Commemoration-Inquiry as to possibility of events to honour Mackenzie King, Arthur Meighen and J. S. Woodsworth.
The hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) wishes to rise on a point of order.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, again before the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) launches into his oratorical flight I should like to point out, on a point of order, that because of an experience that I had last evening during the private members' hour, and the discrepancy that exists between the various clocks, I would like to have some indication from the Chair as to which is the clock which will be observed this evening. I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the two clocks on the lateral walls outnumber the clock on the far wall, and I suggest that the clocks on the lateral wall are more indicative of the proper time, although I understand that your practice is to watch the clock on the far wall.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Stanley Howard Knowles: that Bill C-118, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (abolition of the Senate), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the hon. member worries about the clocks. Surely we can deal with this bill in five or ten minutes.


Jean-Jacques Blais: You have been at it for 20 years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I might say that when it worked out that the House was to sit this week, instead of taking the recess that had been planned, some hon. members wondered whether we would accom-

plish anything. Well, here is our chance. What better week's work than to abolish the Senate between now and six o'clock!


Mr. Yewchuk:: What about abolishing the NDP?


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the hon. member on the other side said a moment ago, this is not the first time that I have proposed this measure. Indeed, I have been at it for a good many years. The more I think about it, the more I observe the operations of the other place, the more I consider the meaning of democracy, the more ludicrous I find it that we still have, as part of our law making parliament, a group of 102 men and women who are not elected, who are not responsible to anyone, yet who have the same lawmaking authority that is accorded to those who are elected by the people of Canada.
I can understand that more than 100 years ago, when the constitution of this country was being drawn, it made sense not to trust democracy completely. It made sense, especially with the House of Lords in Britain and such as examples, that there might be a group of detached senior citizens who could take a second look at what the elected people might do. Frankly, sir, I do not think there is a case for that at all any longer. Either we believe in democracy or we do not. Either we believe in the laws of the land being made by persons elected by the people of the country, or we do not, and if we do believe in representative democracy I submit that we should not have, as part of parliament, a non-elected body.
Therefore I propose once again my bill that calls for the abolition of the Senate. Anyone who takes the trouble to look at the bill, which in this session is number C-118, will see that it is a rather lengthy one. That is because the abolition of the Senate calls for a number of consequential changes in the British North America Act. But even after one has studied those consequential changes one will see that all the bill does is to abolish the Senate itself.
Despite what is said about me sometimes in the other place-and the things that are said make interesting reading-I want to say that, in my view, there are some very fine persons in the Senate of Canada. A number of them, in my view, are very conscientious in the work that they endeavour to do.
As one who is around this building a good deal of the time, I can say that there are times, especially over weekends, when conscientious Senators around these halls outnumber members of the House from all parties. But that is not the issue. It does not matter how fine and upstanding the members of the other place might be. It does not matter how much attention they give to the job that is assigned to them. What is wrong in principle is that non-elected persons have the authority of law makers.
I know too that it is sometimes argued that they do great work in committees. In particular it is argued that some of the special committees that are appointed to study problems such as poverty, pensions, land use or matters related to science policy, do good work. That is perfectly true. But it does not justify maintaining 102 individuals on salary, and maintaining an institution at a total cost of something over $7 million a year, so that 15 or 20 of them can do good work on committees. If there are jobs that we want done, jobs of research, jobs of inquiry, it is perfectly
April 16, 1974

possible to set up committees or commissions specifically assigned to do those jobs. I suggest that we can do all of this at much less than the cost of maintaining the Senate.
However, entirely apart from the question of cost, I feel very strongly that any such job that they do does not give Their Honours the right to share equally with us the powers of law making. It is contended sometimes these days-in fact it is contended by some of the more thoughtful members of the other place-that they really do not exercise their veto power; the most they now exercise is a suspensive veto. For example, in the most recent case was the wiretapping legislation.
Senators tried to amend the bill that we had passed in this House, but when in this House we stood our ground, all they did was to have a lengthy debate about it, and in the end they agreed to pass it. I say with respect that I thought that some of them over there stated the case very correctly when they said that they had done their job by entering a suspensive veto, and that it was not their moral right to go all the way and turn down what had been assed in this House. Although I said that with respect, I have to say that it is also an argument against the other place. Why keep an institution that really has no power? It has it constitutionally, but in terms of practice Their Honours have come to realize that they would be unwise to exercise that constitutional power. So in effect, Mr. Speaker, we are maintaining a nullity. I think therefore that we should come up to date and recognize democracy as the basic principle of a parliamentary institution and have in it only persons who are elected by the people of Canada.
Some argue on occasion that the points I have been making call not for the ultimate solution, namely the abolition of the Senate, but rather for reform. Mr. King was a great one for it. The only reform he ever made was to turn a Conservative Senate into a Liberal Senate. Somewhat later Conservative prime ministers tried to reform it the other way, but they did not last long enough.
But to be serious, Mr. Speaker, the most significant reform that some people advocate is to put it on an elective basis. I think we have enough strains and stresses in government in this country already. We have the conflict between the executive and the House of Commons, between government and opposition, and so on. We have the confrontation or the negotiating that has to go on, if you will, between the federal government and the various provincial governments.
I suggest that if we had a second House of this parliament that was elected as we are, and had the same amount of authority as we have, we would slow down the machinery of legislation and the machinery of government to a disturbing extent.
Without taking the time to go into it, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I have thought about the various reforms that might be made, but to me they do not make sense. The argument that the Senate is needed to protect minorities does not grab me. I do not know how we in Manitoba, as a small province, find our minority position protected by the fact that we have six members in the other House. I suggest the place where minorities are best protected is here in this House of Commons where we are responsible
Abolition of the Senate
to the people who elected us, and finally in the courts. All told, I can see no place for the Senate.
I now come back to my earlier remarks and I plead very strongly that what I am saying is not personal with regard to those who are in the other place at the present time. If I said that my observation of their performance leads me to believe it should be abolished, that is because I sense the futility of what they are doing. Over there they sometimes think I am hard on them. They have my sympathy. Their job is so useless. As I say, that does not take away from the sterling qualities of many who are over there. But when it is all added up, I feel there is no real place for the Senate in our parliamentary setup.
A former colleague in my party, and one who was a colleague when we were both engaged in the work of the Canadian Labour Congress, is now over there. I like to read to him or in his presence a memorandum that he wrote some time ago on the Senate. In it he said very clearly that the Senate is the most undemocratic institution in the world. He said it could go on a thousand times vetoing what has been done in the House of Commons, and he clearly took a stand for its abolition. That, of course, was before he became a member of the other place.
I still agree with him, even if he does not!
I thought I had read everything that has been written on the Senate but I learned this afternoon that the Minister of Finance once wrote a thesis on the abolition of the Senate. I asked him to send me a copy of it so that I could include his gems of wisdom the next time I spoke on this issue. I would say that those who speak of this subject approach it not with any feelings against those who are there but on the principle that parliament ought to be a democratic institution, and there ought not to be in it a place where members are responsible to no one. I emphasize that, Mr. Speaker. They are appointed, of course, by the Governor General, but it is really by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who names them. Once a member is appointed he is not even responsible to the Prime Minister and is certainly not responsible to the people of Canada. This does not make sense at all, and that is why I say, Mr. Speaker, that the only sensible thing to do with the Senate is to abolish it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Before I recognize the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais), I wish to mention to him that he might not have noticed the clock at this time because 20 minutes on either of those clocks on either side of the House might not be 20 minutes!


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, I trust the discrepancy will be rectified in a very short time in order to make the good life more pleasant in these holy surroundings.
I hasten at the outset to express to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) my deepest respect and appreciation for his persistence in this particular matter. I feel that most of the arguments he advances are reasoned and have withstood the test of time. As far as his logic is concerned I would hope that perhaps some of the suggestions he makes would be accepted.
However, last year when I spoke on this topic I indicated to you, Mr. Speaker, that I hoped it was not the beginning of a long tradition, as long as that of the hon.

April 16, 1974
Abolition of the Senate
member for Winnipeg North Centre who had been speaking on this matter for a number of years. I promised that that would be the only time I would speak on the subject, but I find myself again speaking on it and perhaps establishing such a tradition. I might indicate, if this is the way fate should direct, that I will endeavour to reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre any time he presents this particular bill.
I would also agree with the hon. member when he states that members of the Senate are intelligent gentlemen and gentlewomen-all of them are-and that he finds in that particular chamber a number of very competent individuals. I am sure that those individuals will not regard his attempts to abolish that honourable House as an indication of his disrespect toward them. However, I take it they would strenuously disagree with the main argument reiterated by the hon. member, that the existence of the Senate as a non-elective body is repugnant to our democratic system.
I might point out to the hon. member that the Queen is part of our government, the Governor General is part of our government-not the government, but the whole parliamentary and constitutional system of Canada. Surely no one can argue that the Governor General, or indeed the Lieutenant Governor of each province is an elected individual, chosen by the people of Canada. They are all appointed.
I might also point out to the hon. gentleman that this institution, a most venerable one which has withstood 600 or 700 years of time, has been established through long tradition and evolution, and indeed is based upon the British parliamentary system. Within that particular system there is a recognition of the work of the House of Lords, which House is very similar to ours, ours having been framed upon the tenets of that House and the traditions established by it.
I had occasion recently to be in England, Mr. Speaker, and spoke to the Lord Chancellor who is the president of that particular upper House. I also had occasion to speak to some of the members of the House of Lords in England, and I suggest to the hon. member that, quite contrary to beliefs that might be held in Canada relating to that House, it is indeed a vital place. It is a place of considerable activity notwithstanding the fact that its powers are limited to a suspensive veto, the same as tradition is establishing that the Senate of Canada be limited to in its powers.
I suggest, further, that the House of Lords considers the Senate of Canada as a model with respect to some of the practices we follow. For example, only life peers are appointed to the House of Lords now. The number of hereditary peers is shrinking. We do the same in our Senate. Senators are appointed until they reach 75. I might suggest that the obligatory retirement age be reduced. Once a Senator reaches the age of 70 perhaps he should be forced to retire from the other place.
As I said in my speech last year, I think the other place was established in Canada to protect the interests of the regions. It provides for regional representation. At present the Senate is not as active as it has been; on the other

hand, it is not as active as it will be. Within a short period it may be necessary for us to have an upper house which is more representative than at present. We are, as you know, dealing with the question of redistribution. The effect of the commissioner's report has been suspended. We are studying, in the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, various methods by which we can secure adequate representation for the various areas of Canada. I suggest that a considerable problem faces Canada in this regard at this time.

If we want adequate representation from sea to sea, it must be able to offer protection and justice to all areas of Canada. Mr. Speaker, the small regions of the country, such as Prince Edward Island, must always be represented in the Senate.
I also believe that some amendments must be introduced. As I said last year, the condition that a citizen must have $4,000 to be appointed to the Senate is, in my opinion, absolutely outmoded. Nothing justifies the fact that someone should be deprived of the honour of sitting in the Senate because he does not have $4,000 in his bank account or any other assets of $4,000. This brings me to the second point. I believe that there are too many senior citizens in the other place.

I suggest that some of the most effective members of this House are senior citizens. Indeed, the member sponsoring this bill has been proud to say he is a senior citizen. Age has nothing to do with one's effectiveness in the legislative process. Speaking as an idealist I hope that younger people will be appointed to the Senate in future. Let those who are between 20 and 40 years old, the age group of the majority of the population, inspire the other place with their contribution.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre well knows, there is a great proportion of younger members serving in this House. I am sure he would not say that the contribution of younger members-perhaps with the exception of yours truly who wants to see this bill defeated-is not substantial and has not brought profit for this House. The same could be said for the other place. We could follow tradition, but appoint younger members.
I suggest that the Upper House, composed of a greater number of younger members, might be empowered only to suspend consideration of certain bills or to request the House of Commons to reconsider certain measures. I do not think it is true to say that the House of sober second thought was meant to be occupied only by older people. I am sure, and I think the House will agree, that younger people can reflect on certain issues and give guidance and direction.
I disagree with the hon. member's contention that minorities are not receiving protection. I am not speaking of regional minorities so much as of ethnic minorities. On the other hand, as I said in my speech last year, there are minorities in Canada which are not sufficiently concentrated in any given area and which do not sufficiently influence our legislative input. They give no input with regard to the legislative process. I suggest that the Senate is one place in which such minorities can be provided with
April 16, 1974

opportunities for input. It is desirable to see the various segments of society represented in Parliament.
Before we reach the stage which is evident in England, where the Trade Union Congress is effectively running the Labour government, where the organized labour movement is standing on the step of power, we should provide for members of organized labour to sit in the Canadian Senate. Let them have some say in the legislative process so that we may defuse any potentially dangerous situation which might develop in future. Also, I see nothing wrong with naming some civil servants to the Senate. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, you will probably have noted that a number of public servants have considerable powers or have had important responsibilities since the beginning of their career as public servants. I do not see why we could not appoint to the Senate certain public servants who would contribute to the Parliament.

I attended a seminar at which an interesting lecture was given by Dame Evelyn Sharp, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Local Government, in the U.K. She has been contributing actively to the House of Lords, and politicians in that place say that her contribution has been most helpful.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre may not have been helped by a member of the other place, as few supporters of his party have been appointed to the other place. I, on the other hand, have been helped considerably by members of the Senate in matters affecting my responsibilities in this House. Those particular individuals had at one time participated in the deliberations of this House, and they offered valuable guidance to a new member. It is no secret that Liberal members of the Senate participate in our caucus deliberations. We find their contribution most helpful-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Don't blame them.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I am not blaming them. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) suggests that perhaps I was trying to blame them for something. I was not. I could name people who have been most helpful to me, to other members of the House and, indeed, to the government. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, there is a dearth of elected members on this side representing a certain province in this country. But some Senators are most cognizant of the social and economic conditions in that particular province. I have no hesitation in approaching them when I want information that is not otherwise readily available. A whole range of services is rendered by members of that House. I am not going to hide the fact we have benefited from members of that House who have been active in that House and active in political organizations. I do not hide that fact. If anyone finds objection with that he would find objection with the whole political process. Indeed, we need to have elections and we need to have political organization.
Surely if one can acquit himself of those responsibilities and also acquit himself of legislative responsibilities
Abolition of the Senate
imposed by a House of parliament, I can see no conflict there, or anything with which one can take issue. Perhaps I am a bit conservative with regard to that particular issue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A bit.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I feel there are numerous amendments that should be presented. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that we have been mouthing the question of the necessity of amending the Senate for years. I suggest, however, that we can change our practices now without the necessity of substantial amendments.
As I pointed out to the hon. member last year, we still need to get this particular bill through the Senate. I also pointed out that the suicidal instincts in that particular place are not common. I am sure they are not rampant. They would not attempt to do away with themselves with one fell swoop of the pen.
In view of that particular reality I suggest we should be putting pressure on the government, whether this or some future one, to change its attitude with regard to staffing the other place. We ought not to waste our time, and I say this most respectfully, in the tilting of windmills. We should be using those methods available to us in order to effect those changes that are essential and that ought to bt effected.
I do not want to use all my arguments. I will have to use other arguments next year. I attempted today to complement the arguments I made last year. In case the hon. member has forgotten, last year I stressed the question of ethnic representation to a considerable extent. This year I could stress the fact that we need more young people in the Senate. I am not trying to find myself a spot. I have no interest in sitting in the Senate. In any event I do not think I am eligible at this stage.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Jean-Jacques Blais: I understand the Senator for Northern Ontario, who was appointed by the Tories, is still sitting.
I suggested that we abolish the monetary requirement. I agree with that wholeheartedly. It would not take much to get that through the Senate. If the hon. member would present such a bill, I would immediately agree with it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question before his time runs out. I believe he still has half a minute.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I have no objection, Mr. Speaker. I am finished in any event.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not want to interrupt the hon. member. He referred to the fact that one province of this country, and it is no secret that he was referring to Alberta, has no Liberals in this House of Commons. He then turned around and boasted of the fact there are Liberals in the other place. My question is this: does the hon. member think it is fair that, if the people of Alberta do not want any Liberals in parliament, the Liberals can get in through the back door?

April 16, 1974
Abolition of the Senate


Jean-Jacques Blais: That sounds very reasonable, if one follows the hon. member's argument to the fullest extent. I suggest to the hon. member that the Senate does not exercise the power which this House exercises. I agree that constitutionally, save and except for money bills, it has equal or parallel power. However, and I am sure the hon. member will agree with this as well, in practice the other place does not exercise that power. As a matter of fact, the power Senators exercised with regard to the wiretap bill was indeed an aberration from their past practice. There is no doubt in the mind of anyone in this House, except perhaps that of the hon. member, that in the future the Senate will not employ those powers that are afforded to it under the constitution.
In my view there is no difficulty in the fact there may be some Senators from the province of Alberta who sit in the Liberal caucus and are perhaps able to indicate, in the absence of other members, what feelings might be in that province. They may be able to render service in that manner. That does not mean there is any member in this House from Alberta who sits in this particular party. Nor do they have a legislative influence in this particular House.
If I call a Senator's constituent in the province of Alberta in order to seek advice relating to a particular matter which is before this House-and I understand we are going to be studying a bill affecting oil and the administration of an oil policy-I cannot see how that could be detrimental to my particular function. Whether that person is in Alberta or sitting in the Senate, I fail to see the difference.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the last exchange it went through my mind that one of the glories of the other place is that there is no time limit on speeches.
I indicated to the venerable and honourable member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) two years ago that I might support him in 23 years time. Now, at the age of 54, I think I will need to have another 21 years before I jump to the support of such a suggestion.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Sober second thought.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Yes. After two years of thinking it over, I am still reluctant to agree with him. The hon. member and I agree on many important things, but I think our disagreement today indicates the basic difference between a doctrinaire and a pragmatic reformer. A doctrinaire looks at an institution in society. If he does not find it working perfectly or extremely well, he says scrap it. The pragmatic reformer, the base and core of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, looks at an institution in society, either political or economic, and says the criterion is performance; therefore we come forward with suggestions to improve it.
It strikes me as an exercise in fatalism to say there is not sufficient ingenuity in the Canadian political province to develop in the Senate a place that is workable, valuable, and contributes importantly to our political process.
As the hon. member mentioned, this whole question of bicameralism is an old story. Most political organizations have decided on bicameral legislatures. There have been a

variety of suggestions for change. Down through history some have become unicameral and have gone back to bicameralism.
I think the hon. member mentioned some of the functions which have been performed by another type of element in our political structure. The primacy, of course goes to the elected one accepting representative responsibility. That is fundamental. However, there are many parts of the governmental structure, and these were alluded to by the hon. member who preceded me, which are not of that kind. In the whole process the Senate fits in as something between that at the apex and that which is at the foundation, that is the ground and the elected House.
I believe that instead of tossing out the Senate we should ask for some good will and some wisdom in the appointment of the members thereof, and put that illustrious body to more work. I have often thought there are far too many legislative schemes launched in this House. Much could be done over there. When you are faced with a bill of 117 pages, and an agenda such as is usually before us in this portion of the parliamentary year, the situation surely calls for more spadework to be done over there.
I, too, join the hon. member in praising some of the excellent work which has been done by the Senate committees. I believe the Senate foreign affairs study on the Caribbean Commonwealth is one of the finest examinations ever conducted in an important area of Canadian foreign policy. I go back to the old question which Sir George Foster raised long before I was born, before even the hon. member was born-God help us, it is a long time ago. But he said: "End it or mend it." I am not so bereft of hope as to believe there is no possibility of mending it. I am not suggesting it is only a matter of a few judicious and thoughtful appointments from this place to the other place, although the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is here. But, of course, it is a matter of personnel.
One amusing remark was made by the speaker who moved this motion, though he did not look upon the subject as being a humorous one. He said he felt sympathy for Senators. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have looked at those Senators all my life and I have never felt they were objects of sympathy. Envy, perhaps, but not sympathy. At the tender age of 54 I would not go along with the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) in suggesting that there be some changes in the age limits, both upward and downward. A man of 30 is not really an oldtimer, and you can get in there when you are 30. As to the $4,000, naturally, as an impecunious professor I am not in favour of scrapping that. But, on a more serious note, the need is to look more realistically and more carefully at the structure and basis of representation.
More consideration ought to be given to the provinces as units, and a structural limitation might be placed upon the untrammelled choice open to Prime Ministers, far too many of whom have looked upon it as an exercise in the most sophisticated patronage. It is not the institution, it is the way in which the institution has been caused to function. Because I wish to hear from some of my hon. friends I shall say only, by way of conclusion that I believe the hon. member is a little too reckless, a little too
April 16, 1974

lacking in faith when he decides no one has sufficient ingenuity to make that part of parliament work. Even if his party is bereft of hope, the rest of us surely believe we could do a good job if given a chance.
It could be made a fine and noble second chamber, perhaps not equal to the Senate of Rome or to the Senate of the United States, but it could still be an effective institution and a functional adornment of our structure.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Would the hon. member permit a question? The hon. member referred to the power of prime ministers to make appointments. Would he be ready to accept the British practice which permits a defeated leader, or prime minister going out of office, to make a number of appointments to the upper house?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I have not had a chance to consult with my leader here but I think we would agree to that. We are generous people.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are enough Liberals over there already.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to debates on this subject for many years before I sat in this chamber. I did so from the gallery to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed just a few minutes ago. It is interesting that I should be here now to take part in such a debate myself, because having heard the hon. member express his views on other occasions, and since I am honoured by having him as a neighbour, an occasional chauffeur and an occasional adviser, and I dare say, as a friend in the parliamentary sense-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't forget the snow shoveling you do for me!


Walter David Baker: Yes. Believe it or not we even have a half interest in the same snowblower.
Anyway I did not think I would be discussing this particular topic with my hon. friend and speaking against the principle which the bill before us seeks to advance. I am concerned because what we are witnessing today is the spectacle of one institution of parliament, namely the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, attempting to destroy another institution of parliament, and I do not think this is a very healthy situation.
If we are disposed to talk about the legislative process it should not be to tear down an institution but to enrich its processes. The hon. member himself indicated that the Senate has performed a number of very useful functions.
I find myself agreeing with most of what the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) said. To that extent I find myself in strange company, but I suppose one does find oneself in strange company from time to time. When we deal with parliamentary institutions we ought to look to the improvement and enrichment of those institutions. We must seek to bring to bear upon the legislative process an expression of the interests which go to make up this country.
One of the things that moved the Fathers of Confederation to agree upon the establishment of a Senate was that
Abolition of the Senate
provision in some way for representation on a regional basis was probably a prerequisite to confederation in 1867. I think they were wise in reaching that decision; they were wise to recognize that the particular constitutional make up which was required would not be secure if members of both bodies were elected. So they determined that the various regions of that day would be represented by an appointed house.
As the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) has said, if the public mind has altered with respect to the Senate it is not because of the institution itself but possibly because of the way in which its members have been appointed, that is to say, places in the Senate have been regarded as a reward in many cases for qualities other than excellence in fields which are important to our country.
I think prime ministers should remember that it is not only publishers of newspapers, not only lawyers, not only industrialists, not only loyal party workers who have made this country great. There are a lot of unsung heroes in the cultural endeavours of our people, in science, and in the professions. And perhaps those who have contributed in an occupational or professional sense to the development of Canada have not been rewarded; instead, rewards have gone to others who, in the eyes of many people, seem less deserving. It is as a result of this that the institution has perhaps fallen in the esteem of the public, prompting the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to move that the institution be abolished.
I think the hon. member for Hillsborough has made a very good point. He followed along the argument made by the hon. member for Nipissing that we ought not to tear down or destroy an institution that is a place of very sober second thought on how we improve our legislative process. It is still a very real thing in Canada to protect, in terms of representation and as an expression in the legislative sense of varying viewpoints, particularly the minorities in this country. Indeed, we live in a democracy, but sometimes the democratic process does not work to protect minorities. This is one way in which this institution, responsibly used in regard to the appointments made to it, can protect minority interests.
I am certain that the most important reason that has been advanced during this debate for the maintenance of the Senate, and certainly for its enhancement, is the matter raised by the hon. member for Nipissing, namely, the very troubling and vexing problem of redistribution, and the fact that in our time there are diminishing populations in certain areas and growing populations in others. Through the Senate an attempt can be made to maintain some sort of balance. So, under those circumstances I do not think that we ought to tamper with something as traditional to our constitution and to our country as the Queen, and as the office of the Governor General. In fact such attempts should be withstood and avoided.
Perhaps we should look at the other side of the coin and see how we can enrich an office mentioned by the hon. member for Nipissing, the office of the Governor General. I suppose in modern political parlance, in the practical sense the Governor General of this country has no real

April 16, 1974
Abolition of the Senate
power. As a result of what I might call-this is not an apt description-very impressive and responsible appointments made to that office by the Queen, upon the recommendation of her Privy Councillors in Canada, all the incumbents of that office have grown in affection and regard in the minds of the public of Canada. I do not think there is anyone in this chamber who would say that merely because that office is an appointed office it has become useless, and that nothing is served by it.
I look upon the Senate not as a resting place for retired politicians but as a proper reward, and necessarily so, for real service to one's country. It is a place where the unsung heroes of Canada- the scientist who has made a contribution, the parliamentarian who has made a contribution, members of the agricultural community and others, and indeed members in legislative fields other than the federal field-can find an opportunity to continue their service, and in an area where, perhaps because of the nature of the political process, they could not venture to perform this kind of service.
But for the service of many Senators, both before and during their appointments, our country would not be as rich and as full in terms of the quality of its legislative assemblies as it is today. I do not believe that that opportunity has passed us by. I do not believe that the time has come when we ought to say that it is not possible for us to enrich the body politic by the proper use of a chamber of sober second thought, indeed perhaps by a new kind of approach to the legislative process that really has not been tried.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said something to the effect that if we believe in democracy then we ought not to support a body that, by its nature, is appointed. If we speak in those terms we must relate them to the Canadian situation. There was a great lesson to be learned from the work of the Fathers of Confederation. We must not forget that there are perhaps people and areas in this country that would not be represented but for the existence of the Senate.
I hope that in considering this bill the House will move to enrich the nation and this institution of parliament. I urge upon those who, from time to time have authority to make Senate appointments, to make those appointments carefully so that they are representative of all the major groups in the country, of all the political affiliations in this country, and thus uphold democratic principles. I hope that out of this process will arise a vital, strong second chamber that will take a new place in our Canadian democracy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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.
Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, when the debate was interrupted at five o'clock I had given some information concerning one of the major clauses of this particular bill, that is the clause which eliminates discrimination on the basis of sex under the Canada Pension Plan as it stands at the present time.
Before moving to another major area of the bill I should like to elaborate briefly on the statement I made at the beginning of my remarks this afternoon in respect of survivors' benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. We are at the moment reviewing the structure and level of these benefits and as I agreed with my provincial colleagues in Edmonton, "it is necessary to examine the most appropriate approach to the provision of survivor benefits, whether under the two pension plans, or under a new and general economic support program," the two pension plans being the Quebec Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan.
We are, for example, asking ourselves about the role that a flat rate component should play in Canada Pension Plan survivor benefits in the future, and whether there is any merit in considering its transfer from the Canada Pension Plan to a new and general economic support program. These studies have not been completed, and so the government's position on these questions has not yet been formed. I should like to assure the House that when the eventual position of the government is formed, and if it requires legislative action by the House, it will be advanced in terms that preserve the principle of equality now being built into the plan, that is equality between the two sexes.

Another major series of amendments incorporated in Bill C-19 seek to eliminate the provisions dealing with the employment test and the retirement criteria under which eligibility is determined.
Indeed, under the present provisions of the act only those contributors between the ages of 65 and 70 who have retired from their regular employment may claim full value of pension under the Canada Pension Plan. In other words, the pensioner under 70 who, although retired from his regular employment continues to receive earnings exceeding $95 a month automatically gets a reduced pension by 50 per cent of his employment income falling between $95 and $155 and by the full amount of earnings exceeding $155. Those limitations would be repealed under the bill now before us so that if it is passed by this House any contributor 65 or over would be sure to get the full
April 16, 1974

value of his pension, regardless of the employment income he could otherwise receive.
According to my estimates those amendments would immediately result in increased pension levels for about 5,000 recipients now retired and add to the anticipated number of recipients under the Canada Pension Plan for 1975 roughly 30,000 contributors who would then be entitled to the retirement pension. Of course, those between the ages of 65 and 70 would still be free not to claim their retirement pension and continue to pay contributions into the fund and so accumulate further pension credits. A number of contributors will certainly find that option more advantageous.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with the provision governing maximum pensionable earnings, that is; the ceiling as to pensionable earnings under this plan.
My colleagues in the House are certainly aware that maximum pensionable earnings considerably affect the very structure of benefit levels as well as the inflow of money into the Canada Pension Plan fund.
At the federal-provincial conference which was held last October, it was agreed by all welfare ministers that the ceiling as to earnings under the Canada Pension Plan should be in line with the present ceiling under the Quebec Pension Plan, and then increased by 12 Vi per cent annually, until it reached the average earning level for the Canadian worker in the industrial sector.
The first stage was reached when, during last session, Parliament passed a bill which provided for maximum pensionable earnings of $6,600 and $7,400 for 1974 and 1975 respectively. Some provisions of Bill C-19 aim at confirming other clauses of the agreement with projections on the future.
I think it is fair to say that Bill C-19, together with 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 by 1985. This represents an increase of close to 250 per cent in about ten years' time.


Mr. Schumacher:: Because of inflation.


Marc Lalonde: May I say to the hon. member who just spoke that this has nothing to do with inflation. Whatever inflation will take place it will be over and above the amounts mentioned here. The amounts I am going to mention strictly apply to the increase in the yearly maximum pensionable earnings, and also the increase that is likely to take place in the average industrial composite in this country coming from Statistics Canada. Those figures have nothing to do with inflation. Whatever rate of inflation may take place over the next ten years, the plan has been indexed last year by an amendment passed in the House which includes automatic indexing to take into account cost of living increases.
Canada Pension Plan
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 10 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 at 65 years of age and over now stand at $73.75 a month. Passage of this bill should raise these pensions to about $145 a month by 1980 and $210 a month by 1985. This represents an increase of over 180 per cent in 10 years time.
As to basic orphan and disabled contributor child benefits, this bill proposes that in the future they should also be paid in respect of the children of female contributors who have died or have become disabled.
I should mention again that all of these increased benefit rates, once they go into pay, would of course 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.
Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that benefit increases will only apply to those who have earnings at or near the proposed earning ceilings, I would like to state that this will not be the case. In addition, I would like to demonstrate how the updating of the earnings formula that is now in the plan will operate to pass on improvements proposed in Bill C-19 to contributors at lower income levels. The updating formula very simply provides that all contributor earnings are updated according to movements in the yearly maximum pensionable earnings, and so sharp increases in the YMPE produce a sharp updating of past earnings at all levels.
Perhaps I could illustrate this feature by tracing the effect of the bill on a contributor whose earnings never reach the ceilings that would have prevailed had the original CPP legislation not been changed. For this purpose I will relate the bill to a contributor who had earnings of $4,000 in 1966, experiences a steady increase in his earnings to $5,000 a year by 1974, and to $7,000 in 1985 when he retires at the age of 65.
Had the initial plan not been changed this contributor would have received a retirement pension of $162 a month. If the bill is passed this contributor will receive a retirement pension of $223 a month, which is equal to about 40 per cent of his final year's earnings. If an OAS pension for the contributor and his spouse is added to this amount, total CPP/OAS payments for this family will be just about equal to the final year's earnings of the contributor. I might add that the bill also has the effect of slightly reducing the contributions that this contributor will have to make to receive his increased CPP retirement pension. Similar examples can be developed for the effect of the bill on other CPP benefits for lower income contributors.

April 16, 1974
Canada Pension Plan
I take this opportunity to draw the attention of the House also to the fact that the figures I mentioned before are completely independent of whatever payments our retired people are going to receive over the next ten years in terms of old age security payments, so that whatever happens with the OAS it is going to be over and above the various figures I have mentioned here.
These increases, with CPP benefits that I have just cited, in my view are quite substantial but still they do not tell the full story of the 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.
Consider, for example, the income situation of a couple at retirement in a single wage earner family. 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 per month, and in 1985 it should be in the order of $700 a month. I might remind hon. members that $700 a month is reasonably close to the average wage of today's industrial worker.
I invite hon. members also to 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. This government, I believe, is justified in taking pride in this record of achievement.

A moment ago, I was illustrating the advantages offered by this bill, which could be turned into account by contributors in lower income brackets, but there is more. Other particular provisions will enable people who have a very low income to benefit as well from these advantages.
As my distinguished colleagues in this House certainly know, the Canada Pension Plan provides an exemption on contributory earnings, the year's basic exemption whose level determines the level of earnings a person must be able to prove to be eligible to the Canada Pension Plan. This exemption now amounts to 12 per cent of the ceiling of eligible earnings. According to this formula, in the event of a sudden increase in the ceiling of earnings, a good many contributors in lower income brackets would temporarily be left aside and, consequently, they could not benefit from some advantages offered in this bill.
Thus, in order to prevent such a possibility, we propose to amend the rate on which the year's basic exemption is now calculated by dropping this rate to 10 per cent of maximum eligible earnings. This measure would provide a better opportunity for persons with a low income to take full part in the Canada Pension Plan.
Moreover the bill proposes the repeal of a particular provision which now applies to the self-employed. According to this provision, this person must be able to prove earnings exceeding by one and one third the year's basic
[Mr. Lalonde.j
exemption specified for other contributors. It is thus proposed to cancel this requirement so that employees and self-employed can be dealt with on an equal footing as far as the basic annual exemption is concerned. This measure, Mr. Speaker, would certainly be welcomed by a certain group of self-employed whose seasonal work sometimes depends on fluctuations in earnings which can reduce their income to a marginal level.
In particular, we are thinking of the farmers and fishermen who would like, even in adverse circumstances, not to stop their contributions to the Canada Pension Plan. [English]
The next group of proposals I would like to discuss are those which parliament considered in its debate on Bill C-190 last session, and which are all included in Bill C-19. The most noteworthy of these is the proposal to allow individual members of religious groups to exempt themselves from the operation of the Canada Pension Plan in the case of religious organizations which existed before 1966, which have established tenets opposing the acceptance of benefits from any private or public insurance, and which have the established practice of providing for the support of their dependent members.
As I recall, Mr. Speaker, some hon. members had reservations about this proposal, but it is also my impression that the basic principle behind it engaged the sympathy of the large majority of members of the House. I might say that the government still firmly believes in the universal application of programs such as the Canada Pension Plan but, on balance, considers that the exemption should be made because it is in keeping with the strong traditions of freedom and tolerance that exist in this country.
Another significant clause that is included in this package is a proposal to allow the retroactive application of international agreements concluded by Canada with respect to the Canada Pension Plan. The immediate objective of this change is to enable those Canadians who were employed by the United States at Goose Bay to participate in the plan with effect from July 1, 1972, in accordance with the Canada/United States agreement respecting the transfer of the Goose Bay base to Canadian jurisdiction.
Other significant clauses in this category of proposals include provisions to liberalize features dealing with the payment of legal expenses in appeal proceedings, and to give the Auditor General explicit authority to conduct an annual audit of the Canada Pension Plan account and investment fund.
The remaining proposals in the bill, which are quite numerous, can be labelled as miscellaneous, technical and administrative amendments. I thought I would take the opportunity presented by this bill to carry out some housecleaning in what is a very complex act. Hon. members will find that these proposals, for the most part, rectify inequities, anomalies, errors and ambiguities that have been uncovered over a period of time.
In recent months a number of newspaper articles have appeared drawing attention to the difficulties and situations sometimes created when the department adjusts interim CPP benefit payments. As most hon. members are aware, the law requires us to begin paying CPP benefits when eligibility for them is established, even though the
April 16, 1974

final determination of earnings may not have been settled. I do not think that anyone would suggest that we should do otherwise.
It can take around two years to make a final determination of official earnings, since this involves the filing and processing of income tax returns. Clearly it would be ridiculous to expect a person to wait that long before receiving his regular benefit cheques. Nevertheless, this does mean that benefits often have to be adjusted when final earnings figures become available.
In many instances we find that we have underpaid an individual, but this is no problem because the individual concerned will receive a pleasant surprise when the extra payment arrives in the mail.
As might be expected, we find that in some instances overpayments have occurred and the law requires us to recover them. To provide some relief in such situations, the bill contains a provision that would enable the minister to write off such debts in cases where the debt is uncollectable, where the cost of collection would be in excess of the amount to be recovered, or where the minister is satisfied that recovery action would create undue hardship for the individual. This amendment is proposed to enable us to be as fair and humane in the administration of the plan as we can possibly be.
We also find that in some instances the overpayments are more apparent than real, because the department's record of the contributor's earnings is in error. At the present time, employee corrections in records of earnings must be made within a four-year period. The bill proposes relaxation of this time limit, and in this way it will provide further assurance for contributors and their dependents that they will receive all of the CPP benefits that have been earned. The bill also proposes repeal of the current prohibition that prevents persons who do not have their social insurance number from receiving Canada Pension Plan benefits.
I wish to mention other important technical and administrative proposals contained in the bill. They include:
1.	A series of proposals to improve the plan's appeal system. These include an extension of appeal rights to representatives of contributors and beneficiaries; more generous provision for the payment of legal expenses; and provision for the appointment of a vice-chairman of the Pension Appeals Board.
2.	A proposal to allow the payment of disabled contributor child benefits for natural and legally adopted children acquired by pensioners after the onset of disability.
3.	A proposal to permit payment of Canada Pension Plan benefits to common-law spouses on a more realistic basis.
4.	A proposal to relieve self-employed persons from remitting Canada Pension Plan contributions on an instalment basis if they are not required to remit income tax payments on that basis. This list does not exhaust all of the technical and good housekeeping proposals that are in the bill, but it covers the more significant ones. I think it would be preferable if the remaining ones were discussed during the detailed consideration of the bill in the stand-
Canada Pension Plan
ing committee to which the bill will be referred. As a matter of fact I may have a few additional technical amendments to introduce at that stage as a result of representations received from the provinces after they have had an opportunity to review the bill in detail.
I would like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that 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 the bill will attract the overwhelming support of Canadians inside and outside of Parliament.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I begin by giving the minister a hint that this measure will pass. It is in no danger of being rejected. It is safer by far than a budget, infinitely safer than an opposition day, and perhaps a little safer than the football bill.
The minister closed his speech with what I thought was a flight of imagination when he described the bill as imaginative and responsible. I do not find much in it that is imaginative. Actually, there is little in this amendment or this massive statute that is highly imaginative. This is one of the most difficult and complicated piece of legislation to which my attention has ever been drawn. That does not surprise me, as I was here when this statute and its predecessors went in and out of drydock, so to speak, two or three times before being accepted.
The statute still needs a good deal of refining; it is still a very awkward piece of legislation. It is difficult for laymen who try to understand its provisions to understand where they fit in under the statute. The minister has done well and wisely in seizing this opportunity to make such corrections and ameliorations of anomalies as he has done. There is still much preening and pruning ahead, and it is important that this be done with this massive, comprehensive piece of legislation.
The minister began where we should all begin. He referred to the full equality of treatment for male and female beneficiaries. Although he pointed out how quickly the discrimination was removed, we should all admit and confess that a charge could be levied against us because the discrimination was there in the first place. I agree with what I took to be the minister's appraisal of our social development in this country. I agree that, in recent years, we have been more aware of the nonsense which society has asked us to condone for far too long. I believe that those in our society who have given leadership in this particular field are to be commended. I am certain that this is just one of many pieces of legislation in which we will find a delayed recognition of the equality of the sexes.
Before I sit down, and I will not make a long speech despite the excitement about the Senate this afternoon, I will point out as best I may to the minister that this measure still has a long way to go before it gives both sexes full equality. Of course, in the technical sense, what is said is correct.

April 16, 1974
Canada Pension Plan
The second point I bring up is the situation facing that group between 65 and 70 years of age with regard to the long standing, demeaning means test. I referred to this subject more than once in the last session. I have asked, previously, why in the world should the old chap over 90 work as much as he likes and not have his means diminished, whereas the younger man who happens to be 69 and works suffers because he earns money. This is intolerable in a contributory pension system and is a terrible disincentive to productivity, activity and employment. So, we certainly salute that which we called for one year ago and are delighted to see the provision included in the bill.
I welcome too, as I think any sensible Canadian would, the improved formula for allowing those Canadians at the lower income level to draw benefits from this important piece of legislation. There is a large group which wanted to be involved in the plan, but for which involvement was prohibited because of the levels of income provided for in the statute.
The minister spoke this evening about that portion of last session's Bill C-190 which has to do with an exemption for certain religious groups. Last year, speaking for our party, I expressed the view that this was a right, just, proper, and fitting attitude to take.
At that time I referred to some of the groups mentioned. I expressed respect, and indeed envy at the way in which the groups to which reference was made in the legislation were able in our contemporary society to carry on the old way, with the cherished traditions of our general society a few generations ago. They care for their own aged and their own infirm. They have the ability to look after their own loved ones without turning to the cold, institutionalized care for the aged and senior citizens. People who are able to do this stand tall in society. They are able to put into practical and tangible terms the familial ties of affection and love. That is to be commended.
Another thing I mentioned was with particular reference to the Mennonite community. I said I knew of no group which showed greater charity, concern and interest for the problems of other people all across the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Where there is drought, famine and what have you, there is a representative of the Mennonite community there. Since I spoke last year I happened to have been in that wonderful country of Bangladesh which has such difficult problems to cope with, many of a natural kind. Certainly one of the foremost groups were representatives of the Mennonite Central Committee, fine young Canadians making a most excellent, practical and useful contribution toward the upgrading of agriculture in that country where production from the soil is so important. The views I held a year ago were strengthened by what I saw just a month or two ago.
I think that this is well in place, although there are injustices which my colleagues dealt with last session. Where such relief has been made and such recognition has been extended, I express thanks and extend support and approval.

The minister touched upon and I will not dilate upon the technical amendments, many of which are important and I assume, being an optimist, all of which are helpful.
I am happy we have written in here, as was in Bill C-190, the official function of the Auditor General. He will have plenty to do. There is no doubt about that. The CPP bureaucracy is touching more and more people, and more problems are arising. My own personal contact with Mr. Trudeau and those who are operating the plan has generally been helpful and I appreciate it. However, because of the complexity of the legislation, there are many, many Canadians who are suffering, being misunderstood, being denied and so on.
One of the last references the minister made was to the question of overpayments. There seems to be a measure of relief coming in there. I have always been appalled by any government department which will overpay a citizen and then have the nerve to turn its clutches upon that citizen and say, "We are collecting from you". It has thousands of computers and hundreds of accountants. God help the poor little guy getting a pension or unemployment insurance. It is not his fault that the government makes a mistake. Far from it. With its vast bureaucracy it should not make a mistake, and then draw it out of him month after month after month.
I am sure there is not a member in this House who has not received letters from constituents who have been overpaid. Who overpaid them? It is like the railway mess. Who made it? These people are told that $20 will be deducted from them for the next 10 years, next 40 years or what have you. The poor soul is probably living on something several notches below the poverty line as it is. I say the state has no right to drag out of its citizens mistakes which its own apparatus makes. Far better to correct its own technology than to inflict the cause of its own inefficiency upon the rank and file citizens of this country.
I am happy some effort has been made to make it easier for self-employed persons to enter the plan. For many years it has been an important area of concern. We know that it is relatively easy for the fellow on payroll. He has an accountant or cashier to deduct the exact contribution from him, and so on. However, that very important person who carries on his own business is not a bookkeeper and does not have a bookkeeper. His earnings fluctuate from season to season. He is probably more in need of the cushion which the contributory pension supplies than the man who is on a more permanent basis. For this move I am appreciative. I will support it.
I would like to get back to a question which the minister indicated he and his provincial colleagues have looked at and will look at. That is the question of the place of the housewife, if that is not too old fashioned a word to use- the mother, the head of the home, if that is not too extreme a word to use. I am told it will be difficult, but we have to find equality for the housewife, the housemother, the person who, heaven knows, is importantly employed in our society.


Mr. Cafik:: Housespouse.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Housespouse, perhaps that is a good expression. It would be hard for a man with a lisp, but we might be able to take it off.
April 16, 1974

We have to find security for the person who takes on the important role of being the great maintainer of the family unit, which is still basic to our society despite all its changes and apparent changes. It is still the fundamental fabric of the kind of society in which we believe. I believe it is not beyond our ingenuity nor does it exceed our capacity to be able to give to the housewife equality of status.
Suggestions were made in the statement released by the minister. There is an excellent statement by S. June Men-zies, the vice-chairman of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. I think it is very important for these and many other suggestions to be studied as quickly as possible. We do not want someone standing here in 10 years' time telling the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and myself that since it only took 10 years, we should feel proud. We cannot wait 10 years. The group is large, the injustice is vast.
I used to be told that marriage is a partnership. It should not be difficult to extend the concept of partnership to the basic home unit. Someone said that perhaps the best way to do this would be to have the husband pay the wife and pay her premiums. Some might suggest that this is an employer-employee relationship. It just might be a bit dicey, but the partnership I think is a beginning. This must be done quickly. The minister must use his powers of persuasion to convince his provincial counterparts that, as long as this important group is left out, the Canada Pension Plan is a most inadequate umbrella in the realm of provision for our future.
Indeed, I wonder about the whole program. We amend it frequently. Whoever succeeds the minister now sitting opposite us will no doubt introduce further amendments. Suggestions come out of dominion-provincial meetings from time to time. I wonder whether, with all our tailoring, tinkering and re-aligning, we should not be moving toward something more comprehensive. It seems to me we are moving now toward something like a negative income tax or a guaranteed annual income, though I do not think we are admitting it. When I look at the OAS and the CPP, and think of the great need which exists, of the constant tendency to change, the built-in tendency toward complexity, I wonder whether a more serious overview is required than the one to which the minister alluded.
The minister ended as he sometimes does, with an expression of a bursting sense of pride in what had been done. I think a more modest posture would better befit the bill. It is, of course, an improvement, and my hon. colleagues, because we are a highly organized party, will be dealing with various of its aspects. I noticed with some surprise that the minister quickly contradicted the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) when my hon. friend suggested that inflation was behind the introduction of this measure. Mr. Speaker, because we have indexed payments under this plan there is no way we can sit back and say inflation is out of the picture. That is myopia of the worst kind.
The trouble is that the basic amount is insufficient. The $100 for OAS was insufficient before the act was brought into force. I pointed out that in terms of purchasing power
Canada Pension Plan
recipients were back to 1945. The basic amount is insufficient, and so much per cent of insufficiency does not bring sufficiency, and it certainly does not bring affluence. We are dealing with this matter today because, unfortunately, the government is not able to deal with inflation. Thus, every piece of legislation which can be brought in is being used and, naturally, because some degree of amelioration is afforded, we support these efforts.
However, we do not support the idea that the entire subject is removed from the grievous, groaning and growing problem of inflation in the country. I know it is not. My hon. friends know it is not. And those Canadians, one in four, who live below the poverty line know it is not. The many Canadians who are eking out an existence on OAS or CPP know it is not. So these changes have to be made. It is not because of a technical consideration or the result of an outburst of generosity. It is because too many Canadians are having a hard time.
Mr. Speaker, I have made many mistakes in this House and, I suppose, in life, but one thing I try to avoid is making long speeches. They may never seem as short to others as they appear to me. But if, as a result of this bill some measure of relief is to be brought to thousands of Canadians, there is no disposition on this side to prolong discussion, although it must be noted we are dealing here with a highly complex document and a good deal of questioning will be necessary.
We shall try to restrain our eagerness to get at the football for a few hours because we would not wish to be accused of too hastily passing a measure comprising 46 pages and 57 clauses. It will be taken seriously by the group to which I belong. It will be considered co-operatively, and we expect to see the measure enacted shortly. After that we shall be making suggestions to the minister as to further ways in which he may be able to lighten the burden which has fallen on so many in Canada who are finding the going very tough at the present time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I join with the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) in assuring the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) that he should have no difficulty with this bill. We shall be making some comments and suggestions, but it is a bill which we hope will be dealt with expeditiously on second reading, in committee, and at the final stage.
I had the privilege in 1964 and 1965 of being a member of the standing committee which dealt with the original Canada Pension Plan. I do not see many around the House tonight who were members of that committee. However, sitting with us then was a very able and effective private member who has lost that status now he has become a cabinet minister. I refer to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford).
Serving on that committee, one of the things I enjoyed, in addition to the good work I felt the committee did, was the opportunity of getting to know the members of the interdepartmental task force who had put the plan together and who were listening and paying attention to our discussions. I think they did excellent work, and as I have studied the bill now before us, and as I have listened to the

April 16, 1974
Canada Pension Plan
minister tonight, I have felt that whatever task force has succeeded that original one has also done good work.
I understand the concern of the hon. member for Hillsborough when he looks at an amending bill 46 pages long, containing 57 clauses, and says, in his desperation, that it is a complicated piece of legislation. It is true that if you try to read the clauses one by one, and if you wonder where they fit into the original act, it can be a bit confusing; but in the main I wish the Unemployment Insurance Act were as simple as the Canada Pension Plan, and I wish the Income Tax Act were also as simple. There are many sections to the act and many clauses in this amending bill, but in the main I think the Canada Pension Plan is a pretty straight forward piece of legislation.
I think I can say, with the modesty that we all have in this place, that I had something to do in 1964 and 1965 with persuading the Hon. Judy LaMarsh to encourage her colleagues to keep that session going until we got the Canada Pension Plan through. I was a supporter of it then, and I still am. Perhaps what I am doing is establishing my credentials, so that after I have said a few things that will be quite favourable I can offer some suggestions as to the further steps we should take.
I congratulate the minister on the organization of his speech tonight. I thought the way in which he gave us, one by one, the changes that are being made, and then went back and expanded upon some of the more complicated ones, was an excellent way to present the matter to the House. He talked, first of all, of the decision to establish complete equality between male and female contributors to the Canada Pension Plan, and I welcome that most warmly. I deliberately quote the extact words that he used. He said that this amending bill "establishes equality between male and female contributors." This will lead me a little later on to say something about the government's failure to go all the way in establishing equality between male and female Canadians.
At any rate we welcome the changes that are being made in this respect, even if it turns out that the only way that a woman contributor to the Canada Pension Plan achieves equality with a man contributor is either by dying or becoming disabled. There is no equality in terms of the position as between men and women-husband and wife, breadwinner and housewife. There is equality at the point of death or at the point of becoming disabled. Well, that is progress, but let us not take off into paeans of praise as though we have completely solved the problem of equality between the sexes. Even so, Mr. Speaker, we welcome that provision in Bill C-19.
Secondly, the minister dealt with the removal of the employment test that now applies to recipients of the Canada Pension Plan retirement benefit who are between the ages of 65 and 69. This, too, is something that we welcome. Some of us approved of that test ten years ago. I think it is a mark of the way in which society has changed that what seemed acceptable ten years ago is no longer acceptable.
I was glad that the minister made it clear that there is still a voluntary situation between the ages of 65 and 69. A contributor to the Canada Pension Plan is free to retire

any time after the age of 65 and to draw his retirement benefit and earn other money without that affecting the amount of his retirement benefit. He is also free not to take his benefit at that age but to continue working and contributing to the Canada Pension Plan so that later on his retirement benefit is higher. But I think the minister, at any rate by implication, did make it clear that he is not free to do both. A person between the ages of 65 and 69 is not free to take his retirement benefit and continue to work and hope that he can continue to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan; he has to make a choice one way or the other. I am not arguing that such a person should be able to do this, but I hope that the literature that the minister's department will distribute will be very clear on this point.
There is a terrible temptation facing people at that age to collect all the benefits that are coming to them. But bearing in mind that the YMPE is going up each year, and that certain persons might be able to earn a reasonable amount of income during the period when they are between 65 and 69, the advantage of continuing to work and to contribute to the plan, especially in the next little while when the YMPE is going up by rather substantial amounts, might be very great.
Each person will, of course, have to make his own decision; but I hope that the minister will see to it that the information put out is pretty clear. As he said, it can be supplied in a number of ways. Certainly people in receipt of old age security but not yet in receipt of the Canada Pension Plan benefits ought to be provided with the information.
I have the feeling that the material sent out to people who have applied for the old age security pension encourages them a little too strongly to apply for everything there is. The literature encourages them to apply for the guaranteed income supplement whether or not they are entitled to it. It encourages them to apply for the Canada Pension Plan. I simply make the plea that the material that is put out, especially under the new regime, be a little more clear as to the advantages or disadvantages of going one way or the other.
The minister then went on to tell us about the formula for raising the YMPE, the year's maximum pensionable earnings. We welcome very warmly the provisions that have been made in this regard. We were glad last year to approve of the $6,600 level for 1974 and the $7,400 level for 1975, and I think that the formula that has been worked out for succeeding years is a good one.
We welcome also the adjustments that are being made to the YBE, the year's basic exemption. I think the idea of putting it at 10 per cent rather than 12 Vi per cent, especially with the increase in the YMPE, is a good one, particularly for the reason indicated by the minister, namely that this benefits self-employed persons.
The minister then went on to speak of a number of miscellaneous or housekeeping changes that are being made. I found all of them to be good. I am glad the international agreements will be put into effect on a retroactive basis, and I hope that some of the negotiations that are in process with regard to agreements with certain other countries can be expedited. I hope this provision regarding retroactivity will also apply to them as well.
April 16, 1974

Like the hon. member for Hillsborough, I welcome the more humane approach toward overpayments which are the mistake of the administration. I warmly welcome the removal of the four year rule, the rule that required a contributor to check on his records and to make sure that they are up to date, with the restriction that if four years have gone by nothing could be done about any error. I hope there might be some retroactivity with respect to this as well. I know of individual cases where persons are not getting the full benefit to which they feel entitled because there is a dispute over the contributions made on behalf of those persons more than four years ago, and because of the present four year rule nothing can be done about this. As I say, I hope that will be corrected. I welcome the reintroduction of the provision about the payment of legal expenses for persons who are forced by the government side to take a case a step further.
With regard to the provisions for exemption for those who have really established religious scruples, I think we went through this last year and established our position. We had almost got it through; I see no reason that there should be any change and I hope we will not have to kick this around too long this year.
I believe, I can conclude this part of what I want to say by reaffirming my view that the 1973-74 task force, which has done its job, has done as well as the original task force and the changes that are being made in this piece of legislation are good and welcome.
Having said that I should like to comment on some of the issues raised by this bill. First of all I come back to the question of alleged equality between males and females. As the minister said, what this bill establishes is equality between male and female contributors. In other words, just as at present when a male contributor dies he leaves certain survivor benefits to his spouse and children, the legislation now being brought in will confer that same right on the female when she dies, but this is not really the ultimate objective of women's liberation, to get to the point that when a female dies she gets equality with a man.
It seems to me that the basic problem here is that our society, being what it is, has more women not in the work force than there are men not in the work force. There are more housewomen than there are housemen. I know we have a lot of trouble about these terms these days, but I think what I have in mind is clear. There are more female house persons than there are male house persons, and the hon. member who was married only two or three weeks ago, whose interjection is understandable, has not got this all sorted out yet. I extend to him my congratulations in the knowledge that he will learn.
The problem of women, especially those who are not in the work force as defined and yet who work in the home, is that they still, to too large an extent, draw their rights from their men rather than on their own basis. This was the concept in society one hundred or fifty years ago and it has not died yet. I do not ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare in this one bill to solve the whole problem in the concept of marriage, and the whole situation and everything that is involved, but I call upon him-
Canada Pension Plan
perhaps I should put it in other terms by saying I welcome the fact that he realizes there is a problem and is still studying and thinking about it. His paper which he tabled in the committee the other day is evidence of that, and I noted with interest his comment this afternoon when he said he had listened to the debate the other day on the motion of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman), and noted in particular the suggestion that perhaps a wider use of old age security might be a means of solving the problem in respect of establishing pension equality for men and women.
I see real problems in these schemes for dividing the contributions as between the husband and the housewife. I see real problems in respect of splitting the entitlement that has been earned. That may solve the problem when there is a marriage breakup, but does it really solve the problem of providing pensions for women in their own right in a modern society?
In another context I frequently get into the issue of widows' pensions being 50 per cent, as they are under the Public Service Superannuation Act and under many private pension plans, or even 60 per cent as they are under the pension plan for MPs, but I would simply ask how we ever got into the situation in which a pension is earned by a man or wife as partners, but if the wife dies the husband's pension is 100 per cent for life, whereas if the husband dies his widow's pension is 50 per cent or 60 per cent for life? Where is the equality in that situation? Under the veterans' pensions we have the same kind of situation, the details of which I need not go into, but the concept of 100 or even 300 or 400 years ago, that women's rights stem from their menfold, is still with us, and one of the places where it is very prominent is in this pension area.
I see the problems in respect of permitting housewives to contribute to the plan. If you just do it on the bald basis of letting those who can contribute, of course you provide a bonanza for those who have got money, and you do not do anything for the less wealthy. If you split the contributions for entitlement you create certain problems. Perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Macln-nis) has the answer in state salaries for housewives, and let them pay as employed persons. She is not as far out as some people may think. After all, if society has reached the point where it accepts the equality of men and women, let us go all the way.
I must not spend all my time on that phase of the matter, but I wanted to deflate the minister a little with respect to the applause he got from the Liberal benches when he said that we have established absolute equality as between male and female contributors. He is right, that is what he has done, but it is only between male and female contributors. If you are not a contributor you are not in the picture at all, and I say to the minister that he has a long way to go.
I have already complimented the minister on his good work, and I have complimented his task force. I see only two of them within the sound of my voice. At any rate I know this has been worked on by many people, but I think they can keep working on this problem and come up with something. The hon. member for Hillsborough and I expect to be around here for another 10 or 20 years, but

April 16, 1974
Canada Pension Plan
we do not want to wait that long for this problem to be solved.
I now move to another aspect of this matter. I have said that I welcome very warmly the removal of the employment test between the ages of 65 and 69, but the minister need not throw away that employment test, for it was a pretty good one. The thing to do with it now is to apply it between ages 60 and 65. Is that not the next step we should be taking, namely, lowering the pension age under both the Old Age Security Act, and the Canada Pension Plan to age 60 on a voluntary basis? The way you do it on a voluntary basis is by providing that pensions are paid between age 60 and 65 only to those persons who are out of the work force. When I say "out of the work force" I mean either that they got out or were never in it. I add that latter qualification to make sure we are covering the wives at home who never were in the work force.
I think that the minister and his department already have an excellent piece of machinery for this purpose. They are already set up to apply the test of being out of the work force. As I say, I am glad that test is being taken away with respect to those between 65 and 69, but I say: move it over and apply it to those between age 60 and 64, and this will be a real step forward.
I know that the minister is looking at me and saying that every time I speak on pensions I raise the question of pensions at 60. He says to himself: I have tried to tell that fellow that there are other problems in society, and other areas where we have to do things. He knows I agree with him, but I submit that just as I was given that kind of reply when I was trying to get the age brought down from 70 to 65, and eventually we won, we will win this one too. The minister might say: why not bring it down to 48 or 45, or whatever his age is, but we will settle for getting it down to 60 on a voluntary basis.


Mr. Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Why not 23?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The new bridegroom over here wants it down to 23.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I've been aging rapidly since I got married.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The change being made with regard to reducing the age for a free pension from 70 to 65 is good, but it does highlight the need to accept the proposition that the pensionable age should be lowered to 60 under both of these major pieces of legislation. I know that there is support for this proposal in all the parties here, and there is just as strong support for it on the government side as there is on this side. I call upon those members over there to make that known to their minister even more strongly than they have been doing.
I was quite interested in what the minister had to say about the new YMPE and the new YBE. This leads to technicalities that I will not go into. I do not want to make it sound any more complicated to the hon. member for Hillsborough than he already thought it was. But I like the

way the minister moved from merely telling us about the changes in YMPE and YBE to the new rates that will develop in a few years' time. He gave some figures which sound pretty good compared with the pension benefits that are being paid today. I want to come back to that in a moment.
I also liked what the minister said when he drew attention to the fact that in some cases this would provide people, if they combined their CPP and their OAS-and even had two OAS payments if it was a man and his wife-with an income equal to about 100 per cent of what they were earning at the time they retired. I say to the minister: bravo, I am delighted that he said it. The notion that somehow or other a pension should be less than what people get when they are working is like the notion about a widow's pension being only 50 or 60 per cent of the husband's pension. It has been around for a long while, but that does not make it right.
What is wrong with the idea that those who have done the work of society for 30 or 40 years should retire, not on a reduced standard of living but on the standard of living that they have helped to make possible? I welcome very strongly the minister's suggestion, even if he put it forward somewhat timidly, that perhaps it is all right to have pensions that in their total amount equal 100 per cent of what a person was earning when he was working. We have come a long way in this parliament of Canada since the day when we had a pension of $20 a month at the age of 70 for those who had nothing else, but we still have a long way to go.
Even if the hon. member for Hillsborough thought that the minister was not as imaginative as he claimed to be, there is at least some imagination here when the minister talks about pension rates that will some day-soon! I hope-enable people to retire and not have to take a reduction in their standard of living. That will be a civilized approach to the problem of retirement, and may we get to it very soon!
I said I was going to come back to the figures the minister quoted for 1980 and 1985. He gave two or three sets of figures, one to do with retirement benefits, one to do with disability benefits, one to do with widows, and so on. Let me say I understood the figures and I recognize that they flow from the new YMPE levels. But the point I wish to make is that the minister was not saying that people who are today drawing CPP benefits will be getting those amounts in 1980 and 1985. What he was saying was that people who retire in 1980 or 1985 and start at that time will get those benefits at those levels. I see that the minister is nodding his head indicating that I am interpreting him correctly. I am concerned about the people who are drawing today's rates. What will be their position in 1980 or 1985?
The minister will probably say to me: did I not remind you about the escalation that takes place which is based on the actual increase in the cost of living? Well, I guess the minister can make my speech for the next five minutes or so-he surely knows what is coming. It still puzzles me that the government should come up with a Canada Pension Plan which is so excellent in its escalation up to the point of retirement. The minister spelled it out tonight. One's pension at the point of retirement is not based on
April 16, 1974

the number of dollars one was making at the age of 18, 25 or 30; it is adjusted by the rise in the wage level, in other words, the rise in the standard of living. That carries through CPP right up to the point of retirement, but come the point of retirement and the poor retired person has to fall back on an index based on the cost of living increase, not on the wage increase.
If we accept the civilized proposition that people at retirement should continue to enjoy the standard of living they have helped to build, I submit that the escalation after retirement, like the escalation of the formula before retirement, should be geared not to the cost of living but to the standard of living.
There are two or three ways in which this can be done. One is to gear it to the wage index; another is to gear it to the gross national product. But to go on for ever leaving it geared to the cost of living index, I submit, is a form of discrimination against those previously retired, and this applies to those who are retired today and it will apply in 1980 to those who will retire in 1978 or 1979.
So I call on the minister to take this part of the whole matter back to the task force, back to his department, and see if they cannot come up with a post retirement escalation formula that is as good as the pre retirement formula. This is not the first time I have proposed this. I argued this at length when we were in the special committee back in 1964 and 1965. In those days we had to settle for a post retirement escalation of only 2 per cent a year. Thank heavens we went beyond that. We now have it on the cost of living and we have it on the actual amount. But, as I have often pointed out, that is not satisfactory because it is always behind. The index one gets in January is based on the increase in August, September and October as compared with the three months previous thereto. It is always behind the price increases that pensioners are having to pay, and, as the hon. member for Hillsborough says, it is an escalation of a base which, to begin with, was too low.
So I say that the last word has not been said in this legislation, regarding escalation. It was good to get it beyond 2 per cent. It is not good enough, however, to leave it where it is. I plead again that the government and the department have in their legislation, in the way they escalate prior to retirement, a basis that they could use advantageously after the time of retirement. So I urge, Mr. Speaker, that escalation after retirement be geared not just to the cost of living but that it be geared to the wage index or the gross national product, so that our people who are members of the Canadian family will be able to enjoy the standard of living that they helped to build, after they retire.
I am coming near the end of what I want to say but I should like to put in another plug about old age security. The minister had a bit to say about the flat rate component and other benefits. I understand the thinking there, but is it not a fact that as time goes on the old age security in more and more cases becomes a flat rate component in the pensioner's total benefit? Just as a disabled person gets a flat rate plus a certain percentage so the average
Canada Pension Plan
retired person will have an old age security flat rate payment and the Canada Pension payment on top.
I want to make again the argument that we move more in the direction of equality and fairness if we keep on raising what I now call the flat rate component, in other words, keep on raising old age security. I noticed that when the minister gave his figures about what pensions would be in the future he included old age security. He left the door open for larger amounts. You just do not assume that old age security will stay at $100. I can tell him it had better not stay there.


Marc Lalonde: It is not there now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says it is not there now. True, it has gone up now to $110.09 per month but the difficulty is just that bit of lethargy that the minister revealed right there. It has not stayed at $100, it has gone up and he does not have to do anything! It could go up every three months, but not by the kind of amount that is necessary to put our retired people in the position where they are enjoying a standard of living that they helped get. I think substantial increases are still called for in the basic amount of the old age pension. It is a method to follow so far as wives are concerned, but it is also a method to follow so far as fairness across the board is concerned.
When the minister made it clear that he was making a rather full speech tonight I had thought that he would deal with some of the newspaper editorial attacks that have been made recently on the Canada Pension Plan. I was looking forward to that. After it was all over I decided I was just as glad that he did not pay any attention to them. Maybe I should do the same, but I will take a moment or two to say that most of those attacks on programs like the Canada Pension Plan, old age security or transfer payments, come from persons or editorial writers or interests that just do not like the concept of equality.
I know it is true that as pensions go up they play their part in inflation and they play their part in rising costs, so that $110.09 per month is not worth as much as $100 a month was six months ago. But to the extent that we put more payments that are based on equality in the hands or pockets of our people, we build a more just, a more human and a more decent society.
It is in the area of family allowances where we have universal payments, it is in the area of our people aged 65 and over where we have universal old age security, that we come closest in my view to establishing social justice. I think this can be pursued still further by a substantial increase in the basic old age pension, say up to $200 a month this year, and by further improvements that are still in prospect with respect to the Canada Pension Plan.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying two things that may sound opposite but are both true. I am excited, I am proud of what I have seen accomplished in the parliament of Canada in the last several decades in the pension field. I well remember what it was when I came here-$20 a month at age 70 with a means test and no family allowance. We have come a long way. It is good; it is exciting; Canada can be proud of what we have done. But we still
1490

April 16, 1974
Canada Pension Plan
have a long way to go. I urge that this parliament get on with the job.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you very much for this opportunity to join in the debate. We have had a very eloquent and clear exposition by the minister who went into the broad aspects and details, and this is a grand bill. We had the short and excellent presentation of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) and this final, shall we say, almost peroration by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I think the minister will be glad to have had his agenda looked after by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for the next two to five years.
We all have to have something to say, even though it might be trite when following the previous speakers. I should like to remind the House that this bill is really an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, and it continues the government's policy to bring in legislation which aims to improve the lot of the old people and which will really equalize benefits in our society. It now includes women generally but, as has been said by other speakers, we hope it will eventually include the non-paid housewife or, in some cases, the non-paid house spouse.
The bill includes the provisions of Bill C-190 which died prematurely when parliament rose last summer, but which was an acceptable interim development in the evolution of the Canada Pension Plan. The bill also provides more changes of a technical nature. These have been well discussed and are evidence of needed change, and they will prevent inconveniences or even unfairness to the pensioner.
Before dealing with explicit changes I should like to remind the House that the government believes in federal-provincial conferences-in other words, communication. These are becoming more frequent and more successful. It is really a "must" in order fully to integrate regions with the central parliament. In fact it is to be hoped that in time the misunderstanding and hostility of areas, provinces or regions, either among themselves or directed toward the federal government, will greatly lessen as communication becomes more effective. I say that without being partisan.
Be that as it may, the Edmonton meeting of February 19 and 20 this year was most satisfactory. The health and welfare ministers wished to continue to emphasize the review of social security which had been begun in the previous year. They all agreed that we should assist the poor and disadvantaged, including the unemployed and the underpaid. They reaffirmed their agreed-on principle to help people provide for their retirement, for sickness, accident and unemployment. Of course, they included income support, where required. Because a guaranteed annual income or an omnibus program to replace all existing programs did not appear desirable at once, and there are many reasons for this, they delegated their officials to continue discussing this matter; but they themselves proceeded to the practical questions of the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans.

One of the priority issues was equal treatment of male and female contributors, and the other concerned how a housewife or spouse remaining at home could contribute to these plans. The present bill has actually been based on the amendments which this meeting at Edmonton thought necessary. So, we already have, as it were, a national consensus on its provisions.
Some worry was expressed today about our ability to pay for these plans. Speaking on the bill previously before the House, the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie), whom I respect, was worried in case the Old Age Security and Canada Pension Plan would tend to reduce the need for savings. Such a suggestion is not really correct. I think it has been demonstrated that there was greater saving per capita from income in the last year or so than at any other time in our history.
Some members are also worried in case this bill will add to inflationary pressures. I think inflation is with us, and must be faced and accepted. We should realize that Canada cannot take a stance alone. The only stance that we would take should be one that recognizes that Canada is in one of the best positions among the countries of the world, can afford such plans, and should undertake them. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in what he said about equality. There is no equality when some people can hardly get along on what they have while others have immense wealth. I think there must be some kind of income redistribution, and the Canada Pension Plan helps in this.
To make members happier let me refer them to a recent edition of the Wall Street Journal. We should all read it. It forecasts that Canada's future, despite inflation, will probably be that of leader of all developed countries. We are almost in that position now. We will be there 30 years from now. I believe that we can well afford any plan we can bring in to equalize incomes, particularly of the aged, and to make more equal the status of women in our society.
The status of women generally, their acceptance in the labour force, and the need for equality of treatment for women in the matter of pensions and legal rights: are things that have all received a great deal of public attention. Separated or divorced women, and children of failed marriages all require new provisions in our system of justice. This bill, in so far as it is now possible for us to move in this direction, faces up to these problems. It is axiomatic that we, as a parliament, will have to update constantly our legislation as society continues to evolve.
As we become aware of new attitudes to the position of women in society and in the home, we must adjust our pension schemes accordingly. We now question any different treatment of women as contributors to and beneficiaries of the Canada Pension Plan. In addition, we wonder why housewives at home cannot participate. The first concern is being looked after in this legislation, Bill C-19, the second issue will continue to be studied, because implementing it is difficult and complex. These things must be discussed by the public at large as well as by governments.
Originally, the Canada Pension plan was conceived as being part of the income maintenance system and as involving both public and private sectors. Early on most
April 16, 1974

people thought that the old Age Security Plan would look after retired people, as it applied to wage earners and non wage earners alike. Also, it was thought that private and company pension plans would look after the needs of many Canadians. A great many in the population could afford private retirement plans. However, the Canada Pension Plan was oriented toward the lower income groups and was administered by the government, which tried to allocate properly the cost both to employers and employees.
One good feature of the plan was its compulsory nature. The year's basic exemption provision excused payments by any one receiving under $700 a year. When the minister introduced the bill he reminded the House that the same treatment of male and female contributors was the result of the Edmonton meeting. The bill will provide a survivor's pension to widowers, just as it now does for widows.


Mr. Benjamin:: Yes, but how much?


Samuel Victor Railton: Well, we want the same treatment, don't we? Children's benefits will be the same basis, no matter whether the deceased parent was male or female.
Another formula will become law. The yearly maximum pensionable earnings formula was fixed for 1974 and 1975 in Bill C-224, which was passed last year and became effective last January 1. For 1974, that amount was to be $6,600, and for 1975 it is to be $7,400. These two years are regarded as a transitional period. Under this bill, however, the YMPE will be increased by 12 V4 per cent each year until it catches up to the earnings of the average Canadian worker, as represented by the industrial composite of weekly wages and salaries published by Statistics Canada. After the catching up is complete, the YMPE will be kept parallel with those average earnings.
Another point which was mentioned several times, and which cannot be repeated too often, is that people in the 65 to 69 year age bracket have their pensions reduced or eliminated if they continue to earn more than the YMPE. When this bill becomes law, people 65 or older may draw full benefits under the Canada Pension Plan whether they continue to earn or not. I think that is correct. This provision was questioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I think I have covered most of the technical points I wanted to discuss. The point that certain religious groups want to withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan should be mentioned. I well remember the discussion in the standing committee that this clause engendered.
Finally, the legal expenses of an individual who was working for the United States government at Goose Bay will be paid to allow him to update his contribution. Those expenses will be paid to allow such people to participate in the plan, as from July 1, 1972. This had been agreed to after an agreement was made between Canada and the United States when the military base was transferred.
I think I have covered most of the points I wanted to mention. Most other points were well covered by previous speakers. I will not take any more of the time of the House, as others wish to speak.
Canada Pension Plan


An hon. Member:: What about the Mennonites and Hutterites?


An hon. Member:: He mentioned them.


Samuel Victor Railton: It was not the Hutterites I was speaking of; it was the Mennonites. Hutterites will be in the news later.
This bill will provide improvements in administration, relaxing of means tests and making it easier for self employed low income people to gain assistance in retirement. It will also take cognizance of equal status of women and their legal rights.
It is my hope that this bill will be accorded rapid passage and can be made law in the very near future.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, on October 30, 1973, I had the opportunity of speaking in the debate on the bill introduced at that time. I believe it was Bill C-224. Therefore this evening I am appreciative of the fact that I have an opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill C-19 in order to express some views with regard to this very important measure.
As my colleague, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), pointed out, this is a very difficult and complex bill. It is extensive and complicated. There is a great deal of detailed work in connection with it.
It is difficult enough to try and plough through the provisions of the bill. It is also very difficult to analyse the contribution which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) made when he introduced this measure today. He introduced a great many features that possibly have precluded our study thus far. In addition, he placed a great deal of statistical data before us. I am sure hon. members will agree it will be absolutely impossible to assess it all and put it in proper perspective in the short time that has elapsed since the minister presented the measure.
The preamble to the Canada Pension Plan Booklet (1970) by the then Minister of National Health and Welfare, the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), states:
The Canada Pension plan, inaugurated in 1966, is a contributory social security program designed to provide a basic level of protection against the contingencies of retirement, disability and death.
There has been a considerable degree of discussion, even thus far in the debate, regarding the various levels of income and the inequality of income as far as Canadians are concerned. It is tragic that in a society like ours, with our vast resources, there are still many people living below the poverty line while others are living on a much higher level. We can apply the same terminology that is used in international affairs when talking about the have and have-not nations. We can talk about the have and have-not people of this country. Anything that is done in an endeavour to remove the great disparities that exist, especially any attempt to bring the income of every Canadian up to a suitable level, should certainly receive the support of every member of this House.
I referred to the statement of the former Minister of National Health and Welfare. I suggest that was a noble
27451-31).

April 16, 1974
Adjournment Debate
resolve, a noble step at the time of its-inception. I am sure that every member of parliament at that time, including myself, realized that it was not to be considered in any way as the total and complete answer to the needs of Canadians at that time, much less in the future.
It was understandable that, besides the inadequacies and injustices obvious at that time, there would be others that might only be discernible as the plan got under way. Because of that fact, it is not surprising that we are again being called upon to consider additional proposals designed to make the plan more responsive to the needs of society today.
This may not be the most auspicious time to consider the confrontation presently taking place between the "work ethic" advocate versus the "welfare" apostle, but suffice it to say this bill is predicated on the principle that an individual desires and is required to engage in constructive and remunerative employment to provide for his or her own needs and the needs of those who are dependent upon him or her, as the case may be. The great preponderance of Canadians have enough pride and character to pay their own way if opportunity is given them and government keep their hands from getting too deep in the taxpayer's pocket.
One of the most obvious problems at the present time is that through mismanagement on the part of the government, and its evident inability to control inflationary pressures, even the hardest working and most conscientious citizens of this nation are penalized, and the more thrifty they are, the more they are gouged by the tax collector. In many respects this government is undermining and discouraging the will of Canadians to work and save by implementing unfair and iniquitous tax policies.


Mr. Turner (London East):: Get to the bill.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I will get to the bill, but perhaps some preamble is worthwhile in view of the fact that the government is taking so much credit for many things that have taken place perhaps in spite of the government. In other areas that are detrimental to the nation, we are facing problems that are a direct result of the mismanagement of this government.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I will be glad to continue my remarks tomorrow. May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) is in the House this evening. On March 28 I asked the minister a question respecting an application before the CRTC which would allow for the moving of antennae presently being used for cablevision reception in the Winnipeg area, replacing them in an area in southeastern Manitoba, and then utilizing microwave signals.
I should like to point out that this application was made on behalf of various Winnipeg cablevision companies as far back as June, 1973. Recently the Chairman of the CRTC has been making pronouncements regarding Canadian content on CBC programs. I should like to tell the minister that there are a number of areas in Manitoba, not in remote regions but within 60 or 70 miles of Winnipeg, which at present are getting only a minimum of CBC coverage, and no alternate coverage whatever.
The CBC sat on this application of June, 1973, and did not hear it until February 7, 1974, some eight months later. To add to the delay the commission then deferred its decision until May 14. I want to impress upon the minister that if we are to have the benefit of an alternate service in parts of Manitoba other than the Winnipeg area, a microwave system must be approved.
In his reply to me on March 28 the minister said the CRTC was doing its best and that the government did not make decisions for the commission. Yet the CRTC is an agent of government and has a responsibility to the public to express its views, whether for or against an application.
Letters of intent have been issued to the CRTC by people in the Pine Falls area asking that cable television be extended in that area. But according to the workings of the CRTC, the commission must first advertise that it is willing to receive applications. However, it refuses to do this. So the people in Pine Falls are deprived even of an opportunity to present an application for cable television, and to see their application either accepted or rejected. Surely the least the people of the area can expect is that they will be heard. I quote from a letter written by a constituent in that area:
I have made a start on a brief to present at the May 14 hearings but am not going to do any more work on it until such time as I know definitely I shall be allowed to present it. Operating in its usual fashion, the CRTC has not yet seen fit to acknowledge our request which was mailed on March 22.
All we are asking is, first, that an application having been made we can expect a decision after eight months. Second, we are asking that Canadians be heard. We question the position of the commission that applications cannot be received until advertisements have been published to that effect. The CRTC is an arm of the Department of Communications. Applications should be heard and decided, for or against, on their own merits and not be deferred, or left unheard, because the commission has some bureaucratic reason for declining to take action. It is incumbent on the minister to demand of the CRTC that it at least give the Canadian people their democratic rights-
April 16, 1974

that it should hear applications and then decide whether or not to approve them.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to say that I do not agree with the hon. member that the CRTC is an arm of the Department of Communications. It is a quasi judicial body, and that creates an entirely different situation, as I am sure he will agree. The delays the hon. member has been pointing out are real. I think his facts are correct. I should like to inform him, though, that they are not of a bureaucratic nature.
The delay in holding the Manitoba hearing in Winnipeg arose primarily from the position taken by the government of Manitoba, which had publicly advised all broadcasters and cable television licencees in Manitoba that its department of communications was working on a telecommunications position paper for Manitoba. This announcement was made publicly on November 15, 1972, and the position paper was tentatively scheduled for completion by midsummer, 1973. Since the federal agencies are generally, rightly or wrongly, criticized for not consulting with the provinces or for not taking into account the wishes and needs of the provinces, the CRTC thought it wise to wait for this document, which although it had been announced would be completed by the summer of 1973 has not yet been completed.
So this is the reason for the delay. The CRTC could not delay any further. I do not know whether the Manitoba white paper was the great design that the provincial government wanted to put out, and that it will be out by May 14. I do not have the faintest notion, and I suspect the CRTC has not either. Surely the CRTC itself would provide the hon. member with the decision to which he is alluding after the May 14 Winnipeg public hearing. It is not only one or two isolated decisions that are at stake here but the whole planning and development of telecommunications and a cable system for the province of Manitoba.
Here are the facts. I understand the concerns of the hon. member and I share them. I can assure him the CRTC shares them also, and that after the May hearing the procrastination will come to an end and a decision will be taken.


HEALTH-INCIDENCE OF SILICOSIS AMONG URANIUM WORKERS-ACTION BY MINISTER OF LABOUR
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, over a week ago I raised the issue of health safety in the uranium mines at Elliot Lake in northern Ontario. For the benefit of those members of the House who are not aware of the background of this particular mining operation a quick sketch is essential.
Uranium mining and milling came into being in Elliot Lake in 1955. The ore is contained in a base, 70 per cent of which is free silica as compared with 4 per cent to 8 per cent in the Sudbury camp. It was readily recognized that mining the Elliot Lake ore body presented a very significant potential risk, but it was believed that the existing mining technology was adequate to cope with this problem. No doubt, Mr. Speaker, whatever second thoughts
Adjournment Debate
there were quickly evaporated in the face of the enormous and dazzling contracts secured by the federal government from the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission through its own agency, the Eldorado Mining and Refining Company, contracts worth a total value of $1.5 billion.
Unfortunately, specific delivery dates were set down and deliveries were required to be completed by 1963. Also, under risk of cancellation, these deliveries were to commence on specific dates. What followed was an accelerated exploitation of the ore body in order for the mining companies to honour their commitments. This involved high wages, with particularly high bonus incentives, round the clock mining, short cuts, and always at their backs the threat of contract cancellation.
In this highly charged atmosphere of big profit, dust control and other measures of health safety assumed roles of secondary importance. Inevitably, as always in a community solely dependent upon the mining industry, the bust occurred in the 1960s when the options for contract renewal by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission were not taken up after 1959. Then in the late sixties, and particularly between 1970 and the end of 1972, a pattern began to emerge. Dust effects-the various X-ray stages leading to silicosis-began appearing in miners with little or no previous mining experience before Elliot Lake. The present situation at Elliot Lake is that some 10 per cent of the work force have pulmonary disabilities ranging up to 40 per cent.
As far back as 1972 the United Steelworkers of America, which represents the miners in Elliot Lake, was in contact with the then Minister of Labour, Mr. Martin O'Connell, requesting his intervention on behalf of the miners' health and safety in the uranium mines. Indeed, in a letter to Mr. Paul Falkowski of USWA District 6, Mr. O'Connell admitted that the uranium mines of Canada are subject to federal jurisdiction. In the same letter the minister stated that employment safety and health in the uranium mines are subject to the provisions of the Atomic Energy Control Act, administered by the Atomic Energy Control Board.
Because of the persistence of the steelworkers union, the Ontario department of natural resources carried out an environment quality survey in the uranium mines at Elliot Lake. The workers involved have been seriously critical of several aspects of this survey. One such criticism is that the instruments used were not modern enough to be capable of producing accurate and satisfactory results.
In addition, criticism has been raised to the effect that normal operating conditions were altered deliberately to such a degree as to produce absolutely false results. Furthermore, any activities which are responsible for increasing or producing dust concentration in the mine ceased a number of hours before the "so-called" environmental survey started and samples of the mine air were collected. Crushers were shut down and normally dusty areas were washed down prior to the investigation of the mine environment.
This survey ended up as a whitewash for Mr. Stephen B. Roman, owner of Denison Mines and Rio Algoma. It was because of this obvious "dodge the ball" game being

April 16, 1974
Adjournment Debate
played by the provincial Tory government with its corporate friends in the mining sector that the United Steelworkers of America once again approached the federal government.
Uranium mines of Canada are within the federal jurisdiction. Furthermore, I hold here a document numbered P.C. 1972-431, dated March 7, 1972 entitled "Regulations Respecting the Use, Handling and Storage of Dangerous Substances and Radiation Emitting Devices in Federal Works, Undertakings and Businesses". In Clause 2 entitled "Interpretation", "Minister" means the Minister of Labour, and "Division Chief" means the Chief, Accident Prevention Division, Accident Prevention and Compensation Branch, Department of Labour, Ottawa.
In addition, Clause 10 states specifically, and I quote in part:
Subject to Section 11, every employer shall ensure that the concentration of any dangerous substance that may be carried by the air in any area where an employee is working
(a)	does not exceed the threshold limit value recommended by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists in its pamphlet "Threshold Limit Values for Air Borne Contaminants 1971" as amended from to time, or
(b)	conforms with any standard that follows good industrial safety practice, and is acceptable to the division chief.
Clause 13 amplifies this, and I quote in part again:
Where the atomosphere of any area in which an employee is working is subject to contamination by a dangerous substance, the employer shall ensure that the atmosphere is sampled and tested as frequently as
(a)	may be necessary to ensure that the level of contamination does not at any time exceed the safe limits prescribed by Section 10, 11 and 12, or
(b)	is directed in writing by the regional safety officer.
When I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) to assume his responsibilities to the uranium miners of Elliot Lake, he said:
It is not within my jurisdiction... the jurisdiction falls under the Atomic Energy Control Board and certain activities are undertaken by the Radiation Division of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
My colleague, the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly), raised the issue with the Atomic Energy Control Board when that board appeared before the House's Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. What was the outcome? The Atomic Energy Control Board neatly passed the buck to the provincial government. The Elliot Lake miners in trying to avoid the "dodge the ball game" of the Ontario Tory government, have come face to face with the federal Liberal government's game of passing the buck.
The use of uranium as a source of energy is becoming more widespread and its mining will become more extensive. It is absolutely imperative, in view of the urgent and grave nature of the health risk, that the government ensure that the proper testing is done to determine and establish safe working conditions for the uranium miners of Elliot Lake and Canada. I hope that the minister, or his parliamentary secretary, will not stand up here tonight and tell me again that this is not within his jurisdiction. The responsibility is being passed from hand to hand, and no adequate action is being taken. The federal Minister of Labour is ultimately and morally responsible for what is happening to those workers in the uranium mines.

The problems have been identified and pointed out by the workers themselves, the United Stellworkers of America and the Workmen's Compensation Board of Ontario. I, as a member of this House, am asking that the minister step in on behalf of those workers and make damn sure that their health is protected. If that involves stepping on the toes of the Atomic Energy Control Board, or Stephen P. Roman, then I suggest the minister get his walking shoes on right now. Thank you, companeros.


Charles Robert Turner: Mr. Speaker, the subject of the uranium mining industry and Part IV of the Canada Labour Code (Safety of Employees) falls under the following headings: First, the general responsibility for occupational health and safety in the uranium industry. The application of Part IV of the Canada Labour Code (Safety of Employees) is by virtue of Section 80 "subject to any other act of the Parliament of Canada and any regulations thereunder-". The Atomic Energy Control Act therefore takes precedence over Part IV of the Canada Labour Code and regulations thereunder.
The second heading is the role and responsibility of the Atomic Energy Control Board. Under the Atomic Energy Control Act, the Atomic Energy Control Board is generally responsible for all matters pertaining to the occupational health and safety of employees of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited and Eldorado Nuclear Limited, including the uranium mines in Saskatchewan and Ontario.
Third, the role of the Canada Department of Labour respecting uranium mining. The Department of Labour has no statutory responsibility for occupational health and safety related to the mining or processing of uranium. It has nervertheless expressed its general interest in the subject to the chairman of the Atomic Energy Control Board and offered any assistance it could provide. These matters continue to be handled by the board in accordance with its regular policies and procedures.
Fourth, delegation of responsibility to provincial governments. The Atomic Energy Control Board has delegated responsibility in the operational safety and health fields to the two provinces by arrangement. It is understood that the board does not routinely receive reports concerning occupational safety and accident prevention inspections and surveys from the provincial agencies.
With regard to Ontario, under the delegated authority inspections are performed by the Ontario ministry of natural resources for any mine which is subject to the Ontario mining act. The Ontario ministry of health carries out inspections upon request of the Ontario ministry of natural resources. There does not appear to be any established program of regular monitoring of health conditions in the uranium mine.
With regard to Saskatchewan, the mines inspection branch of the Saskatchewan department of labour-formerly under the mineral resources department-has carried out regular annual inspections of the Beaver Lodge mine. The Saskatchewan department of health formerly performed annual inspection, but this is not known to have been done for at least the past five years.
April 16, 1974

By agreement with the respective department of labour of Ontario and Saskatchewan, regular periodic inspections are conducted of boilers and pressure vessels. Inspections of electrical and gas installations are similarly conducted by the appropriate provincial agencies.


COMMEMORATION-INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBILITY OF EVENTS TO HONOUR MACKENZIE KING, ARTHUR MEIGHEN AND J. S. WOODSWORTH
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, on more than one occasion in this chamber and in other assemblies of people I have deplored our nation's seeming reluctance to pay adequate tribute and give sufficient praise to the men and women of an earlier date who contributed so mightily and worthily to Canada's greatness.
I have felt this lack in our timidity about commemorating the birth dates of our founding fathers. We are also most timid and neglectful when it comes to commemorative stamps. It took us more than a century to place the likenesses of former prime ministers on the paper currency of the realm.
I thought the coincidence of three distinguished Canadian political leaders sharing the same year of birth, 1874, sufficiently significant to raise the matter in the oral question period. I refer to the Rignt Hon. Arthur Meighen, Reverend James Shaver Woodsworth and the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King in that order to indicate one thing, their order of birth in the year 1874, one century ago.
Mr. Meighen, born in Anderson, Ontario, on June 16, 1874, was a brilliant scholar, able lawyer, successful businessman and an outstanding expert on Shakespeare. But he was superb as a parliamentarian. It is doubtful that this historic chamber or its physical predecessor ever heard a greater debater. He was first elected to the House of Commons in 1908. He went on to serve in major minister-ies in the Borden government, and in 1920 became prime minister at 46, the youngest in the nation's history.
Brilliant though his career was, he was singularly unfortunate in his efforts to lead his party to electoral victories. His great skills were not of themselves sufficient for the
Adjournment Debate
times and the circumstances. His biographer, Roger Graham, refers to Meighen's delusion that in politics the weight of evidence and the force of argument determine the issue.
In Mr. Woodsworth Canadian public life had a major contributor to the social consciousness reflected in parliamentary action and debate. A dedicated champion of the underdog, this great visionary saw some of his visions become reality as the lot of rank and file Canadians was gradually bettered through a developing awareness that the institution of government should help most those who most needed help. While in this House from 1921 to 1942 he was always with a minor party, if with a party at all. But no one would designate as minor his impact upon the House and his contribution to the improvement of the life and standards of the Canadian people.
Mr. King, under whose prime ministership I lived part of my youth, was also a social reformer but more notably a political performer. Like Macdonald and Laurier, he knew the positive and dynamic value of compromise, and his ability in winning elections has made his name a leading one in the roster of successful political leaders. A matchless sense of timing, a capacity for patience, a keen ability for judging men-these were but some of the ingredients of his mastery of the political arts.
Three men so different, yet men of rare distinction, men who would be deserving of special note in any free parliament. These three-Meighen, Woodsworth, and King-are uniquely ours. Canada's parliament and Canada's people should find a fitting way to honour this illustrious trio in this, the centennial of their birth.


Charles Robert Turner: Mr. Speaker, the government recognizes the outstanding contribution to Canadian life made by these three gentlemen, the late Mackenzie King, the late Arthur Meighen and the late J. S. Woodsworth. At the present time, however, no official commemorative events are planned.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.22 p.m.

Wednesday, April 17, 1974