1974-04-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion.
In view of the fact that in the announcement made recently by the Canadian Dairy Commission concerning dairy policies for 1974, there is no guarantee of a required minimum income for dairy producers; that the Quebec Federation of Industrial Milk Producers has decided, at its annual assembly yesterday, to implement a plan of action aiming at withholding dairy products, and that the precarious situation in which the Canadian egg producers find themselves is due to the import of American eggs on the Canadian market, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner);
That the responsible committee of the House do convene immediately to discuss these problems in order that new recommendations may be put by this committee to the House so as to solve the problems that these two categories of producers are now facing.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to 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 not unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.


FINANCE
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek consent of the House to move a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity. If it is accepted I have no plans to debate it, and I hope no one else will. The urgent situation concerns the action of the Bank of Montreal, as disclosed to me this morning, of responding immediately to the decision of the
Bank of Canada to increase the interest rate by one percentage point by raising its prime rate from 9'/2 per cent to 10 'A per cent for loans but not yet raising the interest rate payable on deposits for the benefit of its customers. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
That this House is of the opinion that chartered banks, at the moment of increasing interest rates on loans, should also increase the interest rates payable to customers for money on deposit with the banks.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion, proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43, 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 and the motion cannot be put.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the nationwide shortage of rolling stock on our railways and reports that Canadian National Railways has informed the president of Scott Maritimes Pulp Limited and others that a further withdrawal of boxcars will be made from the Atlantic region which, if carried out, in the case of Scott alone will result in a production curtailment and cost in excess of $100,000 per month for alternate shipping arrangements, and which also will affect shippers of fertilizer, peat moss and other staples of the Maritimes economy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell):
That the Minister of Transport, who indicated recently that it would be improper to take boxcars from the Atlantic area for use in the west because this would hurt the Atlantic economy, take all necessary steps and exert whatever authority he may have left to prevent the Atlantic region from being shortchanged by our national railway system.


PROPOSED CROSSING TO LINK NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my motion under Standing Order 43 also concerns a matter of urgency. The direction of effort by
27451-34.1

April 18, 1974
Post Office
the province of Newfoundland to develop the lower Churchill hydro resource, the effort to collaborate with the province of Quebec on a Quebec-Labrador highway, and the development of a national park in western Newfoundland emphasize the need to consider a connecting link between the land masses of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That studies produced by Acres Bechtel Limited, Northumberland Consultants Limited (1968) and the faculty of engineering and applied science of Memorial University be referred to a special committee comprising Regional Development, the Ministry of Transport, Energy, Mines and Resources, Science and Technology, and Indian Affairs and Northern Development to determine the feasibility of establishing a crossing between Newfoundland and Labrador for the social, economic and political well-being of and advancement of Canada's national goals.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


POST OFFICE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I would like to move a motion of importance. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That, in view of the refusal of the Post Office Department to bargain collectively with the postal employees on the question of rate of pay for postal coders whom the Post Office Department proposes to pay $30 a week less than mail sorters are now getting, and in view of the fact that this refusal has led to a work stoppage in a number of Canadian cities and will, if not resolved, lead to a complete shutdown of the Post Office, the question of the pay rate for postal coders and mail sorters be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


AGRICULTURE
Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of very urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the growing volume of egg imports from the United States, which is destroying the viability of the Canadian egg industry. Due to the recent high volume of imports and the probability of this level drastically increasing, plus the cost to the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency to remove these imports and thereby try to maintain orderly marketing and pricing in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That this House instruct the Minister of Agriculture to take immediate steps to counteract the importation of United States eggs into Canada in order to protect the Canadian egg industry from below cost of production United States eggs further destroying our market in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion, as do others under Standing Order 43, 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. The motion cannot be put.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under Standing Order 43. I believe it will be acceptable because there have been conversations with representatives of the various parties. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) who, I might say, has agreed to do so:
That this House calls for, and offers its full support of, any emergency arrangements that can be made so that there will be no interruption in the delivery of family allowance, welfare and pension cheques.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Mr. Bell:: On a point of order, since the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) first raised this matter yesterday, we will give our support to this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that is not a point of order but rather an indication of how he proposes to vote. The difficulty with that kind of intervention is that it invites other similar interventions and possibly debate. We are now going to have one by the hon. member for Lotbiniere. I really think
April 18, 1974

the Chair should be allowed to put these motions without debate. The hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Mr. Fortin:: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would say that we would very much agree with the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), if he would include unemployment insurance cheques.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I again suggest to hon. members there should be no debate. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There appears to be unanimous consent. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Andras:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere mentioned unemployment insurance cheques. Are they to be included as an amendment to the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall be glad to include those words, Mr. Speaker,


Mr. Speaker:: I am not too sure how the motion would read. I understand that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, seconded by the hon. member for Ontario, moves:
That this House calls for, and offers its full support of, any emergency arrangements that can be made so that there will be no interruption in the delivery of family allowance, welfare, unemployment insurance and pension cheques.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Woolliams:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the motion is most commendable and I am sure everyone in the House is in agreement, but surely we should now have from the government a statement on motions telling us how it proposes to move these cheques since the whole country is paralysed as a result of its inactivity.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the alarming growth of labour disputes already causing strikes in vital areas, and the inflationary spiral giving rise to them, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis):
Oral Questions
That this House welcomes the Prime Minister back from his vacation in Barbados and requests him to postpone the government's political football bill by bringing forward immediate legislation to alleviate the staggering inflationary problems which affect all Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimity.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In light of the work stoppages already taking place in the Public Service and others that are threatened, has the government of Canada adopted guidelines with regard to the wage and salary increases it is prepared to permit during the next year or the next bargaining period? Has the government adopted guidelines related to the wage and salary increases it will permit?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, each case is being discussed on its merits by the government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is the government of Canada prepared to agree in appropriate cases to building in allowances for increases in the cost of living in contracts which are being negotiated or which may come up for negotiation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Here again, we deal with each of these labour negotiations in terms of the propositions made by the two sides. It may be that in some cases escalation clauses are suggested and not in others. The government has no-


Some hon. Members:: No policy.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -uniform approach. It has a policy of dealing equitably with every labour contract that comes before it, and we hope that in this we have the support of the opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is obvious that the Prime Minister has been away or he would have noticed that things were not going so well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

April 18, 1974
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: Tell us about Jack Horner!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether the government has any plan to break inflationary expectations, a plan that would really encourage employees to moderate their demands for pay increases and provide them with some sense of security with regard to being able to meet the increase in the cost of living? If the right hon. gentleman has any such plan, why does he not bring it forward instead of treating this whole matter as a political football, creating all kinds of difficulties in the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was quite clear that I said in my two previous answers that our plan is to deal with each particular case on its merits. If this is not the position of the opposition, then I take it they are just proposing a general wage freeze which, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, is a way of hurting the little man as against the big man.


FINANCE
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to address a question to the Minister of Finance, and it will not be a question asking him or the government to get workers to agree to take less than they are entitled to. In view of the fact the recent increases in mortgage rates will not only place an unbearable burden on Canadian families but also bring millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of dollars of additional profit to banks, mortgage companies and other financial institutions, will the minister take steps to persuade, order, or in whatever way he can, mortgage companies, banks and other financial institutions to roll back the mortgage interest rate instead of leaving them at the present usurious level?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, one of the premises of the hon. gentleman's question is not correct. The spread between the price that trust companies, insurance companies and banks are now paying for money and the price that they charge for money has not changed.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Minister of Finance ask his department to make some calculation of what will be the effect on profits. I want to ask the Minister of Finance this question. In view of the fact that the corporations in this country, according to various sources, are handing their high executives second mortgages at the best interest rate available, let alone first mortgages, will the government take any steps to reduce the burden of mortgage interest rates on the ordinary Canadian family, which has made it impossible for Canadian families either to buy homes or to contemplate this for the future?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that the legislative thrust of my colleague, the 
Minister of State for Urban Affairs, dealing specifically with housing and the mortgage problem, namely, the social housing program and the poverty line housing program, is a matter with which I am closely associated. As for the general question of conventional mortgages in the private sector, I have already said to the hon. gentleman's colleague, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, that, in this type of tight housing market where there is a strong demand for housing, any manipulation of the interest rate, either by way of allowing part of it as a deductible item against income tax or by way of some subsidization of the interest rate, would only be reflected in a transferred capitalization, increasing the price of a house.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for York South on a supplementary, followed by the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Minister of Finance believes that only private corporations can manipulate interest rates in favour of their top executives. I want to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question in this general area. In view of the fact that even the chairman of the Food Prices Review Board has seen the value of a two-price system in certain basic food commodities, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government is now prepared to bring in a two-prices system for many commodities produced in this country so that Canadians will not have to pay exorbitant prices merely because of international shortages and pressures?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will, of course, allow the right hon. Prime Minister to reply to the question, but the hon. member will appreciate that while this may be a related question it is hardly a supplementary. As the question has been asked, the right hon. gentleman may reply, following which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I understand that Mrs. Plumptre indicated she was going to look into this matter, and we will, of course, study the results of her report with great care if and when it is made.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Postmaster General.
Can he say what is the present situation concerning the postal strike throughout Canada? Has progress been made? Have there been negotiations and meetings between the department and union conciliators?
April 18, 1974


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the situation is this: obviously, there have been work stoppages throughout the country. I must repeat that they are illegal and go directly against the present collective agreement. An injunction is being debated today in Superior Court in Montreal. I would also say that we keep in contact with representatives of the national executive of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, and further discussions are to take place during the next hours.


WORK STOPPAGES-REQUEST THAT PRESIDENT OF TREASURY BOARD INTERVENE IN NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board.
Since most mail distribution centres of the country are strike-bound or occupation-bound, and particularly at a time of inflationary crisis when our needy citizens will suffer from delayed social benefits cheques, does the President of the Treasury Board expect to announce in the next few hours, for the sake of the common good, that he intends to sit at the negotiating table, the only place where a satisfactory settlement of this dispute can be reached?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I can say that special measures have been taken by the Postmaster General in order that the cheques referred to earlier may have absolute priority for delivery. The moment my presence at any table may prove helpful, I shall be glad to take part in the negotiations.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Does the President of the Treasury Board admit that the root of this conflict among workers lies in the approach, the style and implications of the present automatic sorting of mail.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will admit that such a question is controversial. He could word it otherwise to enable the minister to answer, if not I will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I note the bad temper of the Prime Minister who has just said that the question is useless and as usual blames the member for being incompetent. He thus accuses the Postmaster General of being incomptent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, I have allowed the hon. member to word his question in other terms. He could perhaps do it now so that we may hear the supplementary questions.


Claude Wagner: Would the President of the Treasury Board assure the House that he intends to meet with the bargaining committee within the next few hours?
This question can easily be understood, even by the Prime Minister.
Oral Questions


SUGGESTION THAT POSTAL CODERS BE PAID SAME RATE AS MAIL SORTERS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to either the Postmaster General or the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that the work stoppages in post offices result from the dissatisfaction of the postal workers with the unilateral decision of the government to set the rate for workers who will be sorting mail with the new machines at some 72 cents an hour less than mail sorters have been receiving under the present contract, is the government considering adjusting that rate so it will be comparable with the rate now paid to mail sorters?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, when I met the executive of the Council of the Postal Unions I indicated that I would be available, as well as the deputy minister, to sit with the manpower committee to study and give priority to the coders' situation. I should like to take advantage of this reply to the hon. member to add that it is imperative-and I am sure both the public and most hon. members will agree-that the administration decide how the postal services are to be run and not the union as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe would have it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Winnipeg North for a supplementary and then the hon. member for Don Valley.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I note the offer of the minister to sit in on the negotiations. I ask the minister again whether he is prepared to make a concrete offer of an upward adjustment in the rate, which the workers feel is now completely unacceptable, so that they will have a reason to sit down with him?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think it is essential that the employees should first of all respect their collective agreement and return to work. Only then will we really be able to sit down with them and discuss a solution to the coders' problem.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the position taken by the Prime Minister that each of the critical labour problems will be considered on an individual basis, is it the considered position of the government that the historic high level of inflation we have now in this country is not a major factor in the labour unrest in Canada today?

April 18, 1974
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I indicated my opinion on that in my speech during the debate on the throne speech.


POST OFFICE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Given the fact that a number of airports in Canada are already closed because of the firefighters' strike and the fact that we are facing a possible nationwide closing of airports because of the air traffic controllers' dispute, may I ask the minister how he intends to get family allowance and old age pension cheques across the country?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the hon. member that a large number of post offices are still open where the mail is being sorted out, and that all those offices are giving priority to that type of letters. I also wish to tell the House that I hope an agreement will be reached as soon as possible to settle the matter.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the minister how he proposes to get the cheques out where airports and postal stations are already closed?


Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to a previous question. I want to get back to this business of how pension cheques and other benefits will be moved across this strikebound country. I want to ask the Postmaster General whether his model of efficiency proposes to transport these cheques to the deserving recipients by means of the same private enterprise courier service the Post Office has used for many months to move its internal mail between cities of this country?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AGRICULTURE
Roch La Salle: I should normally put my question to the Minister of Agriculture or his parliamentary secretary. Neither one is here so, although I do not want to cause any inconvenience, I dare ask the Postmaster General, who has other problems but once met with dairy producers, whether, considering that the Federation of Industrial Milk Producers which was holding its annual meeting yesterday decided to institute a program aiming at withholding dairy products-
[Mr. Gillies.}


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question cannot be put to the Postmaster General-unless he is the Acting Minister of Agriculture-and I have no indication that he is. The hon. member could perhaps address it to the right hon. Prime Minister. It would be more appropriate than to put it to the Postmaster General.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister, as I am convinced he is already aware of the problem.
Since the recent dairy policy has been rightly judged to be totally insufficient for the future of the dairy industry in Canada, does the right hon. Prime Minister intend to ask the cabinet to reconsider it and to submit for the milk producers measures to ensure the future of the dairy industry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the premises of the question and cannot therefore agree with its conclusions, which are necessarily wrong.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact the Unemployment Insurance Commission has been making it a policy to disqualify unemployed rural workers from UIC benefits on the pretext that they are restricting their area of employment search, will the minister assure the House that he will take another look at the matter and instruct the UIC to stop discriminating against unemployed rural workers?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think in this instance, as with other similar representations, I would have to ask the hon. member to give me specific cases in which this has been done and I would be glad to look into them.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville on a supplementary and then the hon. member for Provencher.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Considering the fact that most of these workers search for jobs within 25 or 30 miles from home, will the minister assure the House that the commission will not force these claimants to uproot their families and move to cities merely to qualify for the UIC benefits they deserve?


Robert Knight Andras: Again, if the hon. member would give me specific examples I would be glad to look into them. In the meantime, any such disentitlements or any such disqualifications are subject, of course, to the appeal system and those decisions would either be upheld or denied by the boards of referees or subsequently by the umpire.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Provencher.
April 18, 1974


Mr. Epp:: Mr. Speaker, I was going to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture or the parliamentary secretary.


Frank Howard: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If I may interrupt the hon. member for Provencher, I believe the hon. member for Skeena is rising on a point of order.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the response given by the minister about unemployment insurance claimants being denied in rural areas is misleading because the minister has no authority under the law to do anything about specific cases. For him to say that an hon. member should give him specific information is misleading the House and I submit he should know better.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister rises on the point of order. I hope we will try to return to the question period soon.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the general suggestion made by the hon. member who preceded the hon. member who just rose on a point of order was that I should look into the policy aspect or the program aspect. Before doing so I wanted the hon. member to co-operate with me, in order that I can co-operate with him, by giving me specific instances on which I could base my decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member did not really have a point of order; it was a point of debate. The minister has replied to it. Now the hon. member for York-ton-Melville rises on a further point of order. I will take all these points of order into account when allocating questions between now and the end of the question period. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege which I think affects most members of the House. I have on several occasions contacted the minister and given him examples of how the UIC discriminates against rural unemployed workers. I know that most members of the House have contacted him. He should not deliberately try to mislead the House in that way.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville has risen on a question of privilege and has charged that the minister is deliberately misleading the House. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville has been here for a few years and he should know that under the rules and practice of the House he has no right to charge another member, be he a minister or another member of the House on one side or the other, with deliberately misleading the House. I would hope the hon. member would take that into account.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should indicate to the Chair that he would like to qualify the charge he has made against another member of the House.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Because of the fact that apparently it goes against the grain of the traditions of the House, I will withdraw it. I do so with some hesitation, but I will follow your instructions.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the hon. member's assistance.


AGRICULTURE
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Prime Minister. It is an urgent matter. In view of the recent high volume of eggs imported into Canada from the United States and the tremendous threat this poses for Canadian producers, can the Prime Minister advise what immediate steps the government is prepared to take to ensure that Canadian egg producers will be able to market their product in an orderly way at a price which will provide them with a fair return?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to draw the representation of the hon. member to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance.
Further to the statement made by the President of the Food Prices Review Board, Mrs. Plumptre, that the government should establish a two-price system for essential commodities, namely an export price and another one for local consumption, could the minister tell the House if he intends to apply such a measure?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, even before Mrs. Plumptre's statement which, by the way, I did not read, I have dealt with this matter in a quite accurate and general reply to our colleague, the hon. member for York South.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Transport.

April 18, 1974
Oral Questions
In view of the fact that Montreal Airport firemen are due to begin a study session at 6 o'clock tonight, and that the Montreal Airport will be the eighth airport thus affected by such study sessions throughout Canada, what precise step will the government take io improve this situation?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, very precise steps have been taken daily at least for the past week to settle this conflict and if the hon. member is aware of any means more effective than those now used, I should like him to indicate them to the House.


William Heward Grafftey: You are supposed to administer this country. You are the party in power, not us.
I wish to direct a supplementary question to the hon. President of the Treasury Board.
Could he advise the House of the precise step the present administration will take?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I fully rely on the hon. Minister of Transport.


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Transport. Has the government indicated to those involved in these illegal strikes what action it is prepared to take, either through the courts or by special legislation to end this illegal activity?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think that on a few occasions I have made the situation quite clear. Treasury Board has negotiated with the Public Service Alliance which is the certified bargaining unit. The conflict is not between the two bargaining agencies but is within the union. We are trying to normalize the situation instead of compromising it at this stage and thus prolonging it. We hope that in a very short while the solution which is contemplated will be accepted.


John Allen Fraser: I have some sympathy for what the minister is trying to do, but the public interest is involved here and the public are asking how long the government is going to sit doing nothing and apparently not saying what it is going to do.


Jean Marchand: There is only one thing which is not right, and I hope the hon. gentleman will admit it. It is not true that we are doing nothing. I have been working about seven or eight hours a day on this matter, trying to find a solution. It is not lack of esteem for the House if we do not speak of every step we take in order to restore peace in British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada. We as a government are not responsible for this situation because we have negotiated an agreement and the Alliance supported it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Vancouver South on a supplementary, then the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, and perhaps other hon. members on further supplementaries.


John Allen Fraser: Again my question is for the Minister of Transport. I am in complete agreement that the minister has worked very hard but the question is: in view of the situation, which is not of the government's making but which is affecting the public interest right across the country, what is the government going to do now? Is it going to continue saying that there is nothing it can do about it?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think that the alliance, with which we have an agreement, has to have this agreement ratified by the firefighters. We are suggesting to the alliance that this might be too slow a process and that we have an alternative so that perhaps the situation can be handled faster than usual.


Some hon. Members:: What is it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich on a supplementary, followed by the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Would he be willing to tell the House and the nation the outcome of the informal meetings with the firefighters which we were told he was having yesterday in Victoria and Vancouver? This might clarify the situation somewhat.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I support the Minister of Transport in the view that it is not particularly helpful to try to negotiate at the bargaining table on the one hand and across the floor of the House on the other. This leads to confusion rather than clarification.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the recent grounding of the ship, Imperial Sarnia, in the St. Lawrence waterway last Monday, resulting in a small but serious oil spill which apparently is still not all contained, especially on the Canadian side, what action is being taken to prevent any possible pollution of the Canadian side of the river, and is the water supply of any town or city threatened?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the water supply of any city or municipality is threatened as yet. There is close cooperation meanwhile between the company people, who are undertaking most of the clean-up, the Department of Transport, which has the lead clean-up role among federal departments, and the Department of the Environment in this respect.
April 18, 1974


Randolph Harding: In view of the planned co-ordination and co-operation between Canada and the United States on contingency plans for containing oil spills in the joint Great Lakes and St. Lawrence river areas, I would ask the minister if sufficient equipment was available and why these joint clean-up resources were unable to handle this relatively small oil spill adequately, especially as the weather was good and the water calm for several days after the spill occurred?


John (Jack) Davis: As the hon. member says, there is a joint Canada-United States contingency plan to deal with oil spills. This plan was invoked at an early stage and U.S. authorities have co-operated throughout.


TRANSPORT
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he is investigating representations that Canadian National Railways is withdrawing boxcars from service in the Atlantic region to the detriment of that region, and also whether he has any procedures in place to make certain that no region in Canada is treated unfairly at this time of nationwide shortage of railway rolling stock?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman gave me notice yesterday of this important question and I did make inquiries. I was told that it may be that some cars were withdrawn but that other cars that were idle either in Quebec or Ontario were added. When they withdraw cars they are just regularizing the situation. They do that not only in the Mari times but in Quebec, Ontario and the west so as to utilize the maximum capacity of the cars. I did it personally for the fruit growers in the Okanagan Valley. They were asking for cars and we took some idle cars and brought them in. After that they were sent back to where they came from.


ALLEGED UNFITNESS FOR SERVICE OF CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY LOCOMOTIVES
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport regarding the continuing transportation crisis in rail movement. Have he or his officials looked into the charge made by the Moose Jaw Railway Labour Association that a majority of CPR locomotives are unfit for service and, if so, is he in a position to make a report to the House?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will surely inquire and make a report.
Oral Questions PUBLIC SERVICE


REASON FOR DISPUTES WITH AIRPORT FIREFIGHTERS, SHIP PILOTS, POST OFFICE EMPLOYEES AND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the President of the Treasury Board in reference to the difficulties with the firefighters, to which the Minister of Transport has referred, the difficulties with the ship pilots, the difficulties in the Post Office, and the threatened difficulties with the air traffic controllers. Does the minister have any explanation for this rash of difficulties throughout the Public Service? Is it due to bad employer-employee relations, for example? What explanation can the minister give the House in view of the concern we all have for the growing number of difficulties which are causing great inconvenience to the public?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think, as the Prime Minister has indicated, that there are no two situations which are exactly the same.


An hon. Member:: They are all bad.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I should perhaps indicate to the House that because they are not the same the solutions will all of necessity be different, as the causes are different.


An hon. Member:: Elementary, my dear Watson.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Now that the Prime Minister has suggested the explanation to the President of the Treasury Board, does the minister have any explanation why all these difficulties are breaking out and spreading in various departments of the government? Admitting that each situation is different, and so on, what is the explanation? Is the explanation simply bad management on the part of the government and an accumulation of bad employer-employee relationships?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think that to get a clear understanding-


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Ask Goyer!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -of the hon. gentleman's preoccupation would take a longer period of time than the question period would allow.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Revert to motions.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In one case the cause is technological change. In another case it is a general public change in attitude, the optical perspective in which one vocation is held in relation to the traditional vocations. In another case there are special circumstances related to the difficulties, the nervous tensions, in a job. These are all quite different problems and call for different treatment. I regret to have to say again to the hon. gentleman that there are no instant solutions, instant successes, or universal panaceas such as he has offered.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

April 18, 1974
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I seek the co-operation of all hon. members. We will be running short of time in a few minutes. I will recognize the hon. member for Annapolis Valley on a supplementary.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that we certainly have no panacea in the non sequitur from the President of the Treasury Board and since the Minister of Labour has returned to this country, and we welcome him back-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Where have you been?


An hon. Member:: Who told you? How did you find out?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley has the floor.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Well, I guess we welcome all of you back.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Seriously, Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Labour has had a chance to get acclimatized to the very unstable labour picture in this country, I should like to ask if he has had a chance to talk with the hard-working Minister of Transport who is working overtime, and the President of the Treasury Board who is certainly working overtime in his answers in the House, to try to find not a panacea to settle all problems with a universal plan but to try to settle each individual problem with an individual plan so that we can get some labour peace and stability and this country can start to get on the road again in an economic way, that this government is not prepared to admit?


An hon. Member:: Right on!


An hon. Member:: What have you done, John?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, it is a little difficult to take lectures on stability from this hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that we are supposed to abide by the laws passed by parliament. With respect to this particular matter, the series of labour disputes to which the Leader of the Opposition referred do not fall under legislation within the ambit of my particular responsibility. That is not to say that the government, collectively, is not dealing with them. I think the Minister of Transport particularly is doing an admirable job and will constructively help the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I again seek the co-operation of hon. members. We are coming to the end of the question period.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is prepared to recognize the hon. member for a supplementary, then the hon. member for Portneuf, and then we will just have about reached the end of the question period.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: From the minister's answer, not the prelude to which I take some exception but the gist of his answer, do I understand he feels that, regardless of the specifics of the different acts involved, the Department of Labour in a general way has no interest whatsoever in trying to resolve these four or five present labour disputes that are fogging up the whole land?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member is not suffering some physical disability in terms of hearing. My answer quite clearly indicated the opposite.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will try to recognize the hon. member for Portneuf and perhaps two or three quick questions without supplementaries before calling orders of the day.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Can the minister tell the House why tne St. Lawrence River pilots are paid some $9,000 less than those of the Pacific coast and also whether he would consider inflationary granting the St. Lawrence River pilots salaries equivalent to those paid to Pacific coast pilots?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, salaries have been negotiated by the Pacific Pilotage Authority and the Pacific Coast Pilots Association. We are now dealing with the St. Lawrence River pilots. The hon. member certainly knows that throughout Canada, in the west, in central Canada, in Ontario, in Quebec and the Maritime provinces, the salary structures are different and they must be taken into account to determine salary rates. If the Social Credit Party of Canada ever has a theory on that, we would like to hear about it.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I just said that the question period was getting to an end and that I hope we will be able to have two or three questions more without any supplementaries. Otherwise, we will have to call government orders. [English]
The hon. member for Edmonton West.
April 18, 1974

Oral Questions AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister-


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: The statement just made by the Minister of Transport in connection with the relevant question by the hon. member for Portneuf demonstrates that he does not understand our solutions to this problem any more than he understood our financial suggestions, and he will be faced with as many problems in his department as there are financial problems in Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Minister of Transport on a question of privilege. In spite of these interruptions, I will, however, recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West in a moment and then I will have to call the order of the day.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that if the hon. member for Lotbiniere understands union problems as he does financial problems, I am not surprised he does not understand anything.


FINANCE
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Can he tell the House whether the Minister of Finance was stating government policy when earlier this week he said that the budget will not contain any instant solutions to the economic problems of Canada, including inflation? How can he reconcile that with his own observations about what the contents of the budget might be? Can he now tell the House whether the Minister of Finance's version of the budget will be the correct one?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not see any difficulty there. I indicated that I thought the budget would be a very good one. I understand that the Minister of Finance is of the same opinion.


MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION OF CONCILIATION BOARD ON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS' SALARIES-POSITION OF PRESIDENT OF TREASURY BOARD
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Is the minister prepared to recommend to his cabinet colleagues acceptance of the majority conciliation board report that recommends a two-year staged wage increase for air traffic controllers of 9 per cent in January, 1974, 2 per cent in July, 1974, a further 7 per cent in January, 1975, and 2 per cent in July, 1975?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations with the air traffic controllers are still in progress.


HOUSING
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As many prospective home buyers in the middle and lower income brackets are having to cancel contracts for housing because of the excessive increase in mortgage interest rates, can the minister indicate if he is going to take action to relieve this problem that	faces prospective
homeowners?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether in individual cases that might be so but, despite rising interest rates, in the first quarter of this year, 1974, housing starts and mortgages were up again in the first quarter over last year.


Thomas Miller Bell: You can bet mortgages are up.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands on a last question and then call orders of the day.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the resolution passed by the House earlier today and in view of the fact many post offices are already closed, will the minister indicate how he plans to distribute family allowance and other cheques which would normally be mailed in the next two days? I ask him this in view of the urgency of the situation and the hardship it will cause hundreds of thousands of Canadians, beginning this weekend.

April 18, 1974
Business of the House


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member said, the cheques should be issued in about two days. However we still hope the mailing services will resume; if it where impossible to issue the cheques in the usual manner, a public announcement will be made in due time.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, before you call orders of the day I wonder if we could hear from the Prime Minister, in view of the fact travel is paralysed across the country, there is no mail delivery and high interest rates are being charged. My point of order is this. I understand that today we are to debate the football bill. I wonder if the government could not bring forward some legislation or program to solve these problems, rather than kicking around a football?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my question will help the mood of the House. May I ask the traditional Thursday question about business. While we are not sure how far we are going into next week, because we do not wish to transgress on our newly discovered friendship with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), if we do go into next week may I ask the House leader what the business will be?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, the business for today, as is already well known, has to do with the Canada Pension Plan, a very important measure.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Will that solve the problem of interest rates?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Keep your cool, Eldon.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This would be followed by the football bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It may be that I will ask hon. gentlemen later in the day to deal with a measure other than the football bill, although I have not reached that conclusion yet, namely, Bill C-3, to do with substances that contaminate the environment. I assure my hon. friends opposite that no personal references are intended. I would then call Bill C-4, the Export and Import Permits Act, the Federal Business Development Bank, the Export Development Act, the capital stock of banks bill, in the name of the Minister of Finance. I would also mention the possibility to hon. members that next week we may be asked to deal with legislation relating to the St. Lawrence situation.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the business of the House, I would ask the hon. President of the Privy Council when he will table in the House the bill to amend the current legislation on unemployment insurance as announced in the Speech from the Throne.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, not in the immediate future, not before we complete this list.


Jack Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate if amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act, as mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, will be brought forward soon?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I had some discussions yesterday with respect to the drafting of those amendments. I hope it will be possible to bring a measure forward at an early date.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, April 17, 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.
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, when I was interrupted by the clock last evening I had not even had the opportunity to say that I will be supporting the general thrust of this bill. I feel that it is important for me to make a few specific comments about two or three clauses.
First, I, like some of my colleagues, want to destroy the illusion which was created by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) in some literature he had printed and distributed in connection with the presentation of this bill. A claim was made in that literature that one of the major purposes of this bill was the elimination of discrimination between the sexes.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please? It is very difficult for the hon. member who has the floor to be heard, even by himself, with all the noise in the House.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think there is room on the floor for only one Munro at a time.


John Carr Munro: I like your tie.


Donald W. Munro: As I was saying, the Minister of National Health and Welfare was willing to
April 18, 1974

leave the impression that one purpose of this bill was the elimination of discrimination on the basis of sex. One clause purports to do this. However, it would be most improper if the country were misled in this regard. I agree with those who have said that this is an entirely misleading representation. No doubt other members will make the same statement. Nevertheless, a step in the right direction has been taken. It is worthwhile and I am glad it has been taken. Let us not fool ourselves, let us not fool the nation. This provision does not finally eliminate discrimination between the sexes on the basis of pensions paid under the Canada Pension Plan. For example, housewives are not reckoned with here. They are not permitted to contribute and they are not allowed to apply in their own right for these pension privileges.
This bill merely adopts a principle that would allow others to cover you with virtue, especially when your own virtue is tarnished. However, I am forced to admit that the amendment to clause 56, which appears on page 25, provides for an upward adjustment of the pension due to the surviving spouse. There are two elements in this particular clause which I welcome, one the upward adjustment from 50 to 60 per cent and, two, the provision for the surviving spouse. In other words, there is no specific mention of the widow or the widower, but the one who survives. However, I do not consider the proportion sufficiently great. Like my colleague, the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), I think 60 per cent is a pretty low rating for a surviving spouse of whatever sex. If we have to set the amount in percentage terms, and I suppose in the long run we must do that, I think 75 or 80 per cent would be nearer the mark.
I am very heartened to see this principle adopted because I am reminded of some remarks I made in this House on March 11 in my contribution to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. At that time I argued that it is grossly unfair to expect the surviving member of a couple to carry on with only 50 per cent of the revenue from the old age pensions that were enjoyed when the two were living. There are many continuing expenses. It is not just a matter of half the number of people. The roof still has to be maintained, the telephone paid and the gutter around the roof may have to be replaced. A surviving spouse has to deal with many things. Furthermore, the surviving spouse is not always able, at the age the pension is due, to do work himself or herself and must employ casual labour, if he or she can afford it at the reduced revenue. I say we have further to go in this direction.
I am not entirely sure I understand the full financial implications or impact of 56(1)(a)(i) where an amount of 37Vi per cent is introduced. I hope the minister or the parliamentary secretary will elucidate further on that.
My next comment concerns the means test. I am glad to see it has been eliminated. Insofar as it is determined on the basis of age, it has had some pretty strange results. For example, when a friend of mine reached the age of 65, he was sent a form to complete in order to qualify for the Canada Pension Plan. He filled it in, submitted it and in due course, fairly promptly, the pension began to arrive regularly. When he filled out his income tax return at the
Canada Pension Plan
end of the year, he received a very rude shock. He entered this revenue on his tax return and paid the tax on it. After the income tax return was received by the Income Tax Department, he received a letter from the pension people stating that he should not have been receiving the pension because his earnings were greater than those that merited the payment of the Canada Pension Plan at that age and that he must repay the pension. Happily, because of revenues he enjoyed during that year, he was able to make that repayment. It was not pleasant, but he did it.
Things went smoothly for this person for the next two or three years. After he passed his 69th birthday, he received another form. He had heard talk about a gradual reduction in the age of eligibility for the Canada Pension Plan from age 70 to 69 to 68, so he again filled in a form. The payments resumed. After filling in his income tax return this year, he has once again been told that he must repay those payments to the Canada Pension Plan. He did that, but perhaps not quite so easily. For a variety of reasons, his revenue on the earlier occasion was better than in the last year and therefore he was rudely shocked when told he would have to repay, without the appropriate adjustment in income tax I am led to believe, that portion of his income which came from the Canada Pension Plan. Therefore, I am glad that part of the problem is being eliminated by amendments that are now before us.
I have other concerns about the means test. I have had these for a long time. Here I will be speaking for myself and not for anyone else in my party. I want to make it clear that I think a means test of some kind is desirable. It should not be on the basis of age, but rather on the basis of income and income alone. There are some who do not need the Canada Pension Plan payments. There are some who work and put away money to look after their own future and the future of their family. I am glad of that. That virtue should be cultivated. We should certainly not discourage it. I do not disagree one bit with the cradle to the grave notion for those in need, and here I swiftly interject for those in need. Otherwise, I maintain we are destroying a very fundamental virtue in man, his sense of responsibility, resourcefulness and concern to look after himself and his family in his own way without leaning on the government or anyone else.
Governments have not always been considerate, let us remind ourselves, in human terms, as we can see even from the events of the last few weeks. Can anyone rely on government to be paternal when the time comes? If you are in need, you have no option, but when you are not in need I think you should not be obliged to accept this pension. In my view, a man should be encouraged by every means to look after himself and his family in his own way.
Having said this, I recognize that everyone is not able to do so, unfortunately. There are some who, through circumstances beyond their control, are not able to provide for themselves and their families. They may work all their lives and yet be unable to save for a rainy day. Let them save through the Canada Pension Plan. Why not? To this extent I favour the plan, but I think it should be regarded as a fail-back position, not as a primary post on which to lean.

April 18, 1974
Canada Pension Plan
Speaking to this bill on second reading, as reported in Hansard on page 1482, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) talked about families drawing $700 a month under the Canada Pension Plan and OAS allowances in 1985. This is a figure I find staggering. Have we paused to calculate what it would mean in terms of dollars from the treasury-what it would mean in terms of taxation? I am deeply concerned at the prospect. For those in need, fine. They will need every penny of that $700, the way things are going, unless there is a drastic change in the next month or so. But this should only be a backstop for those who have not been discouraged from looking ahead and providing for their own needs. Consider the extra burden that $700 a month would mean in terms of income tax-another $8,400 a year on which to pay tax. I suggest indeed, that payments should not be made even by way of AOS benefits-and here I know I am being heretical-unless requested. In this way we might avoid the difficulty referred to by my hon. friend and also the problem of the unnecessary income tax. The OAS payments and the Canada Pension Plan payments might be allowed to accumulate as savings, as a savings account, if you will, until such time as someone is in need, with the proviso that in case of a sudden demise the savings which have been accumulated pass into the estate of the deceased.
I must say I am not really happy about the amendment proposed to section 63(1) of the act related to the determination of the legal identity of the surviving spouse. The seven year "living together" principle has been dropped and in its place a three year period has been inserted.


An hon. Member:: What about common-law?


Donald W. Munro: Common-law people are pretty well looked after, I gather. I am talking about legally married couples. The time requirement in the amendment on page 25 has been reduced to nil. The surviving spouse of a deceased contributor is defined as the person who was by law married to the deceased contributor at the time of his death. I suggest that this is open to abuse and I should like to see a change made in committee.
With these comments, I close my reflections on the bill before us. However, I should like to summarize. First, I definitely reject the notion which the government has allowed to grow up that discrimination on the basis of sex has been eliminated by the bill before us. Second, I favour a means test and a deferment program for CPP and OAS, both of which should be optional. Finally, I am unhappy about the definition of a surviving spouse as "the person who was by law married to the deceased contributor at the time of his death." I think I should like to see a two or three year element introduced here to avoid abuses of or by, let us say, sugar daddies.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-19 I must say to the House that I was not here when the bill was first introduced or when second reading began. However, I have read the speeches which have been made. I took particular note of the speech made by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). At the beginning of his remarks, he said:
Mr. Speaker, I begin by giving the minister a hint that this measure will pass.

That was a pretty brave thing to do, because a similar bill was presented to the previous parliament and I was successful in making certain that it did not pass. There is a significant difference between the bill before us now and the bill which was presented to the previous parliament. I should like to warn the minister and the hon. member for Hillsborough that the most significant difference I could find between the two bills was that the previous one contained seven clauses and the present bill contains 57. I have had some experience with regard to the passing, or failure to pass, of legislation brought before the House of Commons. I would remind all hon. members, particularly new members, that it is very difficult to block a bill which is only seven clauses long. Sometimes one is successful, sometimes not. Last session, I and a few others were successful.
I have counted the pages of Bill C-19, and I find there are 46. Now, there are a lot of words in 46 pages, and under our rules one can move to amend virtually every one of them. Mr. Speaker, you are an able person in your job, and you can group those amendments for debate in any way you please. Nevertheless, I believe the hon. member for Hillsborough, when he gave the minister a hint that this measure would pass, was a very brave person because I do not give the minister that hint. I would be less than honest with this House if I made anyone believe that I will contribute in any way to the passage of this legislation, because I will not. I think it is a mistake. It is poor legislation and I will do my best to encourage all members not to assist in its passage and to oppose it in every way.
I say to the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) and other members of the House that there will be votes, and I address my remarks particularly to members from Alberta. Their votes with regard to exempting various religious groups from this particular tax that the government has placed on all Canadians, a tax that this legislation is now increasing will be noted by Albertans.
Having made very clear to all members my stated intentions in the debate on this bill, I will now attempt to explain why I am so firm in my dedication to block this measure. First of all, the Canada Pension Plan covers only one third of the population of Canada. My hon. friends to my left, of whom there happens to be none here today, are forever talking about rip-offs and windfalls. When the Canada Pension Plan was first passed in 1966 there was a windfall age group, and, "windfall," became quite a common term. The first time I ever heard the word was in this House of Commons in 1966. This windfall age group fell between the ages of 55 and 65, people who were eligible for the Canada Pension Plan. This group of people were designated a windfall age group because they were going to get more from the Canada Pension Plan than they paid into it.
According to a report I read in a Toronto newspaper, though I do not have it here with me, the leader of the New Democratic Party is in this windfall age group. The first year he becomes eligible for the CPP at 65 he is going to receive more money from the plan than he has paid into it during the previous ten years. I am not going to suggest that the hon. member is going to accept a rip-off; he is against rip-offs and very often speaks in this House in
April 18, 1974

disparaging tones about them, so I do not think he would accept one. But I merely point out, to make it firm and clear in everyone's minds, that there is a windfall group that will reap more from the Canada Pension Plan than they put into it. I notice one member of the NDP is now here and he can correct me if anything I have said during the last few minutes is absolutely wrong.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if there is a windfall group, then there is also a group of people who are going to pay more into the plan than they can possibly reap; that stands to reason. If there is a windfall group on one side of the ledger, there must be another group on the other side. Who comprise this group on the other side? Basically these are the 18 year olds who are entering the labour force today, or tomorrow or yesterday for that matter. They are the 16 year olds even, if they enter the labour force at that age. They will pay, for easy mathematics, for 50 years into the CPP, and pay into it far more than they will take out, provided the longevity of the average Canadian is not extended far beyond what it is today.
As I have said, only one third of the population is covered by the Canada Pension Plan. This piece of legislation is exempting another two groups. I am not going to go on at length about whether or not they are good Canadian citizens. I made a speech on the CPP bill in the last session, I think it was Bill C-190, and I was quoted as saying that Hutterites are not good Canadian citizens. I was quoting a brief, a study carried out by and for the Alberta government, in which the commissioners stated that they were not good Canadian citizens. I remember the debate we had on that bill very well. Some members of parliament broadcast across the air waves of western Canada their opinion that they were the best citizens, honourable Canadians, but I am not going to get into that. Each member of this House and Your Honour can determine in his or her mind what makes a good citizen.
Legislation has been presented to the House from time to time which singles out a specific group of people for special treatment because they are extraordinary citizens-for example the veterans. Our veterans have served Canada, and Canadian parliaments in years gone by-and I suppose parliaments to come will do the same-have brought down specific pieces of legislation for our veterans, who risked their lives to defend what we cherish most, freedom-freedom of the world, freedom of the western world, thus ensuring freedom within Canada. This signifies to me that it is a group needing special mention, that it is a group that has proven its preparedness to serve Canada.
I am not going to tell this House of Commons that all Mennonites are one, that they are all alike, because they are not. Members of the House who are knowledgeable in this regard know of what I speak. The Mennonites referred to in this bill are part of a sect resident in what might be called the southern part of Ontario. They in no way have anything to do with the Mennonites in western Canada; I make that abundantly clear.
This aspect was studied when we were debating Bill C-190 in committee, and at that time the minister informed the committee there had been no application by the Mennonites of western Canada for exemption from the CPP. In fact, the minister stated to the committee-I want
Canada Pension Plan
to make this abundantly clear before the hon. member for Hillsborough leaves, since he made mention of Mennonites who were practising their religion and trying to promote it outside of Canada-that many Mennonites presently living outside Canada had informed the Department of National Health and Welfare that they hoped they could continue to make payments to the Canada Pension Plan because they wanted to look forward to retirement in Canada, a retirement during which they would receive benefits from the Canada Pension Plan. These people are Mennonite missionaries abroad in the world, some of them even in Bangladesh.
So, Mr. Speaker, there is no question in my mind that this particular group of people wants to remain within the Canada Pension Plan. I repeat that the Mennonites of western Canada have made no request for exemption from the CPP. This was clearly stated in the committee proceedings last session.
The other main group that is actively and avidly seeking exemption from the Canada Pension Plan is composed of those commonly referred to as the Hutterites, or the Hut-terian sect, which perhaps is a branch of the early Mennonite order. I am not going into the history of the Hutterites. If any member wants to study them and their way of life he should read a book called "All Things Common," by a university professor who lived with the Hutterites in Manitoba, Victor Peters. That is a very interesting book and it is a very interesting religion. I have no axe to grind in respect of their religion as I fully believe they should be allowed to practise any religion they want within Canada, but I do not believe parliament should take it upon itself to say that one man's religion is better than another. I have made it a practice in public life never to ask anybody his religion, as I believe that is a personal belief and it should be retained as such. I have said in this House on a number of occasions that any religion is better than no religion at all. For you atheists in the House, and this is not for your benefit, Mr. Speaker, as I know you are not one of those, I mean just what I say, that any religion is better than no religion at all, but parliament should not rule that one religion is better than another.
One might ask how I determined that Bill C-19 suggests that one religion is better than another. The minister sometime ago in committee said the Hutterites should be exempt because of their religious beliefs and their zealous desire to take care of their elder citizens. He felt that, based on their past record, they did not need the Canada Pension Plan. One of the most deplorable things about our society today is that governments in recent years, and the present government more so than any other in the past, have encouraged Canadians not to save. It does not pay anybody in Canada to save money today. In fact, the way money is depreciating the quicker you can spend it the better off you are. In any event, governments have not encouraged people to save. You cannot take care of your elder relatives unless you do save.
Let us suppose someone has a government annuity of such and such an amount that will pay such and such a premium to a father and mother when they retire. Does that allow those persons to become exempt from the Canada Pension Plan because that is proof that they can

April 18, 1974
Canada Pension Plan
look after themselves in retirement as well as they could if they were receiving benefits of the Canada Pension Plan? I suggest that does not make them exempt, and that is what the minister indicated.
A number of people in this House have made the suggestion that we in the Conservative party must believe in the freedom of religion, that the Canada Pension Plan does, in fact, prevent the Hutterian Brotherhood from practising their religion freely and that this is a contradiction. That is a very interesting concept, and I wonder what another arm of the government thinks about such a concept. I happen to have with me this afternoon a decision handed down by the Federal Court of Canada on September 15, 1973. This is not an old decision but is relatively new, and it is in respect of a case between a number of Hutterian people, as plaintiffs, and Her Majesty the Queen as defendant. This case was in respect of the payment of income tax by these people, and the suggestion was, by counsel for the plaintiff, that no income tax was leviable against them because they were not in receipt of income. Let me read from page 11 of this decision as follows:
-in any event, the income of a member is found to be taxable by reason of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, such provisions are inoperative because they are in conflict with the provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights-
That was a reference to the position taken by counsel for the plaintiffs. That suggestion was made during the debate on Bill C-190. The suggestion is that because these provisions are in conflict with the Canadian Bill of Rights, specifically Section 1(c), they in effect interfere with the Hutterites' freedom of religion. The plaintiffs argued that because the Income Tax Act interfered with their freedom of religion it should not apply. The argument in this case was presented on September 11, 12 and 13, 1973. The government argued that the provisions of the Income Tax Act did not interfere with their right of freedom of religion, and at page 22 of the same decision we find the following stated:
Since the objects or purposes of each colony are not exclusively religious they cannot be ... "religious orders" within the meaning of Section 27(2) of the act-
That was clearly spelled out in that judgment at page 22 where we find the following statement, which I think is very significant and which I bring to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and his parliamentary assistant:
The application of the Income Tax Act in no way imposes any obligation upon the Hutterites to accept income. All that has been done is to enact legislation within the powers of the Parliament of Canada requiring the taxing authorities to tax the income earned by all Canadians including Hutterites.
What does the Canada Pension Plan do? It in no way imposes a tax on the Hutterites or anybody else if they do not make any income. In fact, this bill has a tendency to increase or broaden the terms of exemptions by increasing the amount one can earn without being subject to payments under the Canada Pension Plan. If you do not earn $600 a year you do not have to contribute one penny to the Canada Pension Plan, or that was the way it was, and this bill refers to the $600 amount and makes it 10 per cent on an adjustable scale, so it will go up over the years.
In any event, the Canada Pension Plan in no way obligates the Hutterites to accept income, and in no way

imposes an obligation on them to pay to the Canada Pension Plan if they make less than $600 a year. They must only pay if they make more than that in earnings as individuals.
Let me just deal for a moment with the definition of "individual", and I did this at some length during the debate on Bill C-190 in respect of the whole question of social security. At pages 17 and 18 of this same judgment we find the following statement:
It is clear then that such earnings are the earnings of the members and are properly included as income in reporting their taxable income-
I do not intend to read the whole paragraph, but that in essence determines whether they should be considered as individuals under the Income Tax Act. Certainly, if they have earnings those earnings are taxable.
During the debate on Bill C-190 I read from the writings of a learned author who wrote about Hutterite teachings centuries ago. I believe his name was Rideman. He stated the Hutterites had no objection to and would comply with all taxes imposed by the government. He went on to state that they should render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. I will not read from his writings again, but the point is that contributions to the Canada Pension Plan are in fact taxes levied on any Canadian who earns income over and above a certain amount. If an individual does not have have an income over that amount the Canada Pension Plan does not apply. The question of whether they are allowed to freely practise their religion has been clearly spelled out. Their defence in respect of the application of the Income Tax Act is the same in respect of this plan, that it interferes with their right to freedom of religion. In any event, the court has ruled that the Income Tax Act did not interfere with that right of freedom of religion.
The defendant in that particular case was the Government of Canada. I commend the Government of Canada for taking that position. Here we have the Government of Canada, however, bringing forward a bill called C-19 which these people feel might interfere with their freedom of religion. It does not and will not. Unless they earn income they will not have to pay any attention to it. Here, clearly, the minister is trying to get rid of his workload because it is difficult to tax the Hutterites as individuals in respect of the Canada Pension Plan. They will not accept social security numbers, so the minister is attempting to lighten his load by increasing the load on every taxpayer of Canada.
The question of whether or not the Canada Pension Plan imposes a tax is interesting. One might look at the definition of the word "tax" in the Random House dictionary of the English language. It has this to say:
1.	a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
This is a tax levied by the Government of Canada upon the people for a particular service. It goes on to state:
2.	a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.-v.t.
3.	(of a government) a. to demand a tax from (a person, business, etc.), b. to demand a tax in consideration of the possession or occurrence ...
April 18, 1974

That pretty well spells out what a tax is. I happen to have another dictionary, the Pocket Oxford edition. It states this in respect of the word "tax":
Legally levied contribution to State revenue, levied from or in respect of; whose burden actually falls on those they are levied from ...
That pretty well spells out the essence of what is a tax. It is a demand by the government upon the people whom the government is attempting to govern. This Canada Pension Plan premium is in essence a tax. I shall not suggest at this time whether or not it is a tax that is fairly applied. I think the fact that it covers only one third of the population of Canada suggests that it is not universal. I supported the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) in respect of his suggestion during the debate on the other bill that wives should be allowed to contribute a portion equal to their husband's contribution so that they could receive a full pension or in the event that there should be a separation within the family the wife would have made a contribution to the Canada Pension Plan.
An amendment of this type would mean that the legislation would cover a great deal more than one third of the people. I think the basic decision which must be made here is whether certain people are to be given the right of exemption from the Canada Pension Plan and not others. If we adopt the idea that some may be exempt because of religious beliefs then why should others not be exempt. My own religious belief is inferior to that of no one in this House. Therefore, I take great exception to the government suggesting that one religion is better than another. As recorded at page 1482 of Hansard, the minister said that because of his belief in freedom and tolerance he believed certain religious groups should be exempt. No one in this House cherishes his freedom more than 1.1 ask the government and the minister whether they really want this bill to be passed. I know the minister is not particularly fussy this week because this is purely a filler so far as the government is concerned. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came back today and it was nice to see him, but he really wanted to be away this week so they are just putting fillers before the House of Commons to test the wind so to speak. At the outset of my speech I indicated how the wind should blow in respect of Bill C-19.
An hon. Member; And we are hearing it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: And you are hearing it, yes. This bill contains 57 clauses. That is sufficient number of clauses for some amendments to be moved. Some clauses contain subclauses and there might be two or three amendments filed in respect of a clause by certain members of the House of Commons. The bill contains 46 pages and there are many words contained on each page. This bill is in for a rough ride, but the Minister of National Health and Welfare knows we may be into an election before we even get through second reading of this bill.


An hon. Member:: What are you going to do about it?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What am I going to do about it? If that is the only way I can kill this bill I hope an election comes along, but the bill shall die if I have my way. As recorded at page 1482 of Hansard, the minister stated that becauce he believes in freedom and tolerance he thinks the
Canada Pension Plan
House should accept exemptions in respect of these two religious orders.
Let us take a look at the question of tolerance. Is it tolerance because the minister thinks these organizations are quasicharitable groups? Let us see what the court had to say with regard to the question of charitable groups. At page 9 the judgment states:
The above, then, sets the framework for these appeals. Counsel for the Plaintiffs early in the trial acknowledged that he was not arguing that the colonies were charitable organizations ...
I have known many lawyers who would not discard any point if they thought it would benefit their client, but this lawyer whom these people hired-and they get the best since they have the money because they have not paid income tax for many years-did not attempt to argue that these were charitable organizations.
The judgment states this clearly at page 9. I will read it again:
Counsel for the Plaintiffs early in the trial acknowledged that he was not arguing that the colonies were charitable organizations within the meaning of Section 62(1) (e) of the Income Tax Act. ..
That disposes of that question in a hurry. Their legal counsel did not argue that they were a charitable organization. Why should the minister, out of the bigness of his heart, which he has demonstrated clearly all across Canada recently on a number of issues, ask for tolerance on the part of the House of Commons when the counsel for these people did not argue that they represent a charitable organization. Then, what are they? This is the question. In order to make it abundantly clear I should like to read from the Hutterite Church doctrine or what one might call their charter. It states this:
Each congregation or community of the Church is empowered, inter alia, as follows:
To engage in, and carry on farming, stock raising, milling, and all
branches of these industries; and to manufacture and deal with the
products and by-products of these industries;
To carry on any other business (whether manufacturing or otherwise) which may seem to said congregation or community of the said Church capable of being conveniently carried on in connection with its business or calculated directly or indirectly to enhance the property or rights of the congregation or community;
That particular part of their charter spells out what they are. In essence they engage in the business of farming, stock raising and milling. This is no secret. Everyone in Alberta knows that they carry on an extensive operation in farming, milling and even manufacturing. When I was a young fellow I used to favour their brand of pancake flour. It made good pancakes, and still does. Now, my wife makes the pancake mix herself rather than buying the ready mixed pancake flour. But if you live in Alberta you can buy their pancake flour. The Hutterites in Alberta are in the manufacturing business. They manufacture pancake flour. It has a brand name and I would be doing them a disservice if I did not mention it. It is called Coyote Howling Pancake Flour, or something like that. In any case it has a picture of the coyote howling, and it makes good pancakes.
The Hutterites do not pay their workers compensation nor do they pay minimum wages in that manufacturing firm. Only recently have they paid income tax, that is

April 18, 1974
Canada Pension Plan
after the judgment of a year ago and the last one which I quoted of last September when the income tax department told them that income taxes must be collected from them.
One can reach any conclusion one wants to on this particular issue. This judgment from which I quoted states very clearly at page 10:
Apparently until the year 1960, the colonies paid no income taxes of any kind.
The first court case was fought in 1966 and the final case was in 1970 with regard to one group of Hutterites commonly referred to as Lehrer-Leuts. I am speaking of Dari-us-Leuts rather than Lehrer-Leuts, and they fought this case on their own, as a separate entity. One or two years ago in May the Lehrer-Leuts lost their case, and last September the Darius-Leuts lost theirs before the federal court of Canada. Both cases were fought on the basis of the concept that the income tax levied against these people would, in one way or another, restrict freedom of religion. The courts ruled it did not.
It is interesting that there should be members of parliament coming before the House trying to make the case that this tax will restrict their freedom of religion. In no way will it affect their religion because, in the first instance, they do not make any income so this tax will never be levied; second, if they have really taken the vow of poverty, they do not want to make an income in any case, so they do not have to worry.
The judgment went on to summarize findings in a similar case. It reads:
... in my opinion, applicable in this case with the result that it would seem there is nothing to preclude the application of the Income Tax Act to the farm income merely because of the reference in each colony's Articles of Association to the promotion of religion.
Before I was led astray I read out the article of the charter of the Hutterites which specifically encourages them to engage in a business. The judge singled out this aspect in particular. I maintain that that particular aspect applies equally to the Canada Pension Plan which in essence is a tax, as I showed by quoting from the two dictionaries earlier. The judgment goes on to say:
... the revenues earned by the Plaintiffs herein are mere depositories for the income earned by each member. Since no distinction can be drawn between individual members each is the recipient of an equal share of the net income, even though it is not drawn by them and this is income within the meaning of sections 2, 3 and 4 and therefore taxable in their hands.
In other words, their income is taxable whether or not they give it back to the colony. If a portion of it remains in their hands, it can be used by them in whatever way they like. However, they must pay the levy for doing business in this country. It has often been said that they are good people, that they ask nothing from this country and therefore we should not tax them. It is said that very few of them go to jail and that they mind their own business. All this is true, but it is also true that 99 per cent of all Canadians do not go to jail, and 99 per cent of those engaged in business wish the government would leave them alone.
However, the long tentacles of government reach into every facet of every Canadian's life. Sometimes I feel that these tentacles reach farther every day, so why exclude a particular group from their reach? It has been said that

they are good people. I will not argue whether they are good or bad. My argument rests on the fact that they live in Canada and many of them are Canadian citizens who do business in this country. Therefore, they should pay tax for doing business, whether or not they are good, whether or not they go to jail, etc.
It has been argued that members of the Amish or Men-nonite order in southern Ontario do not take advantage of what society has to offer them. What is interesting is that before they were to appear before the committee, some members of the committee did not want the Hutterites to appear so they quickly concluded the deliberations of the committee and the group did not appear. That was the committee members' mistake on that occasion. Perhaps it is true that the Amish group in southern Ontario do not depend on modern technological advances, but that cannot be said of the Hutterites in the three prairie provinces. They certainly take advantage of every new technological advance in carrying out their business. Certainly, they are not backward.
If I were a young, inexperienced farmer wanting to engage in the business of agriculture, one of the most knowledgeable men I could visit and from whom I could take advice regarding what is current, practical and applicable in agriculture in western Canada would be the Hutterite farming boss in the area. He knows what is going on and takes advantage of modern technological services provided to the farming community in Canada, as well as to the manufacturing industries with regard to flour and milling. They take advantage of our society and therefore I say they should pay the tax for belonging to our society.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in rising to express my thoughts on Bill C-19, I should first of all like to make a few comments on clauses other than those that have been covered by the former speaker.
First of all, on the question of surviving spouse, I welcome the change in the bill that brings in the term "surviving spouse". I question, though, the adequacy of the 60 per cent which is being used as the base for the amount of the former pension that can be received by the surviving spouse. As mentioned by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, (Mr. Munro), while the expenses of the surviving spouse might not equal the total living expenses prior to the death of the spouse, surely 60 per cent is hardly adequate to meet the daily living needs of the person left behind. I would urge the minister very earnestly, that a re-examination of that 60 per cent be undertaken and that possible changes be examined very carefully in committee. Questions have also been raised as to whether the salaries of the husband and wife should not be combined when contributions are calculated so they could make a total contribution based on both salaries, regardless of whether that contribution is paid by the husband or the wife alone.
I should like to present that possibility to the minister for further examination.
April 18, 1974

I also welcome the change that removes the earnings test between ages 65 and 70 in order for a person to be eligible for Canada Pension Plan benefits. I believe in our society today, with a retirement age of 65, one should not be asked to prove whether one is entitled to a retirement pension. In view of the fact that the Canada Pension Plan is a contributory plan, largely by the employer and employee, and these contributions have been made for the benefit of the employee, that person should receive those benefits at age 65. That correlates with the age at which a person becomes eligible for the old age pension or the guaranteed income supplement. I believe it is only natural and right that these clauses should be introduced. I welcome them and commend the minister for introducing them.
As I am sure many hon. members realize, when I got to my feet this afternoon those matters were not going to be the main thrust of my argument. I find it strange to be in a position where I have to challenge the thoughts of a colleague who sits on the same side of the Speaker as myself, but that is what I intend to do today. First of all, the spokesman for my party on this bill very clearly defined that our party was going to endorse the legislation. He gave the commitment of our party that we favoured the changes and while we have certain questions on various points, by and large we are in agreement with the bill. I did not believe that the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) was a brave person, although I will give him credit for that as well, but I believed he was an honest person, stating very clearly the position that his party had taken. I endorse the position that the hon. member for Hillsborough has taken on behalf of our party.
When a bill is presented to the House, every member has a right in his own good conscience to either say he is in favour of the bill or is opposed to the bill. I do not remove that rignt or have any intention of removing it from those who disagree with me, but I do seriously question a person who uses arguments that, through innuendo, question the sincerity of others and uses that approach to block a bill. I seriously object to that kind of approach, Mr. Speaker.
The basis of the Canada Pension Plan has been the concept of universality, that a person who earns a taxable amount of income pays Canada Pension Plan premiums. This was also the basis of the argument which the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) used but I maintain, just as I did on Bill C-190, that the concept of universality was not used when the Canada Pension Plan was introduced. I do not know how you can say you have universality and yet you do not. It is an all or nothing type of thing. When the Canada Pension Plan was brought before this House and passed by this House, exceptions were given to people who made the vows of perpetual poverty and who were church employed. Since the date when the bill was passed, effective in 1966, there have been people in Canada who have had the option of exempting themselves on the basis of those two positions.
I am not quarrelling or questioning whether people exercise that option, but I say the option was there and is there today. I further say, Mr. Speaker, if you follow the argument, that this exception was given because of freedom of religion, then it makes no difference whatsoever
Canada Pension Plan
whether a person exercises that option. The option is in the bill, and it is in the law of Canada today.
If that is the basic concept of the argument I should like to read from the baptismal vows of the Hutterian Brethren, very specifically as to what their position is relative to these two clauses. The vows are that no one shall have any private possession any more: for one gives and surrenders himself to the Lord and His church with all that he has and is able to do, as it was in the original apostolic church, when no one said of his possessions that they were his own, but all things were held common to them.
The hon. member for Crowfoot mentioned the book "All Things Common" by Dr. Victor Peters. Dr. Peters takes the position, after extensive study of the Hutterians, specifically in Manitoba-and I know Dr. Peters-that the Hutterians are a group of people who are engaged in making a living for themselves. There is no question about that and I would maintain that almost all Canadians fall in that category. He maintains, too, that they hold all things common under the terms of Acts, chapter 2. This fact has also been based on a judgment in a case in Manitoba in which a number of former Hutterians left a colony. They took their case to court, arguing that the proportion they constituted of the male household heads of the colony of which they had formerly been members, entitled them to that same proportion of assets of that colony. Say for example, that they constituted 30 per cent of heads of households in the colony, then they should have received 30 per cent of the total assets of the colony when they left it. In the judgment the court very clearly stated, on the basis of the baptismal vows, that no one held anything but that the total membership held all goods and, as a result, those goods could not be divided because the common ownership had been given voluntarily by an adult at the age of accountability. One is not born a Hutterite. On reaching the age of accountability, a person can decide whether, by baptism, to become a Hutterite. That is an adult decision. It is not something which happens through birth.
How can you follow the argument of the hon. member, that you possess nothing as an individual? The Canada Pension Plan allows an individual to build up personal equity, just as if he were a member of a registered retirement savings plan. A person can build up equity by being a member of the plan, or by taking out a plan with an insurance company or similar type of company. At present we are talking of equity built up through membership in the Canada Pension Plan. How does an individual do this? He is given a social insurance number and makes contributions. The concept of individuality is in direct violation to the vows he has taken in the case in question, as an individual is held to own nothing.
Much of the previous speaker's argument was based on the fact that the Hutterites are not a church but, rather, a corporation or business. It is true that up until the 1960's they did not pay income tax. The government of Canada challenged that situation in the courts. The courts maintained the government's position. I firmly accept that decision. I am of the opinion that if Hutterites make a profit from farming, they should pay a tax. The difficulty with regard to the tax situation to which the hon. member

April 18, 1974
Canada Pension Plan
referred and the judgment to which he referred was this: up to that time, Hutterites had paid taxes as any other corporation pays them. The tax decision resulted in Hutterites being assessed and required to pay individually. This violated their concepts under which individuals do not gain wealth. They challenged the decision but lost the case. It is now a matter of history. I want to make it clear that they challenged that decision as a corporate body and not as individuals, because it has been held that an individual should not build up wealth for himself.
There is no evidence to show that Hutterites have not paid taxes, or that they have paid less or more than other Canadians. They are paying their taxes. That is not the real point at issue. If one argues that CPP premiums are a tax, one might argue that the Hutterites should pay such premiums. If you subscribe to the idea that you should render unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's and unto God those things which are God's, the tax should be rendered to Caesar-I do not know if that is an apt reference to the present government. That is the argument one might make.
I do not think that the basic concept of CPP premiums being a tax applies in this case. Why? The individual who pays CPP premiums will also get a personal benefit. The member who began this argument said that some people might even get windfall benefits. Further, the member made the innuendo that this bill treats some religions as being superior to others. He then destroyed that argument by saying that the Hutterites are not a church, not a religion, but a business. I do not know how they can be a religion and not a religion at the same time; but that is the point he tried to make. That is not the main point of my argument. I do not see how we can maintain that one religion is better than another. I do not see how you can bring that concept into this argument on what the bill does.
The government took the position, first enunciated by the former minister of national revenue and repeated by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), that Hutterites, effective January 1, 1972, would be exempt from the requirement to pay Canada Pension Plan premiums. Clauses relating to perpetual poverty and church employment were included in the original bill and therefore the present provision is not a special dispensation, as such clause has already been included. Therefore the government is fulfilling an obligation which was set out in the act it brought before the House in the 1960's.
Let me make one more argument. If my argument proves valid for January 1, 1972, it should prove valid for the time of the inception of the bill in 1966. What I am speaking of is this: We live in a democracy. Many have come here, to become part of the democratic framework of Canada. Canada took in many of these people who had been persecuted in other countries. Look at their history, and look at the persecutions under which they suffered in the 1500's, and at the places to which they were driven. At last they came to Canada; Canada gave them haven. All they asked of Canada was that they be allowed to follow their religion. Canada guaranteed them religious freedom. They did not ask for special favours. They did not say they would not become good citizens. They said they would obey the laws of this country, and they have. If you
[Mr. Epp.J
champion individual freedom, how can you champion it for one group but not for another? If certain freedoms are provided in a statute of Canada, how can you provide them for one group but not for another? All this bill does is finally rectify an inequity that has existed since the days the Canada Pension Plan bill was introduced.
As far as the democratic rights which this country gave to the Hutterites are concerned, I would like to point out that in Alberta, where there are a number of Hutterite colonies, there was a law that Hutterites could not build a Hutterite colony within 40 miles of an existing colony. It was called the 40 mile limit. The present government of Alberta rescinded that law. Under the Alberta bill of rights, the Alberta government took the stance that it was discriminatory legislation against a specific group.
Granted there are problems. I am not denying that. However, I think a number of us may have had neighbours with whom we might have had a problem or two. If we are honest about it, maybe some neighbours even had a problem with us. Alberta has rescinded the 40 mile law. There is a gentleman's agreement. I appreciate the difficulties in the implementation of it, but surely that is what life is all about. It is the responsibility of government to iron out differences between governments and individuals.
In Manitoba there has never been a law specifically relating to where Hutterites are to settle. We have a gentleman's agreement or the so-called 10 mile limit whereby Hutterites are asked not to build colonies within 10 miles of existing colonies. This has worked out quite well in Manitoba. Why? Because it has been based on co-operation between one group and another, between a government and its citizens. That trust is there. It worked with the former administration of Manitoba and it works with the present administration. Why? Because we want to make it work. If you are going to legislate and say that you are better than I or vice versa, you will run into trouble. You cannot do it. I maintain that this bill is trying to rectify that discrimination.
I would much rather discuss this bill on its merits but I have been forced into taking a position on clause 7 and that is why I spent most of my time debating that. I would like to conclude with this thought. If we want freedom, and if we want to do more than give lip service to the Bill of Rights, then we should be very careful and sincere about groups or individuals who feel certain actions would be a violation of conscience but not a violation of the laws of this country. Government should have the conscience and the ability to say a provision is discriminatory and remove the discrimination. That is the only way democracy will work.
I commend the minister for following up the promise made by the former Minister of National Revenue. I was disappointed in the previous session. On the last day of that session, I asked the minister about Bill C-190 because I was disappointed it had not gone through. The minister will recall that. I simply wish to reiterate that this bill has my full support and I hope for its speedy passage.


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by associating myself
April 18, 1974

with the comments just made by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). He is well known to his colleagues for his decency, sense of compassion and sense of justice. He again demonstrated that. We can all be proud to be members of the House of Commons with him. His remarks, which were short and extremely meaningful, were among the finest I have heard since my election to the House of Commons in October 1972.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: will not speak for a great period of time. Like the previous member, I will confine my remarks to that portion of the bill which deals with the rights of minorities who conscientiously object to being included in the Canada Pension Plan.
This bill is essentially the same in relation to that particular aspect as the one presented in the last session. It is my intention to deal only with the question of the Old Order Mennonites in my area. Frankly, I am not competent to deal with the question of the rights of Hutterites. This was dealt with very fully and in an excellent manner by the hon. member for Provencher. I certainly accept his judgment on that.
The problem exists in my particular area because Mennonites are not allowed to participate in insurance schemes. The past practice has been that they will willingly pay taxes. Because their religion does not allow them to collect welfare or money from other programs such as family allowance or old age pensions, they simply pay their taxes but do not collect any money from these schemes. In other words, they contribute vastly more than the average Canadian to the general welfare, but take nothing in return. All they ask is a chance to live a decent life in peace and in freedom.
Old Order Mennonites are not allowed to participate in the Canada Pension Plan because it is considered an insurance scheme. The Mennonites in my area have publicly stated on a number of occasions that they are quite prepared to pay money and simply not collect, if the revenues come through general tax revenues and if it is not considered an insurance program. Indeed, the Mennonites in my area have made it clear they are willing to pay to a charity a comparable amount of money to what they are being asked to pay to the Canada Pension Plan. It is not a matter of asking for a free ride or for someone else to bear their burden. They are trying to abide by the principles of their religion as best they can. Let no one misrepresent what they are asking from this House of Commons.
In December 1971, the minister's predecessor and the predecessor of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) issued a joint press release indicating that in the next session of the House of Commons a bill would be introduced to exempt Mennonites and Hutterites, people who for reasons of conscience could not participate in the Canada Pension Plan, as of January 1, 1972. The government did not keep that promise. The legislation was not introduced in the next session. As a consequence, the Mennonites were forced to choose between their country and their God. The government seized the cream cheques of these people and confiscated that portion of their
Canada Pension Plan
income. Ultimately, the sanctions available were for these people to go to jail for simply trying to live their religion.
In the last session, this minister finally introduced legislation to exempt Mennonites and other people with conscientious objections as of January 1, 1972. When the minister appeared before the committee, he was asked whether he was willing to accept an amendment or bring in further legislation which accepted the principle that these people were being denied freedom of religion by being forced to pay after January 1, 1972 in exactly the same way as they were deprived of their freedom of religion by making these payments prior to 1972. The minister refused. There is some question in my mind about both his sense of logic and his sense of justice. The house leader and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) allowed a tiny minority of the members of this House to frustrate the will of the majority. The hon. member for Provencher, the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis) and I went to speak to our counterparts on the other side to ask them at least to schedule the legislation. It would have been a lot easier to get that legislation through, a simple piece of legislation with regard to which the filibuster was dying, than it will be to pass the bill we are dealing with today. But the government was not willing to schedule the legislation. They allowed it to die.
Since hearing first of this matter I have held conversations with people in my area who have had dealings with the Mennonites. They have found them the finest of people, excellent citizens of Canada and of their community. The whole area has benefited economically and socially from their participation. The Old Order Mennonites are highly regarded, as anyone who wished to do so could ascertain if he talked to their neighbours. Mr. Speaker, the strength of a democracy is its willingness to tolerate people who choose to be different from the majority in a society.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: We
are saying in this bill that people have a right to differ, a right to live their own lives. This is a principle which makes the greatest difference between the socialists, the leftists and those who, as I do, support the Conservative party. It is the ability to allow a person to live his own life, to be different from the mass, to live in freedom. This is why I am proud to be a Conservative.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: any member of parliament believes that an appeal to prejudice or fear will cause Canadians to rally to his banner, let me disabuse him of that notion. Such an appeal is an insult to rural Canadians who have proven their tolerance, their sense of justice and their compassion. They will reject any such attempt to win their favour, whether it is expressed directly or in code. The politics of prejudice is dying in Canada, and it will not be missed. There should be no doubt as to where the majority of this House, or the majority of this party, stand. The will of the majority of Canadians must not be frustrated this time,

April 18, 1974
Canada Pension Plan
and the rights of these Christian and devout people must not be denied them any longer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in this debate and bring forward some ideas on an aspect of the bill which has not been touched on so far, that is, the general effect of the cost of the Canada Pension Plan in relation to its benefits in the future.
I am concerned to think we have been considering only the benefits which the CPP has in store for our citizens rather than its effect on our future economy. I might say that, speaking personally, I will probably receive benefits earlier than many people in this chamber. But in the course of this debate we have not touched on what the cost is likely to be, or upon the changes which are likely to be felt in the financial structure of the country. We have not questioned the effect of the proposed amendments or the actuarial soundness of the plan. We have tended to talk as though there were a bottomless pit of money rather than a fund designed to begin shrinking within the decade. I have heard it said by people who have studied it that the plan as now constituted will be bankrupt in four or five years. We have not considered the enormous amount of capital, under the control of the federal government and available for the use of the provinces; that, in fact, none of this money will be left to private enterprise for the development of Canada and to sustain economic growth. Enormous sums will be hived off from the general economy, taking no part in the national development.
I believe we have been guilty of assuming that dollars are the most important thing about a pension. In fact it is what those dollars can buy that matters. Merely giving dollars is of little value unless those dollars can purchase for their recipient the necessities of life. One comment about the inflation in Germany after the Second World Waristicks;in|my mindjThe housewives there said: We took our money to the store in baskets and brought the food home in our pockets. More and more, workers and employers regard the CPP contributions as a tax. With the emptying of the fund it looks less like a contributory, self-supporting pension scheme and more like a transfer payment. I have no quarrel with this essentially, as long as we know what we are doing and where we are going. We need to examine the consequences of this legislation, particularly to the young, including those who have not yet made their first CPP contribution, and demonstrate an awareness of the cost burden in the years ahead. To pass this legislation blindly without discussing these aspects of the plan would be a hasty action indeed.
This afternoon we have been discussing the aspect of the bill which concerns a religious group. These considerations are important. But if we do not deal with the financial aspects, the situation in the years ahead will be perilous. The magnitude of the benefits that the Canada Pension Plan will bring is quite staggering compared with what those affected-that is, the middle and lower income groups-might customarily expect. The minister outlined the very generous benefits that will be accorded those who contribute to the plan. If a contributor in 1966, at the onset of the plan, was earning $4,000, then was earning $5,000 a year in 1974 and $7,000 in 1985, and be then retired, had the

plan remained as it was originally he would have received only $162 a month whereas he will now receive $223 a month because a cost of living index relationship has been built into the plan.
Then, the minister pointed out, and I think quite rightly, in calculating the entire income of a single wage earner or a couple, that a little over a year ago the maximum income derived from the Canada Pension Plan and old age security would have been about $240 a month, whereas today it is $320 a month. By 1980 this same couple will receive $525 a month, and by 1985 well over $700 a month. This assumes that the wage earner makes $7,000 a year during his last working year. In addition to that, the cost of living index will be incorporated into the plan, and with the increase now running at 10 per cent hon. members can see a truly large amount of money is involved. The cost of giving our retired people pensions will be a large element in our over-all social structure.
The minister quoted an example which showed that in 10 years a couple would increase their pension from $300 a month, with one of the couple working, to $700 a month. If he were to save this amount of money, the difference in amount would be quite staggering. Many years ago, in attempting to understand insurance annuities and so on, I was informed that it took approximately $1,000 of annuity at age 70 to give an individual $10 a month, for his life expectancy. At 65 an individual required an annuity of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1,300 to provide him with $10 a month.
Let us see what the Canada Pension Plan and old age security will do for the couple earning a maximum of $7,000 a year, with only one person earning. This single wage earner would have had to save somewhere in the neighbourhood of $40,000 to $50,000 in order to get a comparable annuity for himself. This is to say nothing of the very great benefits the CPP confers upon widows, dependent children and the disabled. I am not saying that this is not right, but I point out that the Canada Pension Plan as constituted, along with old age security, represents a transfer payment of a considerable amount.
In addition, no private plan would carry with it the cost of living index, as the CPP does. In fact, the $700 a month forecast by the minister with the cost of living index incorporated into the CPP and old age security that a couple would receive in 1985 may well rise as high as $1,200 a month. Perhaps this couple will need that amount then, but nevertheless this is an indication of the actuarial scope of the Canada Pension Plan.
When walking up to the House of Commons this morning I passed an institution down the street that invited me to invest my money. According to a sign in the window, if I invested $10 in 1966 that amount would now be worth $13.59. In other words, in the space of eight years the man who invested $10 would have made $3.59. This works out to approximately four cents on every dollar per year, not including personal income tax. When he comes to pay income tax on that amount, as he will some day, this investor is making a cent and a half on every dollar invested. This underlines how difficult it is to save money and how private fields cannot compete with the Canada
April 18, 1974

Pension Plan as amended by this bill. A lot of fundamental changes are going to occur in our society as a result of this bill.
In other words, this bill makes largely ridiculous the saving of money for an individual's retirement, at least the individual with an income below $10,000 or $12,000. It might be worth the while of wealthy people to save money but I presume they do not need to save money for retirement. For anyone earning less than $10,000 to $15,000, the wisdom of saving money can be seriously questioned. Any savings by the group above 50 years of age earning under $10,000 to $12,000 will be largely-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member but it is now five o'clock. Pursuant to Standing Order 40, it is my duty-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Perhaps I should put the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: 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 Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Air Canada-Negotiations respecting use of Winnipeg as overhaul base for Boeing 727 aircraft; the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Duffer-in-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty)-Housing-Action by government to reduce cost; the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom)-Unemployment Insurance-Eligibility for benefits of unemployed rural workers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions, and unless our tentative understanding has fallen through, I believe there might be agreement to use whatever part of this hour between five and six might be necessary to complete second reading of this bill.


Mr. Stevens:: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the hon. member. I think we should go into private members' hour, as was the original intention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member does not agree with his own House leader.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills.
Manpower Mobility Program
Since there are no private bills on the order paper, the House will now proceed to the consideration of notices of motions (papers).



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse) moved:: That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the agreement between the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the West Indian governments with respect to the hiring of West Indian workers to harvest certain Canadian crops.
He said: Mr. Speaker, since I now have the information I asked for in the motion on the order paper, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member for Bellechasse be allowed to withdraw notice of motion for papers No. 1?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn.
;



MANPOWER


David Orlikow: That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Canada Manpower Mobility Program.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) and the government have refused to agree to the publishing of a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Canada Manpower Mobility Program as this is in line with the general policy of this government over the years to give members of parliament and of the public as little information as possible. The Department of Manpower and Immigration spends almost $600 million for its work in the field of manpower and immigration, and I exclude from that figure the amount which is spent by the Unemployment Insurance Commission which reports to parliament and the people of Canada through the minister. I will confine myself and my remarks to those programs conducted by the department in the field of manpower and immigration.
When one looks at this year's estimates, he sees that the department has estimated its expenditures for the year
1554

April 18, 1974
Manpower Mobility Program
1974-75 in the amount of $599 million. If one looks at the breakdown, he will see that it will be spending some $315 million on manpower program activities, and when one looks at the utilization and operation of those programs he sees that the estimated expenditure amounts to almost $300 million. Let us assume for the sake of argument that this department is doing a superlative job. I suggest that the officials are still human beings and can make mistakes, and if a member of parliament is in touch with his constituents he will know from speaking with people who have been in touch with manpower training schools and community colleges that from time to time departmental officials make decisions they feel are arbitrary or that they cannot understand.
Some weeks ago I raised a question with the minister in respect of the amount of money the department contracts to turn over to the provinces for manpower training. This amount seems to have been cut this year in respect of training projects by something in the neighbourhood of 10 per cent in almost every province. That may be a good decision as perhaps we have been spending too much money in the training of too many people, but there has been no evidence made public or to members of parliament at meetings of the standing committee, or to provincial governments, that would substantiate such a decision. This is a unilateral ukase on the part of the Department of Manpower and Immigration. Without suggesting that officials of the department were wrong, they should be ready to explain and justify what is being done. They should be ready to show the people of Canada and members of this and provincial governments what has led them to the decision to cut the expenditures in respect of these programs, or the adoption of new ones.
What has bothered me for a number of years is the seeming desire on the part of the government to keep everything quiet, hidden and secret. It may be that the expenditure of something in the neighbourhood of $500 million is necessary, worthwhile and justified, but if that is so the department should be willing and eager to give this information to the public. The department should not have to be urged or coerced.
Let me give a specific case. We have a mobility program operated by the department of manpower under the jurisdiction of the minister through which a person with a particular skill can be encouraged to move to another area where there is a requirement for that skill if that individual cannot find suitable work in his own city, town or village. This might involve a miner from Cape Breton being moved to Sudbury or an electrician being moved from an area where there is no work for one with such a skill to Vancouver or another city where there is work. This is a voluntary program and no worker is forced to move because there is no work for him in his field in his own city or province.
The whole purpose of the mobility program is to encourage workers who have skills which cannot be put to use in the area where they reside to move to places where there is a need for skilled workers in that field, and where the likelihood is that such workers can obtain meaningful employment at satisfactory rates of pay. I support that program, but I think the people of Canada are entitled to as much assurance as possible that it is operating success-

fully and is actually achieving the purpose of finding employment for people in other areas when they are not able to find employment in their own cities or provinces.
I would hate to think of a person who had been encouraged to move from say Cape Breton Island or Halifax to Sudbury or Toronto, because supposedly there was a job waiting for him there, finding, after having worked for a month, two months, three months or six months that there was no longer any work for him and that he was unemployed in a strange city and a strange province. I am not saying this is what happens, but it is a possibility. I would hate to think that a worker who was encouraged to move by way of being given a mobility grant might find that the employer did not live up to the conditions. Perhaps the pay scale did not turn out to be what had been promised, or the working conditions were not as stated or decent housing was not provided after he had been promised that it would be available. This is the type of problem which I submit can and does occur. I do not say this in criticism of the government. The only way in which there could be no mistakes in respect of a mobility program would be if there were no such program.
I am not opposed to a mobility program. On the contrary I think it should be expanded. How can we know that the program is working in the way in which it was designed to work? How can we know whether the officials administering the program are doing a job or are doing it properly? I submit we cannot know if the government is determined as it seems to be to hide everything. I suggest, as I suggested on other occasions and I hope I will be more successful this time, that there is no reason the government should keep secret these house surveys, these detailed reports merely because the position is taken that they are confidential and therefore cannot be disclosed. On the contrary, I say we require much more information, much more openness and much more desire on the part of the government to tell the people of Canada what the government is doing and why it is doing it. The cost of government increases from year to year. The number of people employed by governments, federal, provincial and municipal, increases from year to year. It does not seem to matter whether the government involved is Liberal as it is federally, Conservative as it is in Newfoundland and in Ontario or NDP as it is in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or British Columbia. In any event, the cost of government increases.
The number of public servants employed by governments increases. I say this is inevitable so long as the people want government to provide more services. I do not object to it, but I believe governments must be more accountable for the responsibilities they undertake. I think governments must have not only a duty but a responsibility to account to the people for what they are doing and to inform the people what they are doing and why they are doing it. The people should be informed concerning how programs are operating, the success of the programs and so on. It is for this reason, after becoming aware of the fact that the government has received an evaluation report on the Canada Manpower Mobility Program, that I moved this motion. I would urge the government to stop hiding things. When it hides such reports the
April 18, 1974

government convinces members of parliament and members of the public that they should wonder what is going on. I believe some members on the government side might agree with me in this regard but they cannot say so because they are members of the government. I do not say this in a critical way because I assume if I were a member of a government party I would feel the same way.
Stories are told about people ripping off the unemployment insurance fund, drawing welfare benefits to which they are not entitled and so on. One may hear stories about farmers receiving assistance under some farm legislation to which they are not entitled. If hon. members doubt what I am saying they need simply tune in on any hotline radio program in order to find out the type of feeling people have about governments, federal, provincial and municipal. In this way hon. members would realize that people are concerned about the way in which governments operate. I suggest to members on the government side that it is not surprising that people feel the way they do. On the contrary, it is surprising that more of them do not feel the same way.
If one wishes to see the extent to which people can become upset, or the extent to which they can come to believe that governments and elected members of a legislature or state or federal government can fail to do the job, one might simply look at the various polls being conducted in the United States concerning how the people of the United States feel about their President and their elected representatives in the House of Representatives or in the United States Senate. In a recent poll it was indicated that less than 25 per cent of the people believed their elected representatives are doing a good job. A large part of the disillusionment in this regard is that, rightly or wrongly, the people believe that President Nixon has failed to give them the facts concerning the Watergate affair. I am not suggesting for a moment that the people of Canada have as poor an opinion of their elected representatives as the American people have of theirs. I do not believe this is the case. I hope it is not. One should not be surprised, however, if Canadian citizens express concern or surprise about the way they are being governed if they are so consistently and deliberately kept in the dark concerning what is going on.
I wish to conclude my few remarks by simply appealing to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) to stop being so determined about hiding the real facts concerning what is going on in his department. If he believes, as I think the minister should, that his department, his officials and the people who work in his department are trying their best to do a good job and on the whole are succeeding, then the minister should have no hesitation in agreeing to table this kind of report so that in this area the people of Canada would be able to see whether the program is working and the way in which it is working.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I have had the pleasure and privilege of following the hon. member. It seems to me that he keeps repeating month after month, year after year the same fiction that we have heard from him and others about this particular government, namely, that it seems to be a secre-
Manpower Mobility Program
tive government that does not want to let the opposition know what is going on. We know that that is fiction, that there never has been a more open government or one that has been keener to ensure that opposition parties in particular have access to information. Not only are they given access to information but they are given research staffs- an unheard of step. This government, in the interests of being democratic-


Charles Joseph Clark: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I see the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) is speaking from his usual position, which is sitting down, not wanting to participate in the debate and not having the courage to speak from a standing position.


Charles Joseph Clark: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: It is not my role, as a backbencher, to answer questions. There is a position here that I want to advance.


An hon. Member:: You do not have the courage to answer the question.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: If I may finish my remarks, I will be happy to accept any question from the hon. member at the conclusion of my remarks.
The point I was endeavouring to make is that it was this government which made funds available to the opposition parties so that they could hire a research staff and do more delving and digging. It was the regulations and rules passed by the House when this government was in power that permitted careful scrutiny of each bill at the meetings of various committees rather than having the bottleneck of committee of the whole House which would limit questions to those of two or three members on a particular bill. Now, we have a bill scrutinized in the committee its passage flows through much better and each member is given the opportunity to ask questions. If members have done their homework, they have the opportunity to obtain all the information that they want.
We also have the 40 minute question period, which is always extended beyond the time limit, as I think it should be, so that opposition parties can ask questions on a daily basis. In addition, we hear a catalogue of questions being answered in the ordinary course of events by the parliamentary secretary to the House leader. Despite the fact that more questions are put on the order paper due to the fact that opposition parties have research staff available to them, we find that anywhere from 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the questions are answered. That is a commendable record. So for someone to suggest that this government is not being free with information is not in accordance with the facts.
I should like to paraphrase the statement of an individual who said that none is so blind as those who will not see. While listening to the hon. member, I thought it would be more appropriate to say that none is so poorly informed as those who will not read or, perhaps I should say, those who will not participate in debates that have taken place in this chamber. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) on March 15, 1973, in what I felt was a
27481-35J

April 18, 1974
Manpower Mobility Program
splendid address and certainly guidance to opposition parties, gave an admirable presentation of this government's view and the views of the governments of Sweden, Great Britain and the United States, about the kinds of documents that should fall into the public domain. Then, he indicated the exceptions to such documents; in other words, those that should not be made public. On that occasion an appendix was added to the issue of Hansard of March 15 at page 2288. In that document the general principle is spelled out by the President of the Privy Council and I should like to read part of it:
General Principle
To enable Members of Parliament to secure factual information about the operations of government to carry our their parliamentary duties and to make public as much factual information as possible consistent with effective administration, the protection of the security of the state, rights to privacy and other such matters, government papers, documents and consultant reports should be produced on Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers unless falling within the categories outlined below in which case an exemption is to be claimed from production.
What we normally hear is a categorical denial of the exemptions without treating them on an individual basis. This, in fact, was the complaint registered by the President of the Privy Council when he stated this principle and exceptions to it. I will take one of them as an example, namely, "legal opinions or advice provided for the use of the government." I do not think anybody in his right mind, unless he is being totally political, can disagree with that exception. Another one is "papers, the release of which would be detrimental to the security of the state". There are 16 such exceptions. When we hear complaints by opposition members that a particular document should be made available or made public, it seems to me that we should answer on the basis of any of the 16 exemptions, and if they should be attacked, that is where the opposition parties should move in.
In this instance, when the hon. member moved his Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 12, in my view, he would have been well advised to read the comments made by Professor Knight of the University of Queensland in 1966. He would find there a strong case for not disclosing internal departmental memoranda. This is one of the main areas of interest in notices of motions which ask departments to produce internal memoranda. I will not read the whole article by Professor Knight but I think that a portion of it would indicate the thrust of the thinking of the Professor who is a recognized expert in the field. He said it in 1966 but I suggest it is equally true today:
The civil servant may feel, too, that he must avoid placing on record anything which is likely to offend or cut across the interests of any individual or group in the community. This could affect not only the generalist administrator having a policy advisory role, but also the large body of officials whose work is concerned essentially with matters of a technical or professional nature. An officer who prepared a report on, say, the relative merits of butter and margarine, might well find himself the centre of a political controversy long before any decision about subsidies or production restrictions had been reached at the political level. Even if he wished to defend himself and had the ability as a controversialist to do so, the means open to him to do so would hardly be adequate.
So we place our civil servants and people who were retained to advise government departments in an untenable position. If they are told that a particular study or

report they are preparing for the consideration of the government on a policy that it has adopted or proposes to adopt or a program that has been in effect for a couple of years will not be kept confidential, I suggest that this weakens the report. If they give a report that they anticipate will be kept confidential and it is then not kept confidential, then I think you do a disservice to the individual who has been retained to give you that report.
There may be a series of suggestions in this report on the mobility program that the government would reject out of hand as not being consistent with the thrust of intention of the particular program. On that basis you would have an individual who has made a report contrary to a government position. A cabinet minister has the ultimate responsibility for making the decision, and then you would have a crossfire between the deputy minister, or whoever prepared the report, and the minister becoming a matter of public record.
I suggest that this would weaken the parliamentary system. This is going to the very root of what the parliamentary system is all about, that the man or individual who has the prime responsibility for a piece of legislation or a program is the minister himself, and it is up to him to cull out what he thinks is good in the program and then face the House of Commons on that subject. He then, of course, has to answer during examination of the estimates for the money that is put out on a particular program; he has to indicate its strength and defend its weakness. That responsibility in the parliamentary system falls upon the elected member who in this instance is a cabinet minister.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are many other members who wish to speak on the subject. I was going to elaborate, for the edification of the hon. member who moved the motion, on the general principles and exemptions that were indicated by the President of the Privy Council on March 15. I see that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is here. I believe he participated in that debate. I thought, therefore, he might have drawn to the attention of his colleague why this particular report falls within the exemptions that were enumerated in the debate.
Recognizing that our time is limited, Mr. Speaker, I will yield the floor to others who wish to participate.


Charles Joseph Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member will now entertain my questions. I gather that he will, from his gesture.
I should like to ask the hon. member for "Haldeman-Ehrlichman", who has just spoken on his concept of open government, what has happened to the assessment report of the OFY program for 1972, a program which operates without the authorization of a statute of this House. Also, what has happened to the assessment report of the OFY program for 1973? Why have we not had presented to the House the assessment of the LIP program for 1972 or 1973? Why have we not received in this House the assessment of the jeunesse Canada monde program? Why have we not received an assessment of the core funding program for native people? Why have we not received a copy of the assessment for the student summer employment program?
April 18, 1974

I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but I think the hon. member has my point. Can he answer these specific questions on behalf of his open government?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for Rocky Mountain. The weakness of his action was pointed out by the snide remark in referring to me. I am the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, which I am proud to represent and which I hope to represent for many years to come.
The hon. member reminds me of an individual who looks at a glass of water which is three-quarters full and says it is one-quarter empty. That is why I would not want to live in a Conservative world. They always see the negative, black, and gloom and doom. In answer to the hon. gentleman's questions, I could use the tactic that he has used and catalogue a whole series of items that have been provided to the opposition at their request. There are many hundreds of reports, but he has catalogued five or Six items that in his view should be made available now.
I suggest that the question has been asked of cabinet ministers already and satisfactory answers have been given, although they may not be satisfactory to him. There are good and sufficient reasons why some are not made available in the timetable in which the hon. member operates, which we have come to understand is from headline to headline.


Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to intervene in this debate. However, I find myself in the unusual position of being able to agree with one of the socialist members of this House and, being struck by that unusual feeling, I thought I should express support for the motion and the comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).
Having said that, however, I must say that I think this House, if anything, spends too much time on notices of motions for the production of papers. It spends too much time on these discussions because the government is forcing us into the position of continually bringing forward such motions. They could be avoided if this government were as open as it should be and if it recognized that the foremost responsibility of any member of parliament is to consider the programs of parliament and either to vote for or to withhold the supply of money to the government for carrying out the programs which it puts forward.
Here we have a classic case, as was pointed out by the hon. member who moved this motion. A department of this government spends $599 million per year; one could almost round out the figure to $600 million because, in keeping with the tradition of the Liberal Party as expressed by C. D. Howe, their attitude is "What's a million?" Unlike the hon. member for Winnipeg North, I will not excuse this government from its responsibility with regard to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The department is not entitled to expend funds not voted by this parliament. But they were spent anyway. This does not inspire confidence at all.
The Canada Manpower Mobility Program is worthy of support-and I think would receive it, from those who participated in the discussion of the program and voted supply,-if this House knew whether it is succeeding. Given the failure of this government to deal with unem-
Manpower Mobility Program
ployment, the projections as to unemployment in this country are that it will remain high and may even increase. This program, therefore, probably will be even more important as it seeks to encourage skilled people who are searching for jobs to relocate in areas where their skills can be used.
I come from the industrial city of Hamilton, and I venture to say that people will be referred there because we are in the fortunate position of being able to provide jobs. Indeed, if any problem is encountered by such major employers as Stelco and Dofasco, it is because of the abuses of the unemployment insurance program. Jobs are available, but sometimes people find it easier not to work. It has always been our belief in this country that a man should get what he works for, but he should work for what he gets. In Hamilton we know that this philosophy is not encouraged by the policies of this government.
The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) who spoke before me put up a defence of the attitude of this government of hiding things and keeping them secret, basing this on the excuse that it was not necessary to produce papers because opposition parties had been provided with research staff. I venture to suggest that as eloquent as his arguments were, they were probably provided by his own research bureau. Having just entered the debate, I did not have the benefit of using the research bureau of the official opposition, excellent as it is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You don't know how lucky you are.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says I don't know how lucky I am. Perhaps he is correct, except that I think the research bureau of the official opposition works with more accuracy and fairness than that of the New Democratic Party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, I should know better than to permit a question from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but I will do so in tribute to his seniority.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member realize that I was suggesting that he will be a much better member if he does his own research work?


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: That is a very worth-while suggestion, and coming from someone as esteemed as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, with his years of experience, it is one which I hope to follow for a good many years to come.
To return to the basic argument of the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, no amount of research and no amount of money applied to research can help a member of parliament discharge his responsibilities if he does not know what is going on in government and thus whether to withhold or to vote supply. We have another case of a program that does not fall within the purview of state secrecy or security, the right to privacy respecting confidential information that would be detrimental, if known, to the economy, or for any other reason. It is simply a program for which this parliament has voted funds. It has

April 18, 1974
Manpower Mobility Program
been demonstrated to be a department that does not inspire confidence in anyone, and we have a right to assess the program before we determine whether we should vote funds for it.
The general principle must not be overlooked. As the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton. expressed it, information should always be provided to members of parliament if it will assist them in discharging their duties and not endanger the security of the state or of individuals within the state. Obviously, information about the Canada Manpower Mobility Program would assist members of parliament in discharging their foremost responsibility. Such information would not endanger the security of the state or of individuals within the state.
Government expenditures have reached a level which is nothing short of atrocious. The government is intruding more and more into the private sector and into the lives of individuals. The government is budgeting for expenditures of some $22 billion per year, or $1,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. I am not saying that $1,000 is spent on every man, woman and child; merely that the government's budget is huge when $1,000 per man, woman and child has to be budgeted for. If the parliamentary system is to be weakened, it will be weakened, not by disclosing information to which members of parliament are entitled but by withholding it. When you hide things from members of parliament, representatives duly elected of the people, you are saying, "We have something to hide."
If you have a good reason to withhold information, because disclosure would imperil the security of the state, individuals within the state or their right to privacy, that is one thing. On the other hand, when you withhold information you are encouraging people to fear what the government is doing, to be suspicious about how their money is spent. You weaken their confidence in democracy, confidence which is necessary if a democratic society is to function, if the government is to be respected and if it is to discharge its responsibilities to the people. This it can do only in an atmosphere of co-operation and when it feels it has the support of the people.
I join the hon. member in suggesting that whenever possible documents relating to government activity which will assist members of parliament discharge their responsibilities should be made available to members on the conditions previously referred to. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacGuigan) will respond in that spirit to my comments and, hopefully, give a more positive reply than has been given on other, similar occasions in this House.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the motion in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) reads:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Canada Manpower Mobility Program.
When the hon. member originally requested the latest evaluation report on April 10, I replied to his request in

these words as recorded at page 1331 of Hansard for that date:
-the evaluation report of the Canada Manpower Mobility Program was prepared jointly by the department and the Treasury Board secretariat as an internal working document for their exclusive use. I would therefore ask the member to withdraw his motion.
The hon. member was not willing to withdraw; hence, we are debating the matter today. This motion raises one of the greatest issues which confronts a democratic people-the right of people to know what is going on in their country. Although it may not be evident from hon. members' speeches, this is an exceedingly complex question: it is not a simple question to which a simple reply can be given. To show my general outlook on the subject, may I quote from the third report of the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments placed before the House in 1969. I had the privilege of being chairman of that committee. In the introduction to this report, the committee said:
This report is based on the assumption that public knowledge of governmental activities is the basis of all control of delegated legislation. For parliamentary democracy is a system of government which requires that the executive be responsible to the legislature and that both be accountable to the people, and there can be neither responsibility nor accountability where there is no knowledge of what has been done. In political matters knowledge is the beginning of power, and its lack, impotence.
I stand by those words which I had the privilege of creating earlier.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That would be a good place to sit down.


Mark R. MacGuigan: As I said, and would repeat for the benefit of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the question is not simple, neither is the answer. Despite the greatness of his contributions to the House, the hon. member tends to be precipitous in his comments.
The general principles which the government adopts were stated by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) on March 15 last year. The criteria are set out in the appendix to Hansard at page 2288. As these have been alluded to, I do not think I need to repeat them. Basically, the thrust of these principles is in favour of providing members of parliament with all the factual information about government activity which can be provided consistent with the responsibility of the government to govern effectively. When speaking on the matter, the government House leader outlined a number of exemptions which he believed were necessary in order to enable the government to govern effectively. One of those exemptions relating to that which we are discussing today is No. 15, "Internal departmental memoranda".
The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) earlier indicated the government's interest in keeping such documents internal to the government. If we followed the policy of releasing all such documents, a policy which hon. members opposite contend is proper, such policy could reduce us to the position of being unable to use paper for communication at all. If members on the government side, especially ministers and the public servants who advise them, could not use documents which are strictly for internal use, and if there were always the danger that these documents could be brought into the public arena at
April 18, 1974

some time, it is difficult to see how the government could function effectively. Conditions like these would force the government to rely entirely on oral dealings. Obviously, that would not be of benefit to the country.
I remind hon. members opposite that there are many ways of obtaining factual information. The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton pointed out that this government has been very, very open. He gave as an example the research staff which the government has provided to opposition parties for the first time in Canadian political history. That this is not irrelevant I shall try to indicate in a moment.
As a result of the report of the committee on statutory instruments to which I referred a few moments ago, the government instituted a whole host of procedures which helped to bring about more publicity with respect to statutory instruments, and in that way, as well as in a number of other ways, to safeguard the liberties of the Canadian people. This government has been dedicated to the concept of open government. But not only must the government be open; it must be effective.


Charles Joseph Clark: So must its leader.


Mark R. MacGuigan: The hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) may have his own opinion. I do not doubt that of the people of Canada when they are given an opportunity to express their views on it. I prefer the verdict of the people to that of the hon. member for Rocky Mountain.
I suggest to hon. members opposite that by moving motions such as this they are asking the government to do their work for them. We have hearings in standing committees on legislation and, more to the point in this context, estimates are referred to standing committees. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) has appeared before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration in recent weeks. In his statement to the committee he referred to the Canada Manpower Mobility Program and thereby, as well as by the consideration of the estimates, laid himself open to questions on the subject. I do not recall any questions being asked on this subject in committee. That would seem to indicate members were satisfied with the government's program in this area.
What is even more to the point is that the members of the committee unanimously adopted the estimates of the Department of Manpower. This has already been done. It was done without a single question being asked on the subject. What greater indication could there be? Either the research bureaux with which the opposition have been so generously supplied are not fulfilling their function, or members opposite are not using them. Or possibly the government's performance is so satisfactory that there is no reason for any questions to be asked in this particular area.


Charles Joseph Clark: Or that you cannot find the facts.


Mark R. MacGuigan: If the hon. member for Rocky Mountain had cared to attend the committee hearings, he might
Manpower Mobility Program
have had an opportunity of finding the facts. The minister was most open in presenting the facts. Members do not need to have the actual report presented as an internal document. They are able to question the minister about the same area as that covered by the document. They can ask his views and those of the departmental officials as to how well the department is functioning. In that form they get exactly the same information.
We are here discussing more a point of procedure than a point of substance. We on this side are not saying parliament should not have this information. We are saying we will not present an internal departmental document because that kind of documentation, in a case such as this, would establish a precedent which could lead to the breaking down of effective democratic government. Members opposite have other ways of finding out the same information. The best way is to criticize and question the minister when he comes before the committee on his estimates. They have not done that with regard to this program, yet they come here and ask us to hand them on a platter information which they have not taken the trouble to ascertain. I do not think that is good parliamentary practice. I will be charitable and suggest that perhaps this is the fault of the researchers they have hired. I think this is the best way to leave that point.
What is it the Canada Manpower Mobility Program does? What kind of concern would the department have in authorizing an analysis of this kind? The basic principle of the Canada Manpower Mobility Program is to provide financial assistance for unemployed, underemployed or persons about to become unemployed to enable them to relocate in areas closest to their homes where there are suitable job opportunities. It may be used to help the worker who is without a job because his skill is not required in his own area, or the worker who is underemployed in a job where his skills are unused or outdated. It can also help the person who needs to improve his earning capacity by attending federally-sponsored training courses not offered near his home, or persons who need specialized Manpower service not available in their home area.
The program complements other measures to promote high productivity. Assistance under the program forms an integral part of other federal government departments' adjustment activities, namely, those of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the Newfoundland fisheries resettlement program and other provincial schemes. The aim of the Canada Manpower Mobility Program is not to subsidize all workers' mobility but, rather, to assist and serve as an incentive to those who need to move but require financial assistance.
The Manpower mobility regulations provide four types of assistance. First, exploratory grants to enable workers to search for employment in another area. Second, relocation grants to facilitate permanent relocation of workers and their families. Third, trainee travel and commuting allowances to enable adults to take occupational training in a locality other than that in which they reside. Fourth, special travel grants to obtain special Manpower services required to facilitate entry into productive employment.

April 18, 1974
Manpower Mobility Program
In his statement before the House the minister announced revisions to the regulations which improve the scale of allowances under exploratory grants as well as a major change in the home owner's allowance. This is the type of conclusion that is obviously based on studies which have been made and which the opposition could have asked questions about. His conclusion was as follows:
I am pleased to advise that these changes have made the relocation of workers and their families more successful than previously.
Our evaluation of the exploratory grants program indicates that approximately one in every two workers is successful in obtaining a job during the first exploratory trip.
The information is there being made available to parliament and to the public. The opposition just has not been able to recognize the forest for the trees which it has put in the way. Obviously, the kind of thing with which a study of this kind would be concerned would in large part be the question of disincentive. Is there any disincentive imposed by such a program? In the absence of the program would the worker have remained unemployed in his locality? Would he have placed an increased demand on unemployment insurance and social welfare? Obviously, this is the type of thing such a study would have attempted to answer. These are the very types of questions to which the minister was attempting to provide answers during his appearance before the standing committee on estimates. He also stated at that time:
The second change introduced was to increase the home owner's allowance from $500 to $1,500 to enhance the success of relocation for families who did not own a home. Since the revised home owner's allowances went into effect, there has been an increase of approximately 18 per cent in the number of workers who were able to purchase a home in their relocation area ensuring the success and permanency of the relocation.
The vote which was approved by the committee was for $9.2 million. That was a week or so ago. To continue with the analysis of the problem and the type of service given by the Manpower Mobility Program, a program about which the opposition might have asked questions if they had wished, I shall give a fuller explanation of the exploratory grants program to which I referred in mentioning the changes which the minister announced. The exploratory grants program covers the cost of return transportation of the worker to the nearest area considered by Canada Manpower to hold reasonable prospects for employment. Interviews for the client with prospective employers are often arranged by the department. The grant also includes a living allowance of $13 a day, for a maximum of five days, while the worker is in the area actively seeking work.
Perhaps I might call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
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.
William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock I was dealing with certain aspects of the Canada Pension Plan. Now, after the supper hour, I am happy to see that so many members, including the minister, were able to tear themselves away from the hockey game. If the minister could get the bill passed I am sure we would unanimously agree to deal with hockey in the next couple of hours instead of the football bill we may be faced with.
In setting aside people's savings under the Canada Pension Plan we are bringing about a vast change in the savings patterns of individuals. I suggest that savings by the group over 50 years of age is now much less important than in the past. With the present very high rate of inflation this large group is not able to protect itself by ordinary plans. The minister himself pointed this out in Toronto when making a statement according to a report in the Globe and Mail, before the Canada Pension Plan conference held in November of last year. He said, "When the value of the current $105 in old age security is added, we can discuss adequacy with a clear conscience".
I think he then drew attention to the important question behind this legislation: what is adequacy? If the old age pension and Canada pension together are adequate for an individual, then it seems to be of little value for him to save as well for his retirement. Has the Canada Pension Plan made private pension plans redundant or largely made private pension plans redundant? The minister went on to point out at this conference that it is a matter of public concern that only 40 per cent of Canadians are covered-this is quite true-and that in many ways the Canada Pension Plan can cover the whole field better than private plans. On the other hand, will the Canada Pension Plan be a truly funded plan, or will it be increasingly funded from general revenue with little relationship between what one puts in and what one takes out?
It also seems important that those who are retiring within the next 10 or 15 years take a look at their own savings from the point of view of spending them for their own personal benefit, rather than using them as an income supplement, since the Canada Pension Plan presumably will be quite adequate.
One other factor in comparing the Canada Pension Plan with private pension plans is that the Canada Pension Plan lends money to the provinces, and they alone are the recipients of CPP funds. If provinces are able to borrow from the CPP without having to go to the market for funds, then in my opinion this makes for an absence of the normal restraint that is placed on provincial spending. For instance, if a provincial government has a program that
April 18, 1974

has to be funded, say a hydro development project, then if they go to the market to raise the money I think the project will be designed better and more thought will be put into it, whereas if the province is able to borrow from the Canada Pension Plan fund almost at will, there is an "easy come, easy go" attitude.
The Canada Pension fund also provides a huge reservoir of cash which is independent of the business cycle; hence over-all government spending, taxing measures and fiscal policy are beyond the normal restraint exercised by the legislature. Often people criticize free enterprise for its failings, but if there is a great deal of intergovernment borrowing that short-circuits the free market, then the free market is being jeopardized. If a province needs money, it should deal directly with the market. Borrowing from the Canada Pension Plan conflicts with two different interests-the needs of the provincial treasury and the rights of contributors to the pension fund.
Naturally, a provincial government prefers to borrow at the most advantageous rate, so any borrowing from the fund would, from the point of view of the fund, be disadvantageous. If there were an incentive on the part of the managers of the fund to obtain maximum yield from investments, then the productive and rewarding sectors of the economy would benefit. It is my understanding that the managers of the Quebec Pension Plan fund have had a much better return on their investments than have the managers of the Canada Pension Plan fund, and this is to be commended. I think the managers of the CPP fund should look at what has been done with the investments made by the QPP fund.
The accumulation of savings capital in the Canada Pension Plan fund, in private pension funds, in mutual funds and insurance funds is to the disadvantage of certain segments of the country. The pooling of investment capital tends to be in the large financial centres of the country, where it is managed by a few people, the large financial conglomerates, to the detriment of rural areas. It has been suggested that Canada Pension Plan funds might contribute to the financing of business and other enterprises in the free market instead of this being the prerogative of the provinces, and I think more study should be done along these lines.
I think the important thing to discuss when we consider the Canada Pension Plan is what effect it is going to have on savings and how best pension funds can be invested in this country to bring in as much income as possible for contributors. Above all, this large pool of money should be used in the most constructive way in the financial and industrial sectors of the economy.
With those few words, Mr. Speaker, I will close. In committee I hope we will find some answers to the many actuarial problems that this bill presents.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Canadian Professional Football

Marc Lalonde: that Bill C-22, intituled Canadian Football Act, be read for the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to say that I wish this bill had not been necessary. I had hoped that the policy adopted long ago by the government against the establishment of foreign leagues in Canada would have led the promoters of the World Football League to reconsider their plans for coming to Canada. I had hoped that they would listen to reason and understand that it would be neither in their own interest nor in anyone else's to force a confrontation with the government on this matter, and make it imperative for the government to take legislative steps.
Events in recent weeks have proved the pressing necessity of translating the policy of the government into an act on Canadian football, not only against the immediate threat which the franchise of the WFL constitutes but also against any future threat.

We all know that football in itself is not a life and death issue, or even a bread and butter issue.


An hon. Member:: It is not even an issue.


Marc Lalonde: I am sure that the country would survive a national football league, a world football league, even a universal football league for that matter.


An hon. Member:: Then let's forget about it.


Marc Lalonde: But at the same time we must recognize the incredible interest in this football question right across Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: It is an emotional issue, a gut issue, if you like, and it obviously stirs up deep feeling in a great many Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The minister has the floor and we are just beginning a new bill. Hon. members should let the minister complete his remarks.


Marc Lalonde: In its own small way, this football controversy seems to epitomize the central dilemmas of our 100 years as a nation. The type of debate we have been witnessing seems to me symbolic of our history, too. It is the kind of debate we have had many times in the past. So many of the same old arguments keep popping up, arguments that we really should have settled and put to rest a long time ago.
We hear about the principles of free enterprise and free competition in the marketplace. We are told that the state
1562

April 18, 1974
Canadian Professional Football should not interfere with private business unless, of course, private business requests state help. We are bombarded with lectures about people's freedom of choice and freedom of movement and other fundamental rights. I am not denying the values of free enterprise and competition, and I am not making fun of the people who advance these arguments; but they are not absolutes and never have been, at least not in Canadian history. As Canadians, we have always had to acknowledge the consequences of living alongside a much richer and more powerful neighbour. We have always had to be aware of what could happen and, in some instances, what has happened by allowing our neighbour unrestrained access to what is ours. While we have received literally countless benefits from our close relationship with the United States, we must also recognize that we have paid a price: too often, in the past, the demise or disappearance of Canadian institutions in the face of much greater economic and demographic powers.
This, then, is one of our traditional dilemmas as Canadians: how to remain open to, but not dominated by, the influence of our great neighbour. Ever since confederation we have tried to resolve that dilemma by taking conscious decisions at the federal level, either to impose restraints on foreign influences or to create or maintain institutions of our own. Without such conscious decisions we would have no national railway system today; our railways would probably run north and south along what we are told are natural geographic lines. Without such a conscious decision by the parliament of Canada we would today have no national broadcasting system and our radio and television stations would likely be local affiliates of NBC or CBS.
In both instances, in respect of the railways and the CBC, a decision to simply tie in with the American continental system would have been cheaper and possibly even more politically popular at the time. But the decisions to create and maintain our own Canadian systems, even with the extra costs involved, were seen, correctly, as part of the price of national sovereignty at that time. I am not talking only about decisions made "away back when;" the Foreign Policy Review Act, passed by this parliament, is one more recent example of federal intervention to control or regulate foreign domination in some sectors of our economy.
So there is nothing unprecedented or arbitrary in the government's present action to protect Canadian football, as some have charged. The legislation now before the House is in fact no different in principle from legislation that already protects many other Canadian enterprises. We are not trying to exclude foreign influences in football, but simply to control them. And I think even the most staunch advocate of free enterprise would agree there are times when the government must be prepared to protect the legitimate interests of all Canadians.
In this regard, Canada has traditionally been much more liberal than most countries in the world in maintaining an open door, especially for professionals. American musicians and other performing artists still have a much easier time coming to Canada to work than, say, Canadian musicians have in going to the United States. The same is true in many other fields; consulting, for example.

One group of Canadian professionals, hockey players, have for 50 years experienced little trouble in entering the United States, but that situation could very well change in the next few years as the Americans begin developing enough professional calibre players of their own. In fact, many Canadians were effectively barred from playing U.S. college hockey by a recent decision of the NCAA, the governing body of American collegiate sports. The NCAA made a ruling in August, 1971, concerning professionalism which really applied only to Canadian Junior "A" players, and the stated purpose of the ruling was to encourage more American players. So this is not a one-way street; it clearly works both ways.
The flow of skilled people across international borders is rarely a case of simple supply and demand as some would have us believe. It involves many other questions, among them, as in U.S. college hockey, a policy of developing home-grown talent and the effects of unlimited foreign players on that development. But even if we agree that there are legitimate areas for government or state intervention simply to keep us Canadian, we then find ourselves confronted by another dilemma. What kind of Canada do we want? One in which the rich just get richer and the poor stay poor, or one in which there is a conscious effort toward equalization and interdependence? Again, this dilemma seems to be epitomized in the last few weeks' debate about football.
I have received telegrams of support for the government's position from the mayors of many of our major cities, Calgary, Ottawa, Hamilton, Regina, Winnipeg and Edmonton, which are six cities in the Canadian Football League. I have not received similar telegrams from the mayors of our three largest cities, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Is this just a coincidence? I do not think so. I am not pointing a finger at the mayors of our big cities or accusing them of anything. Like us in parliament, they are elected to look after the interests of their constituents as they see them. Again, this split seems to reflect the traditional stresses and perhaps the lack of common interests between our large urban areas and our smaller centres- the kind of alienation reporters like to write about.
Those of us who live in big Canadian cities tend to forget the real nature of the problem. We know that if we did not have the CFL we would have some other kind of professional football. We have the population, the money and the markets, and we like to think of ourselves as big league in every way. But, as Canadians, do we have the right to say that what happens elsewhere does not matter to us? As members of parliament, do we not have an obligation to care about what the CFL means to all those other Canadians? What does it mean? I was on a CBC radio phone-in show a few weeks ago and a young man in Halifax said something that impressed me as a statement of what it means. There are as yet, as hon. members know, no CFL teams in the maritimes. This young man told me he often remains up at night to watch the games on television, even games from Vancouver which do not start until midnight, his time. He said the reason is that watching Canadian football makes him "feel connected with the rest of the country".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 18, 1974


Marc Lalonde: What about Alberta and Saskatchewan? Somebody earlier mentioned Alberta. Over the last two months, as this House is aware, those two provinces felt they were entitled to the international price of $10.50 a barrel for their oil. The government's position was that it was all right for them to sell their own oil at that price abroad, but that selling it at that price domestically would have serious repercussions in respect of fuel costs to Canadians as a whole. As the House knows, they settled for $6.50 a barrel, a long way from the international price, in the interests of all Canadians-but especially, let us face it, the interests of consumers in the large eastern markets where the population is. This, of course, was not an isolated instance of Canadian provinces or regions agreeing to a reasonable compromise for the common good. As this House knows, it is precisely that kind of give-and-take that has made this country a viable entity. I am, therefore, disappointed when a member of Montreal's civic government is reported as saying, on the WFL question: What do we owe the west? Look how they held us up on the oil.
I am also disappointed when a Montreal sportswriter says:
If Marc Lalonde has his way, the people of Toronto and Montreal will be compelled by law forever to accept an inferior brand of football simply because people living in smaller cities can't afford big league entertainment.
The basic assumption here seems to be that if it is Canadian, it is inferior-an assumption I for one am not prepared to accept.
Some hort. Members: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Nor do I think any of us should accept that football teams are necessarily superior just because they play in a league which calls itself the World Football League and has yet to play a single game. Nor can any of us believe that football teams are somehow better or more big league only because they are located in cities bigger than some CFL cities. If that were the case, then Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal would dominate the CFL competitively-something we know they don't do. There is also some irony in the fact that the most vocal opposition to the government's policy of protecting Canadian football has been centred in that part of the country that throughout our history has benefited most from the protection of its own industries. That includes the sports equipment industry.
The protection of Canadian football is not a local issue. It is not a regional issue. It is not a partisan issue. In our view, it is an issue that effects all parts of Canada and all Canadians and it will be decided, not in the press or on radio or television but by the parliament of Canada.
The bill now before the House is designed to protect Canadian football. To that end it embodies the position adopted by the government of Canada in November, 1972, and the policy first stated publicly by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), a policy that has remained unchanged since that time. The Canadian football bill is a short and straight-forward piece of legislation which embodies only those provisions necessary to achieve its purpose. The bill, as proposed, would limit professional football in Canada solely to teams from Canadian leagues. It provides that a minimum of 55 per cent of the players in
Canadian Professional Football Canadian professional football will be Canadians, and that no team will have on its roster more than 15 players who are not qualified Canadians, whichever results in the lesser number of players who are not qualified Canadians. That formula will apply for the 1974 playing season and until December 31 of this year.
After December 31, 1974, the minimum number of qualified Canadian players will rise to at least 60 per cent or 15 players who are not qualified Canadians, again whichever results in the lesser number of players who are not qualified Canadians. The bill contains no retroactive measures. It will not create a monopoly situation since it will allow for the establishment of other Canadian professional football leagues so long as all professional teams meet the criteria of the legislation. The bill will allow the CFL to expand to other Canadian cities and it will even allow the establishment of second CFL teams in major cities such as Toronto.
We believe these measures will not only protect Canadian football but will also allow it to grow and develop while maintaining its Canadian character. Like the Canadian content regulations in broadcasting and other portions of our cultural life, this legislation is aimed at strengthening the Canadian content of our football by giving more players a chance to play professionally in their own country.
As one who believes that Canadian football must grow if it is to survive and prosper, I have welcomed the CFL's decision to expand into any area which could support a franchise. The CFL's eastern conference is at this time seriously considering the application of a group in London, Ontario, and the Hamilton club has agreed to waive its rights in that territory, subject to acceptance of the London application. The CFL has also indicated its willingness to consider expansion into Halifax-Dartmouth and would like to review applications from interested parties in that area proposing teams either privately or community-owned.
As I announced last week after introducing the Canadian football bill, steps are being taken to allow more Toronto people to see their team's home games. This has not been possible for many because of sell-out crowds and local television blackouts. Plans are going ahead to expand the Toronto stadium, but that may take some time and still might not meet the demand for seats. Accordingly, the new owner of the Argonauts has undertaken to lift the local television blackout on an experimental basis, beginning this season, when it is established in advance that games are sold out. No individual CFL club can make such a decision on its own without the approval of the other clubs in the league, but the CFL commissioner has undertaken to put the proposition before the other CFL clubs and encourage them to accept it.
The CFL has also given assurances that it will look favourably on the possibility of all-star games between the CFL and other leagues, whether played in Canada or abroad. We should also note that the bill does not in any way restrict Canadian professional teams from playing exhibition games against teams from other leagues, either in Canada or outside the country.
It is the government's position to uphold and to strengthen the Canadian character of our football. We believe that the growing number of positions for Canadian
27451-36.1

April 18, 1974
Canadian Professional Football
players assured by the present bill will greatly stimulate the development of high-calibre players across the country. To encourage the broadly based program that such development will require, my department has recently agreed with the philosophy of the Canadian Amateur Football Association stated in its proposed seven-year master plan for the development of Canadian football. The plan aims at greater participation and greater involvement in all areas-coaching, training, officiating and playing.
Through my department the government will be supporting the appointment of a technical director for amateur football. Through this measure, football becomes the first non-Olympic sport to receive such support. Through its seven-year master plan the CAFA hopes to increase the number of Canadians participating in football from the present estimated 250,000 to about 600,000, in this way both broadening the participation base and improving the quality of players through various technical programs.
Such efforts would be ineffective if we did not at the same time maximize opportunities for such players to play professional football in Canada. My department, through the fitness and amateur sport directorate, now funds the CAFA by means of normal annual grants for its ongoing programs, such as executive meetings, annual general meetings, Canadian eastern and western junior football playoffs and the Canadian junior finals-what we call the Junior Grey Cup.
My department has also agreed to fund a national officials' training clinic in which officials from all parts of Canada will participate. In the 1973-74 academic year, grants in aid to the student athletes program are providing scholarships for 27 outstanding football players to allow them to continue their academic studies at a number of Canadian universities. Those 27 football scholarships are the largest number awarded in any single sport. They represent a value of close to $50,000, which is in addition to the other football programs funded by the federal government.
I should also note that the Canadian Football League, even though it has no jurisdiction over amateur football in Canada, provides a direct national grant of $50,000 a year to the CAFA as well as another approximately $110,000 in cash and in kind through coaching clinics, try-out camps and other services by the CFL clubs to the amateur programs in their areas. I sincerely doubt that any American league would do the same for Canadians.
It is obvious from what I have said that the federal government's interest in Canadian football is not confined only to the CFL, its nine teams and 300 or so professional players. The CFL is merely the most highly visible part of the Canadian football pyramid which is made up of approximately 250,000 players. So when we talk about protecting football we are not discussing only the CFL, although any weakening of the CFL would have implications for the CAFA's amateur programs as well.
Saskatchewan's Premier Blakeney pointed out last month in a news release that if teams in United States leagues started to cut into general Canadian football revenues, the professional teams would not be the only ones to suffer. He noted:

Teams such as the Saskatchewan Roughriders spend thousands of dollars a year encouraging high school and junior football in Saskatchewan. They give young Canadian football players a chance to play top quality football in their own country for the benefit of Canadians.
In short, whatever threatens the CFL threatens Canadian football in general. I will not dwell on the reasons why we believe the CFL is worth protecting and preserving. I will simply list them. The CFL is the only completely Canadian-controlled professional sports league in Canada. It consists solely of Canadian teams. Even under its present regulations, more than half its players are Canadians. The present number of more than 150 Canadian players will, of course, increase under the bill before the House. Its teams stretch across the country from Vancouver to Montreal. Thousands of other Canadians benefit indirectly from its activities. It provides a consistently high level of competition; seven different teams have played in the last four Grey Cup games.
In CFL cities, football is not merely another branch plant operation of the North American entertainment industry. It provides a focus for deep community involvement and civic and provincial pride. Finally, there is the Grey Cup-a Canadian tradition that dates back to 1909, and since 1921 has led to a great east-west rivalry. I think I need say no more except to underline the unique position the CFL holds in Canadian sports.
The National Hockey League has had a majority of American teams for more than 50 years; so has the World Hockey Association since its inception two years ago. In other words, hockey got away from us a long time ago, before many of us were born. No strictly Canadian hockey league has been jeopardized by the operations of the NHL and WHA in Canadian cities. Baseball is also a very different story from football. The Montreal Expos play in the U.S. National League as major league baseball's only Canadian entry. There is not, and there never has been, a national Canadian professional baseball league to protect.


Charles Joseph Clark: Same thing for lacrosse?


Marc Lalonde: I heard the interjection by my friend, the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark). I am sure he knows there is not now a national Canadian professional lacrosse league in this country, and there has not been for quite a few decades.
However, in spite of the obvious lack of parallels between the situation of the Montreal Expos and the Toronto Northmen, it has been said, or at least whispered, that the government would not have acted to stop the Northmen if their franchise had been located in Montreal. At the risk of dignifying such allegations by replying to them at all, I can only repeat that the government's policy on the protection of Canadian football has been clearly stated and has been consistent since it was first announced in November, 1972: no foreign-based football leagues would be allowed to operate in Canada and there would be no exceptions to that rule. At the time that policy was stated, possible expansion of the NFL into Canada was centred not in Toronto but in Montreal.
It has also been suggested that the government acted to block the WFL only out of some devious and partisan political motives. As far as I know, both the old and the new Toronto Argonaut owners are prominent Conserva-
April 18, 1974

tives, so I cannot imagine what our alleged partisan political motives might have been. I am sorry to disappoint anyone, but our reasons for the legislation are not devious at all: they are as simple and straightforward as is our policy-to keep foreign football leagues out of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: The Toronto Northmen consistently maintained that they were unaware of any federal government policy that would inhibit their operation until they received news reports of my speech in Regina on February 21 of this year. In that speech I reiterated the government's policy of November, 1972, and stated our determination to do everything possible to prevent the WFL from operating in Canada. All of the Northmen's arguments against the Canadian football bill and for excluding the WFL from some or all of its provisions are based on the flimsy premise that they did not know they were contravening government policy when they set themselves up in business. In other words, they have tried to convince people that they were simply unaware of government policy until February 21 and that they are, therefore, in fairness, entitled to special consideration.
For the benefit of the House, I am now going to review some facts that show the Northmen are in error when they say they did not know what government policy was. At a CFL executive meeting on November 16, 1972, Mr. John Bassett, Sr., representing the Toronto Argonauts football club, served notice that at the executive committee meeting on December 1 he would move a resolution providing that the Canadian Football League would approve the principle of the expansion of the league through the granting of new franchises which would be organized for the purpose of operating professional football clubs in the United States of America at such times as applications for such franchises were received by the league. Mr. Bassett also advised the November 16 meeting that he would move at the December 1 meeting that the commissioner be empowered to meet with Mr. R. Schmertz to negotiate the terms of application for a Canadian Football League franchise in New York city, such application to be submitted to the league for approval to be operative in the football season of 1976.
Following reports of the CFL meeting, the Hon. John Munro, then minister of national health and welfare, stated the government's view that any CFL expansion into the United States would represent an erosion of the indentity of Canadian football and the government would do everything possible to prevent it from happening. On November 21, 1972, Mr. Munro held a meeting in Ottawa to discuss the matter with Mr. Bassett and the CFL comm-missioner, Mr. Jake Gaudaur, and to find out why the CFL was contemplating expansion into the United States. The CFL representatives indicated that some CFL clubs were concerned that if the CFL did not expand into the United States, a new U.S.-based league would be formed that would grant franchises in Canada.
The minister advised Mr. Bassett and Mr. Gaudaur that it was government policy to oppose the expansion of the CFL into the United States as well as the expansion of any
Canadian Professional Football U.S. league into Canada. Mr. Bassett advised Mr. Munro that he would formally withdraw his notice of motion for CFL expansion into the United States at the next CFL executive committee meeting on December 1.
Mr. Munro made the federal government's position abundantly clear in a public statement on November 22, 1972. The story was carried by Canadian Press and was widely covered in the media. As a matter of fact, it was the subject of a front page story in the Montreal Gazette and the Toronto Star on the following day. Mr. Munro said that the government could apply sanctions to prevent expansion of the CFL south of the border into the United States, or expansion of U.S. leagues into Canada, or even formation of a new league with Canadian entries.
At the CFL executive committee meeting on December 1, 1972, Mr. Bassett formally withdrew his notice of motion concerning expansion into the United States. According to the minutes of the meeting, he also informed the committee about his meeting with Mr. Munro and stated that he had told the minister he did not intend to take any course of action contrary to declared government policy. So we know that Mr. Bassett, Sr., was fully aware of federal policy in November, 1972, when it was initially announced.
Now, what about Mr. John Bassett, Jr., president of the Toronto Northmen? At that time, Mr. Bassett, Jr., was a director of the Toronto Argonauts. His father was the president. The Bassetts are not only father and son; they are also business associates in several enterprises. They have other associates who share their interest in promoting. In addition, they are active in communications. It is therefore difficult to believe that Mr. Bassett, Jr., was completely unaware of federal policy when he acquired the WFL franchise.
On December 5, 1972, at a press conference as the newly appointed Minister of National Health and Welfare, I publicly stated my concurrence with the government policy Mr. Munro had announced. On December 11, 1972, I met in Ottawa with CFL president Bill Clarke and CFL commissioner Gaudaur and reaffirmed the government's position to them. On December 13, 1972, Mr. Gaudaur sent to all the CFL executive committee delegates and alternates- among whom were Messrs. John Bassett, Sr., and John Bassett, Jr.-a summary of his meeting with Bill Clarke and myself. In that summary he reported specifically that I, personally, and speaking for the federal government, continued to be concerned over the prospect of expansion of the CFL to the United States as well as the expansion of the NFL into Canada, and that in so far as the latter was concerned I would discuss with my colleagues what action might be taken by the government to deter or preclude NFL expansion into Canada.
On January 17, 1973, at a CFL executive committee meeting in Winnipeg, commissioner Gaudaur reported again on his December 11, 1972, meeting in Ottawa with Bil' Clarke and myself. The Toronto Argonauts representatives at the January 17, 1973, CFL meeting in Winnipeg were, according to the minutes, John Bassett, Sr., Lew Hayman and John Bassett, Jr.
In the light of all these facts, it is more than difficult to believe the Northmen's assertions that they were completely unaware of federal football policy until my speech on February 21, 1974.

April 18, 1974
Canadian Professional Football


An hon. Member:: We still don't know what it is.


Marc Lalonde: I have met twice with Northmen representatives-both times in Ottawa-on March 4 and March 12. After those meetings and a careful reading of their briefs, I still do not think they have offered a single coherent reason as to why an exception to federal policy should be made in their case. At the time of those meetings I was still hopeful that legislation would not be necessary, and it still seemed possible that the Northmen could be persuaded to respect the integrity of Canadian football and the government's stated policy. They chose to force the legislation that is now before the House. Their position seems to be that they will continue to operate in Toronto until federal policy becomes law and they are forced to stop.
I hope the House will strongly endorse the bill. I said at the beginning that football is not really a life and death issue.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It may be for you.


Marc Lalonde: As a matter of fact, although we consider this a matter of significance we do not consider it a matter of confidence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: There is hope for Jimmy Walker and Mitchell Sharp.


Marc Lalonde: I suggest it has probably taken too much of our time and energy in recent weeks. But having said that, the only other recent government issue that has aroused as much public interest and heated debate was probably the Team Canada hockey series against the U.S.S.R. The Northmen may say that the preservation of Canadian football is a "bogus issue", and indeed it may look that way to them; but as we have seen, it is not a bogus issue for many Canadians-it is a very real and emotional issue that we as a people care about deeply.
This afternoon the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) suggested that we should go on to something else, that we should not spend much time on this particular issue as there were many others of importance facing this nation, certainly many of more importance than football. I agree with him, and we are ready to take up the offer of the official opposition in that respect. The bill is short and simple. There is no reason why we should not have a short debate and have this matter referred to committee for consideration, study and even the hearing of witnesses if the committee wishes.
I understand that discussions are being held with a view to concluding this debate tomorrow. I want to assure hon. members that we on this side of the House are more than willing to co-operate to that effect, either by limiting the number of speeches or by limiting the length of speeches. Our position is that we should make our decision and carry on with the business of the House. If there is any delay, it will not be blamed on this government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Will you drag the Expos in, too?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude by saying that some hon. members on the other side may make fun of the issue and try to treat the matter lightly. That is their opportunity and their right. As I said, we are ready to proceed speedily with this bill and have the House make its decision very quickly.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, as I strode purposefully through the lobby this evening, someone with a tone of surprise said, "Are you speaking on football?" I said, "Who else?"


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I have unique qualifications in the field. Two things I have not learned in my life are how to make money and how to play football. Those subjects are very much part of this discussion. So I have that negative qualification and certainly am removed from all prejudice in respect thereto. I was interested in the minister's invitation to shorten speeches, an invitation he extended one hour and five minutes after the House resumed its sitting this evening. I do appreciate, however, that this leaves me sufficient time to lay a sound basis for my remarks on this important subject.
I am sure that one or two of my colleagues know that I am not a football fan and not, indeed, a sports fan. Perhaps I speak tonight as the clergyman spoke one day to his congregation about the raising of a special fund: he said, "I speak to you this morning not as a Christian but as a businessman." I speak as a parliamentarian, not as a sportsman. I speak as a nationalist, not as a footballer.


An hon. Member:: As a Canadian.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I hope I always speak as a Canadian. I was interested in some of the remarks of the minister. He said this is not the kind of debate we have had in parliament before. Or did he say it is the kind of debate we have had before? Certainly, I do not remember one quite like it. For a while he was reaching great heights and had me thinking of Sir John A. Macdonald and saving the country from the Americans. Later he aspired to even more elevated heights when he talked about oil. He must have thought he was the minister of energy, mines and resources. That is a truly lofty height for him to seek. I was interested, too, when he said that the opposition to this measure has come from an area which has benefited from protection. I do not come from an area of Canada which has gained much from the protection of tariffs. We were sort of on the other side.
In common with many members here, I have over the years passed through many emotions on various debates. Sometimes one is amused, sometimes one is angry. Once in a while one is even informed. But tonight I am suffering from a sense of unreality. It almost passes my broadminded comprehension that, considering the state of this nation today, we in the House of Commons of Canada are dealing with a measure of this kind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 18, 1974


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Inflation is soaring higher than the eagle-the American eagle, if I may be permitted to use that phrase because it is the highest flyer. Transportation, described by one of the chief authors of the transportation legislation as being in a mess one week ago, is still in a mess today. Many are here tonight listening to the minister's speech because of the curtailment of transportation. There is trouble on land, sea and in the air. We have gone beyond Paul Revere; he had only two media to contend with.
The country is rent with labour and industrial unrest. There is a housing crisis which is gripping and organizing the people of this country. We are not talking much about unemployment because it is becoming chronic and increasing and we are becoming used to it. We have a divided cabinet, with the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) saying one thing and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) another. We have a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who comes back on the day the football bill is called.
Yet in the present state of the nation we are talking about what Mr. Bassett said to Mr. Schmertz, and whether there were two Bassetts at one meeting or one Bassett at two meetings. That is the kind of thing we are talking about here tonight. Some Herodotus could use this occasion to illustrate what Nero did. There are so many things that cry out for priority, cry out for attention, not only within the government but within the minister's own department.
I am, perhaps regrettably, not a sportsman but I respect those who find satisfaction in sport. Yet somehow I am somewhat concerned about the 25 per cent of Canadians who today are living on or below the poverty line. I am a little worried about what has happened to medical research funds in this country and the serious shrinkage of them. I am a little worried because no one on the government side seems to think that anything can be done about inflation. That is not too far removed from suggesting that nothing should be done about it. Yet in the midst of all this travail, in the midst of the anxiety of the Canadian people, we are counting football players. I say all this not to scorn the minister; I say it in all seriousness. While it is all very well to make fun of politicians, to make them the butt of the joke syndrome, things are serious when the institution itself is held up for public scorn and for resentment and questioning by the people whom it serves. That is why this is so serious. I do not feel happy, as a representative of the people of Canada, to think that this is the best thing we can find to do on this night.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Isn't it terrible?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I think it is wrong. There are many indications in the country that the people of Canada are looking with great skepticism upon this performance. They are passing judgment on what this government is doing. [DOT]


An hon. Member:: They don't care.
Canadian Professional Football


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I hear a suggestion from across the way that the people of Canada do not care. I say to him, don't count on that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I read the following in the Globe and Mail the other day:
Health minister Marc Lalonde says they shall not pass-and he is mustering every weapon in the democratic arsenal to blast the intruders from Canadian soil. Though confederation last 1,000 years, people will say that this was when it became a country fit for the Canadian Football League to play in.
It would be unsporting of us to go around quenching nationalist fires, and we understand perfectly that the federal government, having dealt adroitly and effectively with the problems of inflation, unemployment, poverty, the native peoples, immigration, energy, international relations, and health, must now accord priority to the fundamental issues of our day: which set of initials should be permitted to predominate on the football field.
As a greater man than I once said, "O temporal O mores!"
From Ottawa, Mr. Lalonde spotted a threatening manoeuvre developing in Toronto. A cheque book was seen to flutter in the breeze, and three Miami Dolphins football players were arrayed for the press as the latest acquisitions of the Toronto Northmen of the World Football League.
There were suggestions of a stiff diplomatic note, or sending for Henry Kissinger. This delightful editorial in the Globe and Mail ends:
Yet Mr. Lalonde's quivering finger continues to indicate an approaching peril, and on Parliament Hill they are pacing the battlements and checking their muskets. On guard for whom?
I am not much of a partisan; I spend most of my time supporting measures which this minister puts forward. He has received my support and commendation on many endeavours, many proposals and many legislative pieces, but tonight on this measure I am amazed. I wonder if this is the same person who from time to time has shown such lucidity and perception. Indeed, he is sometimes so progressive that he could find a place in our party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Since I quoted Cicero, I must be bilingual and refer to Shakespeare who wrote, "On what meat doth this our Caesar feed that he hath grown so great?"


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: The pretensions and the parameters of this bill are, to say the least, startling. As I read the bill full of trembling, I read that people can go to jail for two years. My God, that is a non-sporting suggestion!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: The preamble would do well as the prelude to the lyrical ballads of Wordsworth. I have read a lot of dry statutes and a lot of dull bills, but I have never read such a hyperbolic expression as this preamble. Indeed, I wonder where the preamble ends and the propaganda begins. What lawyer ever heard a "whereas" followed by this:
And whereas Canadian football developed for itself a unique national institution contributing to the strengthening of the bonds of nation-

April 18, 1974
Canadian Professional Football
hood and it is in the national and public interest that an effort be made to protect this institution from the encroachments of foreign sponsored enterprises extending into Canada;
Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with-
Mellow stuff that. We are today faced with this urgent and necessary matter, a matter of which we heard incidentally, or was it coincidentally, on April 10, 1974, the very day of the release of the March consumer price index which recorded the highest peacetime cost of living increase since the index was established. That was the day on which this measure was launched. What happy auspices! How it will delight the housewives of this nation to know that the two came together. The preamble of the bill is interesting. It reads:
Whereas football has an established tradition in Canada as witnessed by the cup symbolizing football supremacy in Canada, which was donated by His Excellency, the late Governor General Earl Grey in 1909 for that purpose-
In the definition section, the term "football" means:
-Canadian football and American football but does not include soccer or rugby-
There is something quite interesting here. It can be historically proven that the established tradition which sports football claims to hold with regard to the Grey Cup is basically untrue. When the Grey Cup was donated by Earl Grey in 1909, it was intended to symbolize Canadian supremacy in "rugby football".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Even a layman like myself can see that is a sport emphatically different from football as it is known today. Rugby, as pointed out in the definition of "football" for the purposes of this bill, is not to be considered in conjuction with the term "football". Even dear old Lord Grey, who was invoked so greatly by the minister, did not intend this sort of thing at all. Grey, of course, was not an outstanding Canadian. Some do not think he was an outstanding Englishman. But a Canadian he was not. He was not one who would ever earn legitimately a place in any pantheon of Canadian national football heroes. Certainly he would not be happy-God rest his imperial soul!-to know that things were distorted in such a way that that which he claimed to be the goals and the focus of his cup award is excluded by a bill which names him as a sort of remote, historic godfather.
I hope the minister does not think I am being critical of him or his bill. I want him to know that with the basic intention of preserving Canadianism in professional football we join in our support and in our applause. It would be highly unlikely, and quite out of historic proportion, if a spokesman for the party of Macdonald, Borden, Bennett and Diefenbaker was not in the forefront of sensible, strong nationalism. When it comes to asserting our nationalism, we take second place to no group, political or otherwise, in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: If hon. members do not believe me, they can ask some of the pals of Earl Grey who had to deal with Canadian nationals like Robert Borden. Or you might check with some of the American authorities who had to deal with the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. 
Diefenbaker) when he was prime minister, who when it came to the Trading with the Enemy Act did not engage in the protracted, pusillanimous patty-caking which went on in reference to WML-Worthington, but acted assertively and successfully.
We, of course, believe in sensible, sensitive nationalism in the whole spectrum of Canadian society. What we have to ask, as any thoughtful parliamentarian must ask, is whether the goal to which the minister alluded is likely to be reached by the measure before us. We have to inquire as to the likely efficacy of the measure, and we certainly have to examine its exclusive nature.
The minister has obviously decided to bring down a gridiron curtain on the forty-ninth parallel. What other protective measures does he envisage? Not being a sports fan, I do not understand all the subtleties, but it seems to me as a greenhorn, a layman, that though one sees baseball and other sports played in Canada by Canadian teams, there are always a lot of American players around. We know that in America there are great hockey teams, but even a greenhorn like myself recognizes that most of the players are Canadians. Bobby Orr is a great player, but Bobby Orr is not a true Bostonian. He is a Canadian. Does the minister intend to extend his sports nationalism to other areas, or is it football alone which deserves this special and unique legislative treatment-right up to two years in jail?
Canada's national game is not football. It is not hockey. It is lacrosse. Even since the minister's fearless Regina speech there have been two major exercises in what I would call the Americanization of lacrosse. But no one has murmured. No one has legislated or even threatened to legislate. What is wrong with lacrosse, our national game? Does it not deserve protection? Is it necessary to be both a footballer and a professional to be protected? Is that which is good for football, bad for lacrosse? Is our nationalism selective to the extent that it must be confined to football alone? My witty colleague from Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) put a question to the minister not long ago. He asked: "Does the minister plan to bring in legislation which would ensure that the Stanley Cup never leaves Canada?"


Some hon. Members:: Oh, Oh!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Lord Stanley was a Governor General. We are invoking Governors General now. Why doesn't he get a look in on this? These are hard questions for the layman to answer. But in realms other than professional sport one is troubled. Is there greater danger to the Canadian way of life from foreign football than from foreign forces in other fields? What of the arts? What of our universities? Many Canadian professors are expressing grave concern about the widespread appointment of American professors by American deans or American heads of departments in Canadian universities. If it is more dangerous to have "X" number of American football players out in the field than to have so many American professors in Canadian universities-many of them, incidentally, teaching Canadian studies-how do we measure this danger to our national soul?
April 18, 1974

When one reflects upon this question one gets into a realm approaching the ridiculous. Where will all this end? Where does it begin? And why does it begin? Are we really heading for a Fortress Canada where the full force of legislative power will decree what a citizen shall see, who shall play, who shall watch, who shall own, who shall coach, who shall form leagues? It is a horrendous prospect of prohibition. And I have never liked prohibition very much.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: From the very beginning I was troubled by the negative and restrictive aspect of the bill. I share with other Canadians a real appreciation of the CFL. I know what the Grey Cup means to so many of our people. If I were not a maritimer, I think I would like to be a westerner. I spent nine years of my life on the prairies and I learned a lot there. Indeed, as my former leader said, I was toughened up there when I was exposed and I understand exactly the feelings of some of those people toward certain aspect of this question. I know the Grey Cup means a great deal to a great number of our people, though I must say that as a maritimer I demur in the face of the contention that it symbolizes a national competition. As my hon. friend from Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) has often said, Canada does not begin at Montreal; there is an important area eastward-an area, in fact, where confederation first began. And I am proud, Mr. Speaker, to represent the very place where it began, the cradle of confederation, the city of Charlottetown.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: And I say in passing, without any rancour-and we maritimers are never rancorous-that football, or any other activity which does not include the Atlantic provinces, is something less than national. A moot question, of course, is whether the action this bill is intended to forestall would destroy, diminish or undermine the CFL. Mr. Speaker, when one does not know a subject it is always well to consult an expert. A great football player and also, in my opinion, a great educator is Mr. Russ Jackson of Ottawa.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Jackson said, not long ago:
I just think that if the CFL is too weak to face this kind of competition, we are going to lose it eventually anyway. If it can't compete without government legislation, then some other league, some other team such as the Northmen, or some other sport entirely, will knock it out. I think Toronto is a strong enough football town to support both the Argonauts and the WFL.
Even if Mr. Jackson is wrong and I am wrong-not likely, I would think, in either case-and if the dangers are as great as pessimists paint them to be, were there no positive measures which could have been taken to sustain the CFL? Was there nothing else but a measure which, in my judgment, comes very close to being a bill of attainder directed against one individual?
The minister talks of his meetings with Mr. Bassett and Mr. Bassett's father. I have never seen Mr. Bassett in my
Canadian Professional Football life. The only millionaires that I know are those in the House here-and most of them are across the way. I would be about as much at home in the board room of big business as I would on the football field; and I would be just as comfortable on the flight deck of Mariner IV in that regard. But was it necessary to be so restrictive? Was it necessary to have, as I say, something approaching a bill of attainder, which I think the British knocked out about four centuries ago-it was practised in the pre-Stuart era. This friend of the minister's whom he met so often may be rich, but he was a Canadian, not a foreigner, and so far as I can make out he was not at the time breaking an existing law, which should give him a half decent chance to express himself in these matters.
There have been some interesting discussions on the sports pages about the ramifications of this measure. I have made a careful study of all this, Mr. Speaker. When one starts from zero one has to study very hard. I have noticed that many friends of the CFL are expressing doubt as to the capacity of this bill to assist that very important Canadian institution. Indeed, there are many who fear that the results will be inimical to the CFL itself. They point out some very impressive and cogent arguments.
After all, if the WFL does not go into Toronto, it will not disappear, or evaporate, or leave the face of the earth. It will still be there, this bill passed notwithstanding. It will still be around with its attraction or its pressure, whichever expression one wants to use. Because no matter what success the minister has with this bill, no matter what station he will attain, his fiat will not run below the forty-ninth parallel. There will still be functioning football groups there from which we will not be able to separate potential Canadian players, any more than we will be able to separate potential Canadian viewers. So the gridiron curtain will be penetrable in very important ways.
I suggest the minister might well reflect upon the serious problems facing this country and the exacerbation of economic difficulties which for many portions of the Canadian population are approaching the unbearable. I suggest he pause, reflect, and say to his colleagues, "I started out well, but things have so developed in more important areas of our economic society that I hope you agree with me that we should wisely move on to something that would help the mass of Canadian people" who have suffered so long from 11 years of callous maladministration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Is the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson) rising for the purpose of asking a question?


Mr. Danson:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) answer a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. This can only be done with the hon. member's consent. Is the hon. member for Hillsborough prepared to accept a question from the hon. member for York North?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: If it is in order, Mr. Speaker.

April 18, 1974
Canadian Professional Football


Barnett Jerome Danson: I just want to ask the hon. member whether he is going to support the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin).


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am the member who is fortunate enough, I think- though you may feel otherwise-to lead off for our group on this bill. I want to say at the outset that my colleague, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose), is the quarterback and chairman of our caucus committee having to do with areas such as sport, and had he been here tonight he would probably be leading off; and doing so, I know, better than I. The members of our caucus will be free to vote as they choose on this matter, but I expect and hope that most, if not all, will support the legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I want to say that, unlike the hon. member who has just taken his seat, I am a football fan and I personally endorse and will support this legislation. The hon. gentleman, who was kind enough to close off his remarks to allow me to make mine this evening, which I appreciate very much, said that he was not a fan. My only reaction to that is that this is no time to brag about it. In fact, I am still not sure whether he is going to vote for or against this bill. However, if he is not a fan or a quarterback, he is a good water-boy, running about all over the economic and political spectrum and Canadian history, trying frantically to put out the fire over the Tory dilemma on whether or not to keep professional football in Canada, Canadian. The hon. member mentioned lacrosse, and I agree with him: I wish the minister had put a provision in this bill with regard to lacrosse and a number of other sports as well. But even the fact that the minister went this far is something.
Some will say that this is an area of endeavour in which the government of Canada has no business intruding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I note some Saskatchewan Tories applauding that one, Mr. Speaker. That professional football is a private business and is of sufficient insignificance in terms of culture, the economy and Canadian content, as not to warrant legislation is the argument put forward by these people. I submit that it is important enough to warrant parliament's stepping in.
Professional sport, in this instance professional football, is not only a business but a large industry. Professional football in the last five years has reached very large proportions in terms of dollars and volume of public interest, television coverage and television fees, and it is in fact an industry-and a significant one-even though it involves sports.
The parliament of Canada on a number of occasions in the last several decades has seen fit to intervene and intrude when an industry of any kind threatens to do injury, in order to prevent that injury to some Canadian endeavour. I submit that in this instance professional

football is in the same category and I think it is proper for this parliament to intervene and intrude. When activities in professional football seem to be injurious or threaten the operation of our own professional sports industry, the government has an obligation to step in and prevent such a threat to at least that small part of our Canadian culture-and it is part of our Canadian culture.
In the past five years we have witnessed outstanding growth in professional sports both here and in the United States. Professional sport is no longer the preoccupation of a few sports-minded hobbyists. Coupled with our affluence, both gate and TV revenues from sport are extremely attractive to the diamond-studded aristocrats who can afford to buy sports franchises in major centres of the continent. There must be a number of these men in North America, because the expansion of league franchises, certainly in football and hockey, is enormous.
We are no longer dealing with a simple game, but a developing sports industry of major proportions. This major industry, I submit, should be subject to legislation and control just like any other business. It is a business. That is why I cannot accept the argument of those who say it is not the government's business whether the World Football League is allowed a Toronto franchise or whether the proposed $178 million stadium in Montreal, paid for by the people of Canada, will be used for an NFL franchise or for the Expos to play baseball in. A Montreal NFL franchise would be very attractive, of course, but not to the benefit of the people of Montreal and not to the benefit of Canadian football; it would be to the benefit of whichever mogul or covey of private entrepreneurs is successful in obtaining such a franchise.
In supporting the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) in his attempts to arrive at some solution to American athletic imperialism, many members of my party are extremely concerned about the future of the Canadian Football League and especially about the community-owned teams in western Canada. We are con-erned about the World Football League raiding the CFL for players, and that is why we back the minister in his stand against the WFL Toronto franchise application.
Anyone who would try to suggest that a World Football League franchise in Toronto will not harm the Canadian Football League is suffering delusions which must border on the delirium tremens that some people suffer. It is perfectly obvious that additional professional football teams in Montreal and Toronto could not help but reduce the gate receipts, television receipts and the receipts of the Argonauts in Toronto as well as the Canadian Football League, and anybody who suggests otherwise does not know what he is talking about. If Mr. Bassett wants to talk about a $48,000 gate equalization, I suggest he should make it $480,000 if he wants to talk sense. Such a franchise could not help but would hurt the Canadian Football League.
It is true that there are 15 Americans on each of the teams and most of the coaches and managers are American, but in spite of that there is a significant element of Canadian content, Canadian endeavour and Canadian effort and the majority of the players are Canadian. We also have Canadian rules, which in my personal opinion are a heck of a lot better than the rules of the National
April 18, 1974

Football League. The game is more exciting to watch, it is a better game, it is a faster game and it is our game.
I should also like to refer to community ownership of five of the Canadian Football League teams. Maybe there are some members of this chamber who are not concerned because they happen to come from Toronto, Montreal or Ottawa which do not have community-owned football teams; but in my province of Saskatchewan the Roughrid-ers team is ours, and the same applies to Winnipeg and the rest of Manitoba as well as to Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver. Even those well-to-do and well-heeled Tories and Liberals who actively work for and support these teams are deserving of full marks and full credit because nobody makes a buck out of them. I hope the day will come when the people of Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa will take over and operate on a community basis professional football teams and teams in other sports as well.
Another reason I personally support the bill is that I am not particularly interested in the welfare of the millions of dollars of one, John Bassett, Jr. Let us not kid ourselves. I have sided with the minister's position on this because I see professional football as an industry in North America. Perhaps only three cities in Canada are capable of supporting big league professional football, that is, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver; but if these three go American, you can kiss the other Canadian teams goodbye. And that is what the Bassett-Toronto deal means in the long run. Let us have no doubt about that.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bassett has one very simple motive. He does not really care if he wrecks the Canadian Football League. He just wants to make himself a few more bucks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: My hon. friends to the right applaud that. I suggest that if Mr. Bassett wants to make a few more bucks out of football, he can damn well go to the United States and become an American citizen and make his bucks there, and leave our Canadian football alone. The Canadian Football League is not Canadian enough yet, and we all agree to that. The Canadian Football League must expand and must become even more Canadian. I would hope that within the next five or ten years the Canadian league is composed of even more, if not entirely, Canadian players.
We must also consider the efforts and the activities of our Canadian football teams in community and high school football leagues. The Saskatchewan Roughriders have provided equipment and professional assistance to a number of high school teams. For example, a great deal of such assistance was given to the high school football team in the little town of Maple Creek. We must consider the tens of thousands of dollars and the efforts that have been put into our high school, university and junior football teams. I do not hear Mr. Bassett offering any aid or comfort in that regard. He has put his money in his pocket and run. This is another good reason for having our own professional football league. It does something more than just try to make bucks for millionaires in Toronto, Buffalo, or somewhere else.
In addition to running the business of professional football, the CFL is also actively engaged in promoting ama-
Canadian Professional Football teur sports and in the development of Canadian talent on the part of players, coaches and managers. Surely that is another important part of the operation of the Canadian Football League and another reason for supporting the minister and the government on this bill.
I listened to the minister, followed by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), talking about the old days long before I came here. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) might well have been here in those days. It is funny that mention was made of Sir John A. Macdonald and the national dream to keep the foreigners, the damned Yankees, out. Then there was R. B. Bennett, who in the late 1930s brought in the CBC and the Canadian Wheat Board. I am beginning to feel sorry I have been so critical of these historic figures of Canadian political life because it now looks as if they were a hell of a lot more progressive than the present Progressive Conservatives. I am not suggesting they were perfect. Mr. Macdonald's endeavours to get the construction of a transcontinental railway to knit together Canada was an excellent idea, but subsequently it turned out to be for the benefit of the CPR instead of for Canada. However, that can be corrected also. The NDP have some ideas on that.
I should like to urge hon. members to consider not only the community-owned teams of western Canada but also the other places in Canada that should be able to, and I hope will very soon, enter the Canadian Football League, such as London, Ontario, Halifax-Dartmouth and then, why not, Quebec city? I think British Columbia should have another team. Vancouver Island has the population to support a team. There is no way this can come about if we sit back and do not do anything just because a millionaire from Toronto wants to make a buck with an American franchise at the expense of some element at least of Canadian professional football league operations in this country. If that is nationalism, good. I think it is a lot better kind of nationalism than the hon. member for Hillsborough has put forward. He spoke about sensitive and sensible nationalism. That is fine. He wondered what other method might have been found to protect the Canadian Football League. I wish he would quit wondering and tell us what his ideas are and what the Conservative Party would do, if anything.
I hope the hon. members for Regina East (Mr. Balfour), Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Horner) and Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton) will speak, because I should like to hear their views. I am sure the people in their constituencies who buy season tickets to support the Saskatchewan Roughriders would like to hear their views. In fact, I am sure the busload or two of people who make the 300 mile round trip to the home games in Regina from Swift Current would be very interested to hear what the hon. member from that constituency would say and how he would vote on this bill.
I hope the hon. member for Regina East lets us know where he stands on this. In case he or any other such members are unable to be present for the vote, I hope they will tell us where they stand on this question because I am sure the people from the steel plants, the packing houses and the railway yards in Regina, as well as the downtown storekeepers-the people who pool their money to buy

April 18, 1974
Canadian Professional Football tickets to the $100 dinner, and season tickets-will be interested to hear what the hon. member has to say. But more importantly they will be interested to know where he stands.
I agree with the hon. member for Hillsborough that this legislation is not as important an issue as inflation, or the corporate tax rip-off, the railways or what is being done by the government in the wrecking of the Canadian Wheat Board with the support of the Conservative Party. However, this matter is important and I want to ask my friends in the Progressive Conservative Party or anyone in my party who does not support this bill, for God's sake can't we have something of our own, or must we lose it because some millionaire wants to buy a football franchise? Is it not time to say, "No, no further"?
Of course this is not as important as many other serious issues facing this country, but I submit it is important enough for this parliament to deal with and it is important enough for this parliament to do something about. We need not take a long time tomorrow dealing with this bill at the second reading stage. If the hon. member for Hillsborough wishes to get on with something more important, I hope he will persuade his colleagues to take two minutes each tomorrow, then sit down and we will have a vote next week. Next Monday we could start dealing with something more important than professional football: we would spend merely a minimum of time in the House on this measure.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to urge upon members that it is important enough for them to even change their minds and support the legislation. It is important enough that the passage of this kind of legislation will serve notice and warning on people of the ilk of the Bassetts in other sports in other parts of the country. It is important enough that I think the government then might be encouraged to do more about other sports of a professional and semi-professional nature in this country. I wish to urge, certainly on my behalf, and I think on behalf of most if not all my colleagues, that this legislation is worth supporting and that if the Canadian Football League is worthy of extending and expanding I hope all of us will decide it is worth passing this bill, because we do not have too much time.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Mr. Fleming:: Mr. Speaker, if the House is ready for the question I am quite prepared to pass and have the question put.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark).


Charles Joseph Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I thought I had the floor if the vote was not to be put.


An hon. Member:: You said you passed.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: It is the government's turn. I said I wanted to speak unless there was a general willingness on all sides of the House to go to a vote.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In fairness, if this is what the hon. member had in mind, I am sure the hon. member for Rocky Mountain would allow the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming) to have the floor at this point.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I call it ten o'clock?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, if the House leader would just nod his head to indicate that this is to be the business for tomorrow, I am sure Hansard would record his nod.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, could we know by a nod or by some other indication what we will do tomorrow after we finish this bill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will deal with this bill, and if we complete it we will begin the second reading of the bill to amend the Export and Import Permits Act.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, is it not too much for even the government House leader to expect that this bill will go through, with so many Toronto members on the government side wishing to speak?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make clear that on this side we are ready to deal with the bill quickly and will not be putting up a speaker other than the hon. member who sought the floor this evening. The bill could pass easily tomorrow, from our point of view.
PROCEEDING! ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.


AIR CANADA-NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING USE OF WINNIPEG AS OVERHAUL BASE FOR BOEING 727 AIRCRAFT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, over the past year I have risen many times to speak on subjects relating to Air Canada. As everyone who has ever flown on Air Canada knows, there is a great deal wrong with our national airline. Specifically, my interest in Air Canada centres around the transfer of the air maintenance base from Winnipeg to Dorval in 1969 and the concomitant problems which have ensued both in Winnipeg and Dorval. Hon. members are only too familiar with the history surrounding the move, so I will not
April 18, 1974

expand on it again except to say that the transfer effectively destroyed Manitoba's aerospace industry. It was thus heartening to hear that the government may finally be doing something to revive the industry. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) is to be congratulated for his stand to establish an Air Canada overhaul base in Winnipeg.
Since the departure of the base, the Manitoba aviation industry has floundered as successive Liberal governments have failed to honour their commitments to that industry. Air Canada's successor at the Winnipeg base, CAE Aircraft, has been beset with difficulties ever since it took over the operation. Government contracts or assistance have not been forthcoming as promised, and as a result the aerospace industry in Manitoba is slowly dying. But this is no real surprise. After all, CAE could never hope to replace Air Canada.
What is needed in Winnipeg is not government and Air Canada contracts to CAE but the return of portions of the Air Canada overhaul base from Dorval to Winnipeg. This would allow many of the 1,000 or so Manitobans who were drafted to Dorval to return home, and it would allow former Air Canada employees who are now with CAE to return to Air Canada at a higher rate of pay. It would also rebuild what was once a viable industry in the province and provide the government with an opportunity to live up to its avowed policy of industrial decentralization. To date this policy has been an outright sham, especially with regard to Air Canada. The government seems to forget that a confidential transportation study completed in 1971, the McKinley report, recommended that Air Canada's operations be decentralized.
Both the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) have said that the government is firmly committed to a policy of industrial decentralization within Canada and have talked at great length of the need to develop secondary industry in the west on top of our great resource and energy base. Well, here is their chance to put their money where their mouths are. The McKinley report was correct in recommending that Air Canada decentralize its operations. After all, Air Canada operated two bases for several years and did so very efficiently. Just look at the 1957 Wallace Clark report. Furthermore, most American airlines operate their maintenance and overhaul of both aircraft and engines on the fleet base station concept. That respected periodical, the Journal of Air Law and Commerce, listed the following advantages of decentralization: shorter lines of authority, greater field economics, and increased stress on the profit centre concept and cost control.
The problems at Dorval to which I alluded earlier have been the subject of many of my previous remarks regarding Air Canada. Suffice it to say that these relate to safety, staffing and the violation of various regulations-all problems which the unions have brought to the attention of Air Canada management. While nothing has been done to alleviate these problems, Air Canada apparently has finally realized they exist: witness the recent replacement of the vice-president in charge of maintenance.
As well, Dorval is overcrowded and operating close to maximum efficiency. The result of such a situation is increased inefficiency. Currently, Wardair, Air Jamaica,
Adjournment Debate
Easter Airlines, Quebec Air and CP Air all make use of the Dorval facilities along with Air Canada. Any union fears that a transfer of parts of the maintenance base to Winnipeg would result in a loss of jobs are unfounded. Air Canada operations are increasing at the rate of 10 per cent annually, and thus there would be no shortage of work. Also, the airlines I have mentioned no doubt will be adding to their fleet, which will continue to create a high level of work for the Dorval air base.
In view of this entire situation it was thus heartening, as I mentioned, to hear that there have been consultations over getting Air Canada to assign some of its jet overhaul activities from Montreal to the Winnipeg base, and over the defence department's related plans to have the repair and overhaul of their Boeing 707s done in Winnipeg as well. Because the overhaul of the 707s is related to the establishment of further repair and overhaul work in Winnipeg, it is to be hoped that the government and Air Canada will decide to send Air Canada's Boeing 727s to Winnipeg instead of Montreal. And this does not mean assigning the work to CAE. Rather, portions of the base must be moved from Dorval to Winnipeg.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. member to advise him that his time has expired.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, since Air Canada has ordered Boeing 727 aircraft, the first of which are due for delivery this fall, it had to make arrangements for their maintenance. At first, these aircraft will be providing an improved Rapidair service between Montreal and Toronto, and it therefore makes sense that such aircraft be maintained, initially, at Dorval. In due course, as more and more aircraft of this type are delivered and as the entire Air Canada fleet is increased in response to the growth in demand, Air Canada will no doubt assess the optimal way of arranging maintenance for its aircraft in an efficient manner.
As the hon. member knows, the corporation's management is responsible for the performance of the airline. Naturally, it is of interest to the government to know how the airline, as a Crown corporation, is harmonizing its corporate objectives in providing safe and efficient transportation to Canadians, with other government policies, without jeopardizing the viability of its main activity. As you are very well aware, the government is involved in a very comprehensive review of Canada's aerospace industry, and the contribution that Canadian airlines can make in this, especially Air Canada, is not overlooked. Air Canada's participation in the development of such strategies cannot be based on any one particular aircraft type but, rather, on its wider need for the maintenance of its fleet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain.


HOUSING-ACTION BY GOVERNMENT TO REDUCE COST
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the reason I am speaking tonight before this "packed" House is that on April 10 I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) specifically what measures

April 18, 1974
Adjournment Debate
the government had in mind to deal with the rising costs of housing and whether he was able to give an assurance to the Canadian people and to parliament that the cost of housing, which has risen at a staggering rate within the last year, could be slowed down. The minister, of course, did not answer my question. He replied by saying:
Mr. Speaker, we cannot give the hon. member that guarantee, but we can assure him that we share his view of the seriousness of the problem he has stated.
That is some consolation for a person who cannot afford a house! In a previous answer the minister explained the reason why housing had jumped at such a remarkable rate when he said:
Basically, one of the problems is the excessive demand for housing within the middle income group which is produced, first, by an attempt by Canadians to protect themselves against inflation and, second, because the profit from the disposal of a house is still the only thing free of capital gains tax.
In other words, because of this incompetent government, people are forced to invest in housing and that is part of the reason for the cost of housing going even higher. Figures were released just recently which show that the cost of the average house in Toronto jumped within the last year by 41.8 per cent. The average house in Toronto at the present time is selling for about $50,435. Throughout Ontario in 1973, the increase in housing costs was 26.2 per cent. In my community houses have virtually doubled in price since 1970.
A study recently done in Ottawa before the latest increase in the mortgage rate showed that the average family which wanted to buy the average house here needed an income of $17,000 a year to pay for the mortgage, roughly two-thirds more than the average family makes at present. The problem is not quite so bad if you own your own house and plan to move to another, because the price of your own house will have appreciated along with the market. What is particularly bad is the prospect that literally millions of young Canadians, like myself, may never in their lifetime afford adequate housing of their own.
What is particularly shocking is the most recent hike in interest rates which has taken place since the time I asked my question of the minister. Our party has asked the government to bring in a series of comprehensive controls. The government has refused. We asked them to remove the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials which in itself is inflationary and helps the government to profit from the cost of inflation the average consumer must bear. Again they refused. We asked the government to bring in an early budget. Again they refused. Obviously, part of the government's so-called anti-inflation program is the latest increase in the bank rate. The effect on housing will not be to repress prices but, rather, to drive them up more. The government's actions, ostensibly to curb inflation, only make it worse. Yesterday's Toronto Star says:
"People are determined to buy houses now because they feel prices are going to keep on rising," one trust company official said.
Another said dearer mortgages will scare off only a few potential buyers who previously could barely scrape up the financing.

It is worth reading into the record part of the lead editorial in tonight's Toronto Star. It is entitled "Interest rates feed inflation" and reads in part:
In the case of businesses, interest payments are another cost item, just like labour and materials. When the price of any of these goes up, businesses pass the added cost along in the form of higher prices for their products.
By way of illustration, a spokesman for Trans Canada PipeLines Ltd. was quoted this week as saying his company "is not directly concerned" with higher wellhead prices for natural gas as long as it can pass the increases along in full to the ultimate users.
As for those ultimate users, many have no such quick and easy way of covering their higher costs. They have little economic muscle and can only watch helplessly as their pay cheques spread thinner month by month. So the burden of fighting inflation falls on their backs.
That's why, with inflation running at an annual rate in excess of 10 per cent, a further cost increase in the form of higher interest rates is not only inappropriate, but intolerable.
The government claims that inflation is largely imported. Of course, statistics show that two-thirds of our inflation is generated domestically. I think the people of Canada are entitled to more than a government which refuses to act. They are entitled to the option of choosing a new government if they so wish-and the polls show they are prepared to do that. That is why the government has refused to call an opposition day, when a vote of non confidence could be moved, before the budget. They are afraid of facing the electorate. The government is in decay, leaderless. Before today, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was down south, it was literally leaderless. Further, it is visionless. It stumbles from crisis to crisis. I and my party think that the Canadian people deserve something better.


Mr. J.-Roland Comtois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would answer very briefly to the comments of the hon. member for Welling-ton-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty) to remind him that there has been much activity in the residential building industry in recent years. Costs of residential houses and apartment rents have risen significantly during the same period, partly because of ever higher wages and costs of building materials and serviced lots, partly because of the continuing strong demand for housing resulting from the desire for better accommodation and from inflation obsession.
Several initiatives have been taken by the federal government. To reduce the cost of serviced lots, for example, the government allocated from the budget of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, $100 million yearly for five years, to its land servicing program. This loan reserve is available to provinces and municipalities wishing to buy and service residential lots. The government provided also a significant amount, $135 million, for sewage treatment under the loan program. Under this program, municipalities may borrow an amount equal to two thirds of the cost of sewage disposal plants and main ducts construction. The municipalities can benefit from a subsidy equal to 25 per cent of the loan granted.
Further to these measures which have been passed to help provinces and municipalities turning lots into residential districts, hon. members will recall the changes to the National Housing Act which were passed last year and
April 18, 1974

especially the program to help low income homeowners to borrow from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at preferred rates. Under the program to facilitate the purchase of a house for low income families, they can borrow at a very low interest rate, as low as 6 per cent.
To summarize, Mr. Speaker, in 1974 the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will allocate the major part of its budget to housing programs for low and middle income people and to programs to help provinces and municipalities in the development of residential lots. Furthermore, the hon. members will remember the passing of Bill C-135, a few months ago, which has allowed us to increase funds available for housing.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS OF UNEMPLOYED RURAL WORKERS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I directed a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) regarding the Unemployment Insurance Act which I feel discriminates against people in rural Canada. I base this on the interpretation that is made of the act by the officials, referees and umpires as to whether a person is actually available for work or whether he is restricting himself in terms of the distance from home he will go when trying to obtain a job. Because of the strict interpretation of these regulations, I also asked whether the Unemployment Insurance Commission expected a family to uproot itself in order to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits.
The minister replied that all I have to do is give him the information, he will look into the case and all will be well. The fact is, I have done that on numerous occasions. Almost every member from rural Canada has done the same. This is something that cuts across party lines. I have been told by members of the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and my party from five or six provinces that they have run into the same problem where people in rural areas clearly qualify for unemployment insurance but because they live in a small town and cannot travel 40 or 50 miles-


Henry Perrin Beatty: Many do not have cars.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: As the hon. member has pointed out, many do not have cars. They do not have adequate transportation. They are not in the same position to look for a job as people in urban Canada. The act is very subjective. It leaves it open to interpretation when deciding whether someone is available for work. For example, there is no mileage qualification which indicates a person must look for employment within 10, 20 or 40 miles. As a result, many people in rural Canada are discriminated against. I say this for two reasons. First, as all members know, job opportunities in rural Canada are scarce. Second, many of these people do not have cars and public transportation is not available to them in order that they may travel 40 or 50 miles to find a job.
There are many cases of this in my constituency. There is a woman, a farm wife, in the town of Balcarres, 55 miles from Regina, who had worked for many years. She became
Adjournment Debate
unemployed for very legitimate reasons. She applied for unemployment insurance. She made it very plain to the commission that she would work in her own town or in another town adjacent to her own town, and that she was willing to work at jobs which were much lower in pay, status, and so on, than she was qualified for. But the Unemployment Insurance Commission said she had to look for a job in the city of Regina. That is 55 miles away. She has no car-her husband needs the family car for his business. Therefore she was disqualified. If she had uprooted her family and moved into Regina, she could have qualified. It seems to me that this is a rather ludicrous thing to happen.
The other thing which I often find, Mr. Speaker, is that if a person were actually to lie to the Unemployment Insurance Commission and say, "I'll look for a job anywhere at any salary", then they would qualify; but if they are honest with the Unemployment Insurance Commission, they are cut off. I have in my hand a file with maybe 10, 15 or 25 cases at least in the last few months where precisely this has happened. People who move from a rural area into an urban centre and look for a job but can't find a job right away are cut off because they are restricting themselves. I have here a ruling of an umpire. This is back in June of 1973.1 quote the ruling regarding this particular point:
The umpire, who is the final authority for interpreting the Unemployment Insurance Act, has established the following principles when considering questions of availability for work:
1.	A person who leaves employment in an industrial area to take up residence in a small town or rural area fails to prove that she is available for work.
2.	A person who restricts herself to employment in a small town where opportunities for employment are limited, fails to prove that she is available for work.
I know people who have been willing to go 40 or 50 miles, to pay babysitters, to drive their own cars 40 and 50 miles, but the UIC people say these persons are not available for work. For God's sake, if a person lived in one of the cities of urban Canada and took exactly the same attitude, that person would qualify for UIC. A person in my riding, or in a comparable rural riding is not abusing the act; he is just desirous of getting the same benefits from the Unemployment Insurance Act as someone who happens to live in urban Canada.
What I am saying tonight to the parliamentary secretary and to the government is that they should do one of two things. They should either change the directive so as to enable the officials to interpret the act in a different way, or they should amend the act so that rural people would not be discriminated against by reason of the facts of geography; so that rural people do not have to connive or try to deceive the Unemployment Insurance Commission officials. I telephoned the Unemployment Insurance office in Regina today to find out how many claimants have been disqualified for the reason I have mentioned. Apparently this statistic is not kept. I suggest that it should be kept. In rural southern Saskatchewan, the area from which I come, several people were disqualified after having first qualified for UIC, and I suspect that most of them were disqualified for this reason.

April 18, 1974
Adjournment Debate
My last point is this. I believe women are discriminated against more than men under this particular provision. This is for various reasons. The husband may be employed in a rural area and the wife is looking for a job. The officials seem to interpret the act very religiously and very tightly. I could go on at great length and recite many cases. The minister knows all about this situation. I have been in touch with him several times. Members of all parties have been in touch with him. All I am saying is that some action should be taken to clarify this situation because at present there is discrimination against people who live in rural Canada whether they come from one province or another.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, it is not the policy of the UIC to disqualify rural workers from benefit on the pretext that they are restricting their area of employment search. On the contrary, the commission simply requires, in accordance with the act, that claimants, whether urban or rural, prove that they are unable to obtain suitable employment in order to be eligible for regular benefits. The manner in which this proof is requested by the commission is through the job search statement which the claimant completes as he looks for re-employment. This listing of potential employers contacted provides the basis for continuing eligibility for benefits.
The one difference between the magnitude and the area of search required between urban and rural claimants is the distance from their residence that they should search for work. Rural claimants characteristically work within a range of some 25 to 30 miles from their residence. In fact, it is likely that they obtained their insurable employment with employers that far from home. It is therefore reasonable to require that they should search for work within that same reasonable distance. Urban claimants, on the other hand, do not normally work at such distances from their residence and in fact can usually make sufficient contacts with prospective employers within much shorter distances.
It is important to note that any denial of benefits, whether to urban or rural claimants, can be appealed by the claimant to a board of referees. This board of referees is generally composed of independent people selected from the claimant's community who have a knowledge of the work patterns of the claimants appealing. In point of fact, the insurance agent who makes the initial decision on a claim is also knowledgeable about a claimant's area and the distances which people in his district would normally travel to and from work.
Once a claimant has proved that he or she is unable to obtain suitable employment, the commission is obliged to continue to pay benefits. There is no requirement for claimants to move from their residence in order to obtain unemployment insurance benefits. If the claimant obtains his insurable employment in the area of his residence, then he or she is entitled to receive benefits while residing in that area provided be on she adequately show that they are unable to obtain employment.
The question that the hon. member has raised tonight is difficult to discuss because essentially it is a question of fact. But what strikes me very much about it is that the decision on this question of fact is made by officials who live in the area and it is reviewed by a board of referees who live in the area. It is hard to imagine people who could more adequately decide the facts in cases of this kind. We would be most happy to review any cases the hon. member cares to submit to the minister for review.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Friday, April 19, 1974