1974-05-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second Report, in both official languages, of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Trudel.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
April 30, 1974-Mr. Fairweather:
That the third report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on Tuesday, April 30, 1974, be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday, when the hon. member for Fundy-Royal proposed to move this motion, the Chair drew the attention of hon. members to a difficulty in relation to the form of the third report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments.
I think I should insist on the fact that it is not the substance of the report which concerns the Chair, but rather its form. As I stated yesterday, there is a procedure established by the House of Commons Act and the supply legislation for the employment of committee staff. The method suggested in this case appears to the Chair to be inconsistent with that observed in the past. I am aware, however, that arrangements have been made in the other place to overcome the difficulty, and I would think that in the circumstances it would be in order to put the motion.
I might also add that, as the hon. member for Fundy-Royal pointed out yesterday, there have been consultations of which I was not aware, which puts a different complexion on the situation. I have to assume that this motion is being put by consent, so it will not necessarily constitute a precedent. This having been said, I am sure hon. members will expect the Chair to put the motion.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: That the third report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on Tuesday, April 30, 1974, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of importance and urgency.
In view of the present inflation and constant increase in prices generally, in view of the absolute necessity that foods be available in sufficient quantities and at reasonable prices, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette):
That this House recommend to the government that it immediately lower the interest on farm loans in addition to subsidizing farm production needs where the threat exists of shortages or excessive price increases.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to request the consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the growing number of illegal strikes which have had the effect of completely paralysing major sectors of our economy, and in view of the fact that no steps have been taken by the government to prosecute individuals disregarding legal contracts or back-to-work orders, and inasmuch as
2004

May 3, 1974
Two-price Wheat Act
this has had the effect of encouraging future actions of this sort, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Beattie):
That immediately upon the next such violation by any individual or group of individuals so involved, the Solicitor General be instructed to proceed with charges against them and that maximum penalties be sought, and that all matters pertaining to illegal strikes be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion, put forward under the terms of Standing Order 43, requires unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43,1 ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an important issue concerning the unity of Canada. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert):
That the president of the CBC be invited to appear at the next meeting of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts to explain why the program "Les beaux dimanches" was broadcasted on the French network on April 28, 1974 and allow the members of the committee to see the video tapes of the program whose purpose was to ridicule the federal institutions with public funds voted by the Canadian Parliament.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

[DOT] (mo)


TWO-PRICE WHEAT ACT PROVISION FOR PAYMENTS ON WHEAT PRODUCED AND SOLD IN CANADA FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION
Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-33, to provide for payments in respect of wheat produced and sold in Canada for human consumption in Canada.


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

Otto Emil Lang: for leave to introduce Bill C-34, to amend the National Housing Act.


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

Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-35, to amend certain statutes to provide equality of status thereunder for male and female persons.


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


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that Bill C-29, the so-called anti-profiteering bill, is not an anti-inflation bill and is not a price control measure. On the other hand, the Minister of Finance has told the House that it is not part of the government's contingency plan. I ask the Prime Minister whether it is still the government's intention to institute its contingency plan dealing with inflation rather than limiting itself to a bill such as Bill C-29 which has found so little favour in the House?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the logic of the question escapes me because it assumes that price and wage control, which is the contingency plan, would find the favour of the House and I am doubtful also that that would happen. Perhaps the Tories will have a chance to speak about it on the hustings. I am quite certain it is not the right approach to inflation and, more importantly, it is not the best approach to profiteering.

May 3, 1974

As the hon. member knows, the bill is attacking special cases of gouging or profiteering, whereas the approach to which he alludes, that of the contingency plan, is an over-all freeze. As the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion indicated yesterday, it is not an approach that we favour. We do not want to put a freeze on the wages of the small earners.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is there still in the mind of the government an anti-inflation contingency plan, and is it still the Prime Minister's position that the government will institute such a plan at some undefined or indefinite time during an inflation emergency?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What is it?


HARBOURS
Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Transport and his parliamentary secretary, who may be away nationalizing the CPR, I should like to direct my question to the Acting Minister of Transport, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that bulk cargo facilities are being constructed on Burrard Inlet waterlots by Kapoor Holdings Limited without the permits required under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and in view of the fact the work is proceeding illegally over stop-work orders issued by Burnaby municipality, does the minister intend to contact National Harbours Board officials instructing them to investigate this disturbing local situation and to report to the minister whether Kapoor Holdings are in violation of any federal act or regulation?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Acting Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to investigate both of these matters. My recollection is that the Navigable Waters Protection Act is not administered by the National Harbours Board, but I can see the relationship between the two and I will have the matter investigated.


Nels Edwin Nelson: In view of the fact this activity contradicts the municipality's plans to develop this area as a marine park facility, and in view of the fact there are awesome powers given the board under sections 9 to 12 of the National Harbours Board Act, including expropriation powers, does the minister intend to instruct the National Harbours Board to meet with the Burnaby municipal council with a view to acquiring the Kapoor site for the public recreational benefit of all lower mainland citizens?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the objectives of such a meeting I cannot comment, but I am quite sure that the National Harbours Board, if it has not already done so, would be glad to meet with any representative group such as the one the hon. member mentions. I will call it to their attention.
Oral Questions


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
Mr. Paddy Neale (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the total dissatisfaction on the part of the Vancouver city council with recent decisions of Mr. William Rathie in regard to the port of Vancouver, and in view of controversy over the recent decision of Mr. Rathie to allow three companies operating in the port of Vancouver to opt out of paying their fair share of city taxes, has the government made a decision whether to accept the recommendation of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs not to reappoint Mr. Rathie or the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Mh. Neale (Vancouver East): -that Mr. Rathie be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I had the impression that the hon. member was rising on a supplementary question. The question has been asked and perhaps the minister might reply briefly, after which I will recognize the hon. member for Champlain. I apologize to that hon. member.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: It's a mischievous question.


Mr. Speaker:: I gather that the import of the question has been missed. Perhaps the Chair might be allowed to see the hon. member for Champlain and return to the hon. member immediately after.


SOCIAL SECURITY
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us whether his government is considering a reduction of the eligibility age for the old age security pension to 60 before the next election?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have three or four years to think about it. I will let the hon. member know my answer in due time.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister.
Can he tell whether this problem will be settled once and for all three or four years from now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in view of the rapid pace the Liberal government has set for itself in the adoption of social measures to help Canadians in need, I think chances for this are good.

May 3, 1974
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I will return to the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour-the hon. member for Vancouver East-and then try to get reorganized.


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
Charles Patrick (Paddy) Neale: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister is a very simple one. I just want to find out, without going through the preamble again, whether the government has made a decision concerning the reappointment of Mr. Bill Rathie as one of the four members of the National Harbours Board in view of the controversy surrounding the gentleman?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that his appointment is up for renewal, but I will certainly look into the matter. If the hon. member will indicate the date of that reappointment and if it is very urgent I will try to answer it tomorrow. If not, perhaps he could put the question on the order paper. I did not mean tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. I forgot that this was Friday because we have had such a peaceful and short week.


MANPOWER
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, but in his absence I shall direct it to his parliamentary secretary. It has to do with the very disappointing press release issued on May 2 indicating that a total of 661 jobs have been created through 102 OFY projects. As it appears that approximately 24,000 jobs are to be created and as the announcements were supposed to have been made by April 26, I would ask the parliamentary secretary what is the reason for the holdup? What is the problem, and when can we expect an announcement indicating full approval or disapproval of the projects which have been submitted to the minister's department?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the latest figures are as follows: number of applications approved, 1,353; number of jobs approved, 8,559, and the number of man-weeks of work approved, 82,623. We hope to be able to announce all the remaining projects at the first of the week.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for that answer, but I would remind him of the precarious position of this parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Well, that does not need any explanation. I think all hon. members know what I am talking about. I hope the parliamentary secretary can give us some assurance, as a matter of fact, complete assurance, that the announcement which will be made next week, I hope before Wednesday or Thursday, will deal with the matter in its entirety. Can he give us that assurance, because these young people are looking for this money?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member realizes that these announcements do not depend on the continuation or non-continuation of parliament. I can give him the assurance that by the first of the week the vast bulk of the applications will be approved or rejected, that is the decisions will be made by that time.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. On May 1, as recorded on page 1931 of Hansard, the minister said that "the objective of the Bank of Canada and the banking system is not overly to increase the money supply". Would the minister indicate to the House if the increase of 80.2 per cent in currency and total deposits from March, 1970, to March of this year reflects the objective he mentioned on May 1 ?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the governor of the Bank of Canada in his recent annual report dealt with that situation adequately and I would refer the hon. gentleman to it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In view of the minister's statement, does he categorically accept responsibility for the actions of the Bank of Canada, including interest rates?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has read the relevant statute. The government must be in general accord with the monetary policy as set by the bank. Individual, specific movements of interest rates or bank rates are, of course, his responsibility within that general tack. If the minister were to disagree with the monetary policy under the amendments that were prompted by an incident some years ago, he would have to address that difference of opinion by a memorandum in writing to the governor.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: With chartered bank liquidity in April at an all-time historical low for Canada, with the banks having borrowed up to this week over $2.5 billion, $450 million alone in the last week, in foreign currencies, an all-time high, and with federal bonds now yielding 9 per cent, would the minister indicate if he is in agreement with the Bank of Canada action resulting in higher interest rates and if in fact the expansion of our money system is topping out and we are in for tighter credit?


Mr. Sharp:: Ask Jim Coyne.
May 3, 1974


Mr. Stanfield:: One might as well for all the answers one gets.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my colleague was more direct in the allusion which I think has already reached the attention of the hon. member for York-Simcoe. The governor of the bank has made it clear that the money supply is being increased only at a rate sufficient to accommodate the necessary expansion in the economy and that, in so far as the liquidity of the chartered banks is concerned, the accommodation of loans should be directed first to capital investment and then to the range of small businesses and those areas of the country with a less rapid rate of growth.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In short, tight money.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and it relates to the Prince Edward Island development plan. Has the minister yet reached agreement with officials of the government of Prince Edward Island with respect to the publication of the extensive evaluations of the various sectors of the P.E.I. plan in light of the conclusion of the first phase of the plan in March of this year and the present negotiations, I assume, with respect to the second phase?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker, during the past month I have not had any discussions with Premier Campbell with regard to the release of the documents. I am not sure what will happen now that the election is over in that province. No doubt the negotiations will be resumed. But up to the present time I have not had any talks with him with regard to the ultimate disposal of these papers.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Would the minister indicate whether he or his officials have taken the position that it is important for the people of P.E.I. as well as the people of Canada, in view of the extensive commitment of both financial and human resources to this plan, that there be full publication of these objective evaluations before the negotiations are substantially under way and certainly before they are concluded on the second phase of the plan?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In principle, in so far as the federal government is concerned of course we want to have as much public disclosure as is possible. But in matters of this kind, if my memory serves me right, there is an understanding that any publication would have to be approved jointly, and I will be glad to discuss that. I would not be surprised if there were a willingness to do so. Since some people chose to put out all the negative ones, maybe it would be a good idea to make the full story public.
Oral Questions


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN-POSSIBLE RENEGOTIATION OF FINANCIAL ASPECTS
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. As it seems to be indicated that the tax base in Prince Edward Island has not expanded at a rate adequate to finance the province's share of the cost of the remaining years of the plan, is it the intention of the government to agree to renegotiate the financial aspects of the plan with the government of the province?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, apart altogether from the premise of the question respecting the tax base, with which I am not personally familiar, renegotiation and the beginning, if one wants to describe it that way, of phase two are already under way as was required when the plan was initiated some years ago. Since that renegotiation is now taking place, the vast majority of the issues involved are all subject to renegotiation.

[DOT] (U30)


SEEKING OF FURTHER FUNDS BY PANARCTIC OILS FOR GAS EXPLORATION-POSSIBLE INVOLVEMENT OF MORE COMPANIES AND COMMITMENT OF FUTURE SUPPLIES TO UNITED STATES
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development arising out of a report from Calgary to the effect that Panarctic Oils Limited over the next few weeks will be offering "outsiders a piece of the action" in order to secure funds for further gas exploration. In view of the fact the government has a 45 per cent equity in Panarctic Oils I want to ask the minister if this solicitation of capital funds involves more companies coming into the picture, thereby reducing the government's equity in the company, or whether the company intends to secure loans on the basis of committing future supplies of natural gas to American gas companies?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the proposition of Panarctic Oils Limited does not in any way lessen the Canadian government's participation. The percentage of actions in the company will remain unchanged, at 45 per cent. The proposition made by the president of Panarctic Oils Limited is to invite other companies to participate in exploration projects in the Arctic to hasten the pace of drilling and discoveries. All this is done on a basis of sharing in the formation which is explored rather than in the company's assets.

May 3, 1974
Oral Questions


POSSIBILITY OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLYING ADDITIONAL CAPITAL TO PANARCTIC OILS FOR GAS EXPLORATION
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I take it the minister is suggesting common procedure. In view of the fact that in 1971 Panarctic committed itself to hypothecate very large quantities of natural gas to American gas companies in return for a $75 million loan, which has been criticized very severely by Canadian gas companies, does the Canadian government intend to supply additional capital, either through the government directly or through the Canada Development Corporation, in order not to commit any future Canadian supplies of gas to the American gas companies?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the impression that the hon. member is creating. In the 1971 deal there was no commitment of gas to the American companies. Those companies were given first refusal rights if Canada decides to export. If Canada decides not to export we have only to pay them back their money. We have not put a mortgage on anything. We have given them the right to acquire gas in the United States if the Canadian government decides to export. Canadian interests are completely protected in that deal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think that in terms of the financing of Panarctic-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I rise simply to express the wish that the minister will reply briefly and quickly to the hon. member's supplementary, because we should try to get on and move a little more speedily without these lengthy supplementaries and replies.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: As to the financing, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government intends to make in Panarctic Oils Limited investments proportional to those of private participants.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Can the minister tell the House whether Canadian diplomats who have been approached by Arab officials have advised him of Quebec's negotiations in Saudi Arabia concerning the establishment of Arab oil refining and processing facilities in Quebec?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have been familiar with this proposal. I do not think it was necessary for any one of the

Arab countries to notify us about it. It has been common knowledge.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who seems to be more knowledgeable of this subject.
Has the minister been officially advised by his officials of SOQUIP's Arab projects and does he intend to consult in some way with his Quebec counterpart and to assure the Quebec authorities of federal government assistance in this matter?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard that some discusions are taking place between SOQUIP and Saudi Arabia's Petromin. We have not been informed of the details of such a project, but we have been in contact with Quebec officials on this subject. During my visit to Saudi Arabia, I had the opportunity to speak with the president of Petromin and with my counterpart, and they both indicated that such projects concerning the refining of crude oil in foreign countries had very low priorities for them.
* *
*


AGRICULTURE
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. On March 15 the minister, speaking at Wyoming, Ontario, said that ammonium sulphate was available at $32 per ton, which resulted in a price of fertilizer to the farmers of $52 per ton. Since then the price has gone up, according to his own statement, to between $85 and $92 per ton. As a result of his back to the wall, ear to the ground, shoulder to the wheel, nose to the ground, eye on the ball, finger on the switch, and foot in the mouth-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley James Korchinski: -can the minister indicate what are the results of the investigation that he has conducted pertaining to fertilizer prices?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to say to the hon. member that if the bill that is before the House at the present time is passed, and if our investigations show that there has been exorbitant profiteering, something that has not been shown yet, I will be able to do something about it. At the present time there is not much we can do with legislation we have to make them roll back their prices and stop them from taking excessive profits. I point out that this minister has always said that any producer in this nation is entitled to a reasonable profit, and I still say that no matter what the hon. member's party contends.


Stanley James Korchinski: Does the minister intend to drop the whole matter now and allow the prices to go up?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the bill is still before the House and the hon. member, I hope, knows that.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Transport. Can he assure the House and the country that the ministry has taken the necessary steps to make advance preparations for a possible walk-out by air traffic controllers, since it is obvious that if there is a sudden interruption in the services of these men aircraft in Canadian air space at that time will be in jeopardy if the ministry has not made proper arrangements?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as of this morning I have not had an opportunity to be fully briefed on the contingency plans. However, I do know there is a standing arrangement in relation to these matters which is always operative, and I think it is safe to assure the House that any operations affected by the air traffic controllers in Montreal would be entirely safe.


STEPS TO RESOLVE DISPUTE WITH AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that answer. I understand some of the controllers may be out at the present time. I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board to indicate briefly what steps he has taken, formally or informally, officially or unofficially, to resolve this dispute, keeping in mind that the margin of dispute between the two parties appears to be around 2 per cent?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think most hon. members will be aware that an eminently fair and just offer was accepted by the air traffic controllers' executive. They have proposed its acceptance to their membership. The current events in Montreal are a withdrawal of services for the purpose of considering this offer, and the normal procedures of union consultation and intercommunication are taking place. I may say, in line with the motion that was introduced at the beginning of today's proceedings, that the government has indicated in respect of the mail strike that acts which are illegal and endanger the safety and health of the public henceforth will not be tolerated.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Labour rises on a question of privilege.


John Carr Munro: With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could quickly clear up an unintentional error on my part when a question was put along these lines by the hon. member for Central Nova the day before yesterday. I indicated in answer to the question
Oral Questions
about pilots that it did not fall within my jurisdiction. Of course, that is not correct. I thought he was referring to air traffic controllers but he was not.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta has a supplementary and will be recognized for that purpose and then the hon. member for Lafontaine.


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, it was really a point of order but I will put a question to the President of the Treasury Board. He said that the members had withdrawn their services to study the offer made. Is it not a fact that 86 per cent of the air traffic controllers in Montreal voted against acceptance of the offer and the reason he gave is not the reason they are having a study session?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not know precisely what went on within the union discussions. No such result has been officially communicated to the government.


FINANCE
Mr.   Georges-C. Lachance@Lafontaine: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Can he indicate whether, in the preparation of his budget, he considered the possibility of granting income tax points to non-government and private pension plan recipients, who are not eligible to any pension escalation clause based on the cost of living increase?


John Napier Turner: I realize the hon. member's concern. I am compelled to stress that tradition in this House precludes my giving anything in the nature of a more direct answer, but I can assure him I completed many studies recently on the matter.


HOUSING
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs I will put my question to the Prime Minister. Considering that NHA lending rates went up to 11 per cent last month, an increase of one per cent over the previous month, and considering that the amendments to the National Housing Act in the bill introduced by the minister today for first reading contain no reference to interest rates in any form, is it the government's intention some time in the future to introduce a bill that will have the effect of bringing down interest rates so that the average Canadian can once again buy a home?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the time of the House is pretty well occupied in
2010

May 3, 1974
Oral Questions
the next several days, but if the hon. member wants me to consider introducing such a bill a few weeks from now I will undertake to look into the matter.


John Edward Broadbent: Since most Canadians still have the naive assumption that some day soon they will be able to find a house under the present government, would the Prime Minister disabuse them of all such illusions by announcing that the official policy of the government is to have interest rates at 25 per cent so that Canadians can forget about homes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether that question is in order. The right hon. member for Prince Albert.


NEGOTIATIONS WITH ISRAEL CONCERNING PURCHASE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR FROM CANADA-PRESENT POSITION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and concerns the negotiations with the Israeli government about the purchase of a nuclear reactor by that country. What is the present position of the discussions?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the latest information but I would be pleased to make inquiries and provide information to the right hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister's recent safari to the Arab countries to promote the sale of STOL aircraft, nuclear reactors and the like apparently was not as successful as the minister had hoped for. Under the circumstances, is the government giving consideration to providing for the sale on credit of a nuclear reactor to the Israeli government rather than asking for cash, which of course is impossible for that country to consider in its present circumstances? Is the government willing to give favourable consideration to this type of assistance by way of a loan, particularly at a time when all over the world we are pouring out money to countries that would not show the appreciation that Israel would if this were granted?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the right hon. gentleman would want me to correct an inadvertence on his part. I should like to reassure him that the trade mission to the Arab countries was indeed a great success. Further, I should like to say that very substantial interest was shown in the CANDU system. There will be negotiations with them also on the sale of Canadian reactors. On the second point the hon. gentleman raised, I can tell him that I believe officials will be coming from Israel to Canada in the very near future to discuss the possible acquisition by that country of a Canadian reactor.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister regard it as a success that he was not able to induce any of the Arab countries to purchase a nuclear reactor or the STOL plane that he placed before them? Does he call that success?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would commend to the right hon. gentleman's attention the communique that was signed with the Iranian government-


An hon. Member:: Oh, sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the minister resume his seat. This is obviously debate between the right hon. gentleman and the minister. We are running short of time. The hon. member for Compton.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
About the statistics of the CTC, what measures are being considered by the government about the escalation of prices, which makes the gains realized in 1971-72 lower than the increase in the cost of living, i.e. $5.50 a week at the end of 1972-73?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member will be in his seat Monday night. I will then try to give a more specific and general answer to his question.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member to allow him a supplementary question. I hope that in the next few minutes, because we only have a few left before the end of the question period, we will all try to limit the supplementary questions.
The hon. member for Compton.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, would the minister tell us how he intends to intervene and counteract the decline in the standard of living of Canadians and the high rate of unemployment which result, in spite of the economic growth of the last few years, in the fact that the average worker and a large number of companies did not reap their share of the profits?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Privy Council I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In light of the fact that Bill C-4, which encompasses amendments to the Export and Import Permits Act, is an urgent priority for the House as well as for the Minister of Agriculture, and as it was passed by the committee last night, will the Prime Minister permit this bill to be the first item of business on Monday?


Otto Emil Lang: would be glad to agree to pass this bill forthwith without debate. If that agreement can be achieved, I would be delighted to do so. If there is agreement generally to deal with the report stage and third reading forthwith without debate after calling orders of the day, that might be made an order of the House.


William Charles Frank: In the event that may not happen, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact the Prime Minister has been saying emphatically that he will not call an election, and consequently we could be here for some time, when does he foresee Bill C-4 receiving third reading?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think the acting House leader has made it very clear that the government is prepared to see it go through right now this very minute.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rises on a point of order.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I say that there have been discussions and so far as this party is concerned we are prepared to give this bill the report stage treatment and third reading as the first item of business today without any further debate.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, we will need more consideration of what the total package is going to be in these few days. We are not putting one bill here and one bill there. We want the business conducted in a sensible, businesslike way in the days that are left.
>


Otto Emil Lang: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to say it will be our intention to bring this matter forward as soon as we can, notwithstanding the obstruction from the Tories standing in the way of this legislation which is for the good of the farmers.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the impending increase in fishing activity, will the minister indicate to the House if there will be an increase in the capability of air surveillance over the east coast in order to give our fishermen protection against foreign draggers, which they have not had in past years?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member knows that the Department of National Defence responds to the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Trans-
Oral Questions
port. We have recently increased air surveillance over the fishing fleets.


Jack Marshall: Will the minister indicate whether he has received representations from the province of Newfoundland requesting that deployment be effected of the air rescue element of the services to the province of Newfoundland in order to be able to react more quickly?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have had representations of that kind from many sources in Newfoundland but not directly from the government of Newfoundland.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Barnett J. Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. When may we expect some further word or announcement relating to recognition of the new regime in Portugal?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, all the usual Canadian criteria have been satisfied and full diplomatic relations with Portugal are now being resumed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I was going to direct this question to either the Minister of National Health and Welfare or his parliamentary secretary but as they are not in the House I will direct it to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Deputy Minister of the Department of National Health and Welfare forbade scientists in the health protection branch from attending a professional forum on science policy now being held in Ottawa on the ground "that this whole area of science policy is one which is in such a ferment at the present time and so deeply tied in with basic government policy that it would be inappropriate for our scientists to be in attendance"?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I am only too happy to let the Prime Minister see the document. As a supplementary I
27451-64!

May 3, 1974
Oral Questions
want to ask the Minister of Science and Technology whether it is a fact that at this forum one of the prime topics under discussion will be the total absence of a national science policy on the part of the government?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that is one of the main questions being discussed. I am aware that they are discussing science policy.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General whom I thank for information I have received. My question arises from the small fact that as of February 28, 1974, a total of 79 inmates who had been released on temporary absences were unlawfully at large and three of those 79 had been found guilty of non-capital murder. Have any corrective measures been taken to avoid this large number of people unlawfully at large? Second, are the three who were found guilty of non-capital murder in fact dangerous criminals?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to a letter I sent him in answer to a question he asked me earlier. I do not have the letter before me or the details. I know we are continually taking steps to tighten up and improve our temporary absence program. On the whole, the percentage of those at large is small. However, there have been, and in fact still are, some people at large. I can get more details for the hon. member.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: When providing the information would the minister be prepared to name the three found guilty of non-capital murder? As the Solicitor General knows, there are two kinds that are convicted of murder. Will the minister set out very clearly for the protection and security of society that these three are not in fact the kind that would be very dangerous to the community if they were unlawfully at large, as the minister has admitted?


William Warren Allmand: I will check into that, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Secretary of State whether he received a complaint from the ex-leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition concerning a CBC program last Sunday, Les Beaux Dimanches, and what action did he take following this program's unusual exhibition of lack of taste?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that I have received such a complaint, but I will look into it.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the letter the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources of British Columbia has forwarded to the chairman of the International Joint Commission requesting that the commission revoke its 1942 order with respect to the raising of the Ross Dam and that the commission direct the city of Seattle to take no steps pursuant to the order until the commission has heard and determined the province's application, will the minister advise whether he has received a copy of the letter and will the federal government support and assist the province of British Columbia at the proposed IJC hearings as requested in an attempt to stop the proposed flooding of thousands of acres of Canadian territory in the Skagit River area?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have received a copy of the letter that was addressed to the Canadian chairman of the IJC. It is my understanding that the commission is going to give consideration to the application. We have not yet, of course, received the supporting material upon which British Columbia is asking for a re-opening.


Randolph Harding: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I again seek the co-operation of hon. members in limiting supplementaries. We have now reached the end of the question period. The hon. member will be recognized and then the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley.


Randolph Harding: In view of Premier Barrett's request that the province of British Columbia's complete concurrence with the federal government's March 15 statement to the U.S. Federal Power Commission on the Skagit be transmitted by the minister to the U.S. State Department with a request that this concurrence be placed before the U.S. Federal Power Commission's hearings regarding the Skagit, will the minister advise if this communication to the U.S. State Department has gone forward from his department?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We were very happy to have the full support of the British Columbia government at last.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General. Can the minister advise the House why no action has been taken against those individuals or groups of individuals who have taken part in recent postal and other illegal strikes, upsetting major sections of our economy and thus
May 3, 1974

encouraging similar action by other groups? At the same time, will the minister advise why the government cannot make up its mind, since they went against my motion to take action against illegal strikes and the President of the Treasury Board said some action would be taken? Can they make up their minds and tell us what the situation is?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, under the law I have no responsibility to take action in these matters. I would have to ask the hon. member to provide me with details of the strikes to which he is referring.


Otto John Jelinek: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be recognized for a supplementary. I again remind hon. members that when so many supplementaries are asked to every question it is sometimes unfair to other members who have not had a chance to ask their questions.


Otto John Jelinek: Excuse me for seeking to ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, but the reason we have to ask supplementaries is that we never get answers from the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: My supplementary is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Maybe he can clarify the matter and tell the House why no action is being taken against illegal strikers while others who do illegal things are charged with offences?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: do not think it is correct to say that no action is taken. Take the Post Office strike, for example. A number of acts were committed during the course of that strike which were contrary to the law or regulations. The union did endeavour to secure an assurance that the government would withdraw all disciplinary actions which had been taken. The government declined to do so. It merely undertook not to take further punitive or retaliatory actions. But all the actions which were taken are continuing to their conclusion, and in relation to other unjustified or unjustifiable work stoppages the actions we institute will be pushed through to their conclusion and not abandoned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for South Shore.


Otto John Jelinek: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member now rises on a point of order. I have to recognize him, and I will then call on the hon. member for South Shore. However, I will then have to call orders of the day. I apologize to hon. members who will not be called because of this situation.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I rise on a point of order, but the President of the Treasury Board said earlier that some action would be taken against illegal strikers and he did not answer my question by telling us what this
Oral Questions
action would be, and earlier in the question period he said-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is the third time the hon. member has asked the question. Possibly he is not satisfied with the answer, but I think I have to recognize the hon. member for South Shore.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. When the government closed down the Canadian whaling industry it was stated that this action was necessary to restrict the slaughter of this endangered species. Would the minister indicate whether the 14-nation International Whaling Commission's ruling that quotas must be cut by 25 per cent has been adhered to by Russia and Japan, or whether these two nations are still indiscriminately overfishing endangered species such as Atlantic sperm whales and mink whales? If so, would the minister tell the House what objections have been raised concerning this practice with the countries I have mentioned?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of that question and give the hon. member a reply, I hope on Monday.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Agriculture will return to his seat, I have a question of vital concern to all Canadians to put to him. For two days I have been trying to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in order to ask a question which at this time of the year is a most important one. On earlier occasions, the Minister of Agriculture assured the House there would be ample fertilizer available to farmers to serve Canadian needs this spring. Yesterday I was informed that quotas of phosphate fertilizers allotted to some dealers are being cut by as much as 40 per cent compared with last year. I also understand-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should come to the point.


William C. Scott: What action has the minister taken to assure that Canadian corn producers in particular will have an abundant supply of phosphate fertilizers?


Eugene Whelan: I am sure the hon. member knows that everybody is doing everything they can. There are some dealers-not the companies but some dealers-and some farmers too who are actually

May 3, 1974
Canada Pension Plan
exporting fertilizer to the United States where they can get a 50 per cent price increase. There are no export controls at the present time. The United Co-operatives are unloading a boatload of rock phosphate in Toronto; another is on the way and possibly a third. This, we hope, will offset any shortage affecting the supply situation in Ontario. Supplies are, I am told, up by about 38 per cent in Ontario at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William C. Scott: Is the minister aware that rock phosphate is coming into Canada and being processed here, causing a high degree of pollution, and is then exported to the United States by some manufacturers?


Eugene Whelan: There are some manufacturers in Canada who could not even operate if they could not count on the export portion of their production. Their plants were built with that in mind. However, total exports have been cut back across the nation by approximately 30 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) made some remarks casting aspersions upon the Conservative Party and its attitude toward legislation. He has no right whatsoever to do this. He has no right to cast aspersions upon any political party in connection with their desire to pass legislation or not. If the government wishes to deal this afternoon with Bill C-4, as far as I am concerned I can see it passing very easily today. It is the government's prerogative to determine what legislation the House shall debate.


An hon. Member:: What about the Conservative Party, though?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-19, to amend the Canada Pension Plan, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before proceeding to the consideration of the four motions to amend Bill C-19, the Chair would like to express some concern as to the regularity of motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher). As the hon. member knows, a similar motion was submitted on October 24, 1973, and was ruled to be irregular. I thought I should mention this immediately so that the hon. member, whenever we reach motion No.

2, might be prepared, if he so wishes, to attempt to convince the Chair that on this occasion it should be accepted.
There may be some reservations on the part of the Chair in relation to motions three and four-I do not think they are so serious that we ought to embark on a procedural argument at this point; in due course they might be put, unless objection is taken to doing so. For the moment, the Chair will put motion No. 1.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Motion No 1.
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting clause seven and renumbering the subsequent clauses accordingly.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising once again to debate this subject, which, as you know, was raised back in October of last year, let me begin by saying this: it is my view that any time a piece of legislation fails to pass in a given session, then no matter what its political complexion might be, the government should at least consider seriously the criticisms which have been directed toward that legislation, and some attempt should be made to reach a compromise.
Needless to say, I am very disappointed that no effort has been made to reach a compromise in this situation, though I believe one could have been achieved. Someone once said that politics was the art of compromise. This may or may not be true, but if legislation is to get through in a minority House a certain amount of compromise is sometimes necessary. No effort whatsoever has been made in connection with the subject before us.
I was unable to attend the proceedings during committee stage because that committee sat at the same time as the transportation committee of which I am the chairman. But I did read the committee reports dealing with clause 7, the subject of the motion now before the House. Here again I was utterly amazed to find there were no questions asked. No member from either side of the House attempted to make a compromise with the opposition on this particular clause of the bill. Clauses 8 to 12 were passed with the chairman of the committee asking "Shall sections 8 to 12 pass?" As I say, those clauses were passed with not a question asked.
I came to parliament some 16 years ago as a naive westerner, a country boy or whatever other term might be applied. But I came here with a deep trust and belief in democracy.


Mr. Rose:: You are just like every other country boy, Jack.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I believed that if a person had a point of view, in a democracy that point of view should be heard. If there is a point of view across the country, then in a democracy that point of view should be heard. Needless to say, I was deeply disappointed with the members of the Conservative party who were in the committee and who failed to mention clauses 8 to 12 when they knew in their hearts they had made no effort to compromise on this particular part of the legislation.

They knew of their failing at the first attempt to pass this bill. On that occasion I said that the two religious sects to which clause 7 gives exemption from the Canada Pension Plan should appear before the committee and state why they felt they should get out. On the first hearing of this bill in the last session, the committee thought they were very clever. I left the committee on the wishes of the Conservative party whip to come to this House to make a speech on the CNR financing bill, and as soon as I left the committee said no, they did not want the Hutterian sect from Alberta to appear before the committee, that they would pass the bill. They did not say that verbally but that was the upshot of it. They said "That maverick Horner from Crowfoot," as the press calls me, "has gone, so we can now pass the bill".
On second reading of the bill in this House I said that I would attempt to block the bill again. I had nothing below the table. I had hoped at that time that the leaders of the Conservative party, the House leader, or somebody, would attempt to reach a compromise. I had hoped that the member in charge of health and welfare in the shadow cabinet would attempt to reach a compromise. I also said at that time that I hoped they would not make the mistake that they made in the last session and would have these two religious groups appear before the committee to state why they wanted out of the plan. As I said earlier, I did not have the chance to attend the committee because I had certain obligations as chairman of the transport committee.
I must say I am sorely disappointed in the so-called art of politics, the art of compromise, that exists among the parties on this particular measure. I have no hesitation in saying that, having read the press clippings of the debate in the last session when I spoke on this issue. I have before me a press clipping from the Globe and Mail for September 15, 1973 which states this:
Hutterites are the "very finest of Canadians," Heath Macquarrie (PC, Hillsborough) said yesterday in a Commons speech apparently intended as a rebuff for fellow Conservative Jack Horner (Crowfoot)-
-the Hutterite tradition of providing for their older members is a practice that has disappeared throughout society in general.
I thought that an interesting remark for the hon. member to make. The hon. member spoke in the House on the guaranteed annual income measure. Few of us today, outside of the Hutterian sect, care for our elderly citizens and leave that for the government. It is not the fault of the people that some of them have failed to take care of their elderly; it is the fault of the politicians who say: "We can do better, leave it to us. We can tax you and make certain your elderly will be taken care of". That is really what the Canada Pension Plan is saying. It is not saying: "You have a choice to be taxed or not to be taxed". It is saying: "You will be taxed". It is saying: "We the government, we the politicians, know you will not look after your elderly; we are going to make certain that they are looked after because we will tax you as you go along through this life of ours". The government has made that choice.
The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) might like to come out to southern Alberta if he thinks it is only the maverick member for Crowfoot who is speaking this afternoon. If he thinks that I am not representing the voice of a group of concerned people across the prai-
Canada Pension Plan
ries, then I welcome him to come out to Crowfoot if an election is called next week. I will not sit on the same platform with him, but I welcome him to come to Crowfoot and to speak out for the Hutterites. I would even rent the hall for him. I will not heckle him but I will be there as an interested representative of the people so I can see their reaction to his remarks. So I issue that invitation to him. I know he is in the shadow cabinet of the great Conservative party and that the party will pay his expenses, so no expense will be incurred by him.
What are these people, Mr. Speaker, who are they, and how large a group are they? The government by this bill has declared their religion to be better than all others. First of all, who and what are they? I am dealing explicitly with the Hutterian group, because the Amish are a completely different group. While both might have come from the early Mennonite religion, the Amish are completely different because they ask nothing from our society. They take no advantages from our society. The Hutterites take every advantage that is available in our modern, technological age. If an acreage payment is due from the government, if there is a guaranteed wheat payment due from the minister representing the Canadian Wheat Board in this House, then they accept it. If there is a subsidy paid on butter, cream or something else by the government, then they accept it.
They are a religious order; there is no question of that. I have studied their religion and I find it quite interesting. They carry on a heavy farming industry. I just want to quote from the judgment of the Federal Court in which their case is presented. I am quoting from the Hutterians, own presentation to the court:
The Hutterites are organized in colonies of approximately 100 persons each. When the members of a colony decide that it has become too large for effective operation a small number of them will break off from the "mother" colony and with the financial and other material assistance thereof form a "daughter" colony. In the various documents which were tendered in evidence on the trial of the actions the colonies are described as congregations or communities and these congregations or communities are associated in groups known respectively as Darius-Leut, Lehrer-Leut and Schmeid-Leut. Generally speaking, residents in the colony are members of the Hutterian Brethren Church which was incorporated in Canada-
The judgment then goes on:
The objects of the Corporation shall be to engage in and carry on the Christian religion, Christian worship and religious education and teaching and to worship God according to the religious belief of the members of the Corporation ...
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 makes it pretty clear. They, themselves, admit they are prepared to carry on the business of farming, of stock raising and manufacturing. We recognize that many other people in our society are prepared to carry on the business of stock raising, farming and manufacturing, in many

May 3, 1974
Canada Pension Plan
cases in opposition or in competition with them. I have maintained right along that Canada Pension Plan contributions are a form of tax placed upon all those doing business. During the last speech I made on this subject matter in this House I quoted from two dictionaries as to what the word "tax" meant, and I think I substantiated my case. Let me go a little further in my explanation of what I believe a tax is.
I believe that in essence this is a tax, and that a tax is something levied against people whether or not they themselves make a contribution. If I were an employer and hired men to work on my farm or in my manufacturing plant, I must make a deduction from the wages or salaries of those people for the Canada Pension Plan. I must do that whether I want to or not. The government of Canada has said I must make that deduction from those people I have working for me on my farm ranch. I must tax them under the Canada Pension Plan and send that to the government. Because I have them working for me I must take 1.8 per cent out of their salaries or wages and send that in, and another 1.8 per cent out of my profits and send that also to the government because this government believes it is its duty to take care of these people when they get old. To my way of thinking that is a tax. They are asking everyone to take a portion of their salaries or wages, and that is a tax. The Hutterians do not disagree about this question of paying taxes. The reason they want to get out of the Canada Pension Plan is based on something else, and I will get to that a little bit later.
In my last speech I quoted from a well-known author of Hutterian teachings and religious beliefs. He stated that they do not in any way disagree with having to pay taxes the governments levy upon them. This former writer of Hutterian teachings, Mr. Rideman, stated that quite clearly. He said this:
Since governmental authority is ordained by God and hath its office from Him, the payment of taxes for this purpose is likewise ordained and commanded, as Paul saith, "Thus ye must also pay tribute." For this reason we, likewise, willingly pay taxes, tribute or whatever men may term it, and in no way oppose it, for we have learned this from our Master, Christ, who not only paid it Himself, but also commanded others to do so, saying, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
One could go on reading from their teachings, but I want to make it abundantly clear that they, themselves, do not take any objection to the paying of taxes. They want out of the Canada Pension Plan for another reason, and not necessarily because of their own religious desires. They want out because under the Canada Pension Plan everyone must have a social security number so that contributions under the Canada Pension Plan can be properly recorded under that number. The Hutterian people do not want social security numbers.
How many thousands of other Canadians across Canada do not want a social security number? I would suggest there are thousands and thousands of Canadians across Canada who were repelled, and to this day do not like the idea of carrying around with them a number which is recorded in the computers of this and other governments. Many Canadians outside of the Hutterian religion have as yet not taken out a social security number. The government knows this. It writes them threatening letters telling them to take out social security numbers or action will be

taken against them. Such a letter has been written to my sister because she never took out a social security number. She never bowed to the big hand of the government, and to this day I do not think she has a social security number. She still makes contributions to the Canada Pension Plan as she has an income and she must under this law, but what happens to that money? I suggest it goes into the coffers of the government, into the Canada Pension Plan fund, but it will never be paid back to her and she knows that just as thousands of Canadians who have not taken out social security numbers know they will never receive benefits under this plan. Lots of lawyers across Canada have not got social security numbers and they know they will not receive the benefits of the Canada Pension Plan. These people feel this is their prerogative, that they have freedom of choice and they are prepared to pay something for that freedom. However, they are still being taxed.
The minister says that this involves only two small groups, so let us give them this privilege as it really will not matter very much. I do not intend to deal with how large the Amish group is but, as I have said before, they are quite different. They make no demands on our society. They do not make any contribution toward the development of new technology, but they do not take advantage of it either. The Hutterian people are completely different. They take advantage of every modern convenience available.
Let us consider how large a group this is. Let me start with Manitoba. There are approximately 5,000 Hutterian people in that province. They own or lease 178,000 acres, or did in 1972, and perhaps the figure is greater now. They practically own 170,000 acres and lease an additional 8,000 acres. They have 48 colonies in the province of Manitoba, or did in 1972, and that works out to an average of 3700 acres per colony. I would like to set my family up on 3700 acres of that rich heavily productive land in Manitoba. I would like to use the facilities of the hospitals and roads in Manitoba without having to pay taxes toward this Canada Pension Plan as do all the people in every province of Canada, except the province of Quebec which has a different system. The province of Quebec uses this pension fund very wisely and receives a 10 per cent return. I do not know whether that is an excess profit, but I will leave that to the government to determine.
In any case if my conscience would allow me I would like to farm on 3700 acres of that rich land in Manitoba. I could then provide well for my children, and I am sure they would provide for me when I get older, particularly if I did not have to pay taxes and could use the roads, the hospitals and other facilities provided by the Manitoba government. My conscience would not let me do that. My religious beliefs may not be as good as those of many other people in this House, or any better than those of the Hutterian people, but my conscience would not allow me to do that.
In the province of Saskatchewan there are 30 colonies, or were in 1972, with a total population of 2,500 people. They have 294,500 acres which works out to an average of 10,000 acres per colony, or just a shade under that. That is a very good sized operation, and what I said about the Hutterian situation in Manitoba applies equally in Saskatchewan. These people, too, use the hospitals and the

roads that the province of Saskatchewan builds from moneys borrowed from the federal government.
They fought to avoid paying income tax until last year when the income tax department ruled against them. They are ordained by this government as having some religion that is superior to that of anybody else. It may well be that it is superior to mine, but my conscience would not permit me to ask what they are requesting and what the government would give them under this piece of legislation. The government is capitulating in respect of their wishes. It may be that many people think their religion is better than mine, but as I have said my conscience would not permit to do what they are doing.
Let us look at the situation in the province of Alberta. One might study the history in respect of these people in the province of Alberta going back to 1923, 51 years ago. Anybody who has studied the history of the province of Alberta knows that this question has been a political thorn for every political party that has tried to function in that province. This government, which probably has studied this question a little, should have known about that history. It should have known this when it attempted to pass this bill the first time and failed. It should have known that it would have some difficulty if it attempted to do so a second time. There has been a failure even to attempt to reach a compromise on this situation. That has destroyed a little of my faith in the principles of democracy because certainly politics, as often has been said, in essence is the art of compromise.
In the province of Alberta, there were 82 colonies with a population of a little over 7,000 people in 1972. These figures may not be considered to be large in a province the size of Alberta. However, they control and own practically one million acres of land in that province. This is not a million acres of bushland or rock land. It is probably the best land available. It is the irrigated land in the south and the heavily productive land in the parkland regions of Alberta. This history of these people has not been one of pioneering the bushland or of going into the Peace River country. Because of the limitations in respect of land, over the years they have been forced to push their way into the Peace River country, but that has not been their custom. The Hutterite people know I speak the truth in this regard. The average colony occupies an area of approximately 20,000 acres or better. That is a nice size.
I might refer to the Alberta study in respect of the Community Properties Act of 1972. There is no suggestion that this is an anti-Hutterite report. Many people in Alberta might say it is the opposite. That report states quite clearly that the Hutterite population doubles every 17 years. We have heard much about a corporate rip-off and many people will wonder if the member for Crowfoot is trying to build a mountain out of a molehill or might suggest there are not that many of these people and, therefore, they do not effect society very much. This report states that the total produce sold by the Hutterite colonies in the province of Alberta in 1972 amounted in value to $23 million. The report also indicates that the total expenses of the Hutterite colonies in the province of Alberta were $17 million.
Canada Pension Plan
I know there was once a great politician, and in the eyes of many people perhaps a great Canadian, who stated, "What is a million". Well, here we are talking about a concern in one province, not in the three provinces I have mentioned, which sold produce with a value of $23 million. The report came out in 1972, but I think the figures cited are 1971 figures. I do not have to explain to anyone the comparison between the value of a dollar today and the value of a dollar in 1971. If they sold $23 million worth of produce in 1971 I do not think I would be out of the ball park if I said in terms of today's values that thev sold about $35 million worth of produce. It might also be considered that their expenses have risen as sharply or more sharply, but I point out these figures so that the House may be fully aware of what we are talking about. There is no question in my mind that we are dealing with a large enterprise. I dealt with the subject matter of whether it is a tax that is involved. I also dealt with the question of whether or not these people are willing to pay a tax. Then, I dealt with the amount of money and land involved.
Now I should like to refer again to the 1972 report. The $23 million worth of produce to which I referred in the year 1971 was equal to 3 per cent of the agricultural products produced and sold in that year in the whole province of Alberta. Well, we all know what 3 per cent is. If you take three times 30 the figure is close to 100 per cent. In the agricultural area of Alberta 7,000 people produce 3 per cent of the total agricultural produce sold in that province. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that I as a man who has throughout all his life been deeply interested in the agriculture industry should not be worried about competition in respect of agriculture? I am not afraid of competition, but I think it is the duty of the government to lay down rules so that competition is fair. If this is a tax upon me and my operation, then it should be a tax upon their operation. I do not deny these people the right of freedom of religion. The judge who presided over the court proceedings in September last year ruled that in no way would the income tax interfere with their right to carry on their religion.
If a judge of a federal court can decide in this regard that this does not in any way effect their freedom of religion, then that division has been made. One may ask why we should be concerned about this small amount of tax in respect of the Canada Pension Plan. It may be said that surely in a free enterprise society we can give our competitors a little bit of a leg-up and still survive. Undoubtedly all that is true.
However, it is the government's duty to lay down the law fairly. Many of my socialist friends in the House have suggested that we should all be given everything equally. I know we are not all born equal but in my opinion we should all be treated equally before the law in a democracy. The exemption granted to these people demonstrates clearly that we are not all treated equally before the law. In my opinion this is a mistake in a democracy. People should be treated equally no matter what their religion may be. The government is well aware of this. They took the Hutterites to court on a matter of income tax and the judge ruled in the government's favour.

May 3, 1974
Canada Pension Plan
I know that there is difficulty in taxing the Hutterites both under the Income Tax Act and the pension plan, because they do not allow their people to have any income. I do not deny that there is such a difficulty and, as I said in my earlier speeches on the subject, that is why the minister does not know how to go about taxing them. Well, it is pretty clear that the Department of National Revenue has not had that difficulty. At page 10 of the decision of the Federal Court of Canada of September, 1973 we find the following statement:
The Hutterites carry on efficient and successful farm operations. Financial statements filed, assuming they are typical of all or most of the colonies' operations, indicate that they have substantial net profits each year the taxability of which has led to these proceedings.
Apparently until 1960 the colony paid no income tax of any kind. I might point out that the Hutterites lost the case, and they will now be subject to income tax going as far back as 1961. I am thankful that the government proceeded on an issue which I started in the House in 1961. I saw the culmination of it 14 years later when the agricultural industry started being treated with greater fairness. The judgment goes on to read:
However, some time after 1960 assessments were levied at least against the corporate entities from which appeals were taken. Ultimately an agreement of understanding was entered into in 1968 between the Minister of National Revenue and certain of the appellants for and on behalf of the Hutterian Brethren colonies in Canada.
If this session lasts longer than we expect, I will put a question on the order paper requesting a copy of that agreement. I might find it interesting reading and I might find that they are all treated fairly. But to give you an idea of the size of their profits, in this particular case the judge stated that one colony, the Wilson colony in southern Alberta, had a net profit of over $1 million. I am searching for the facts here to make sure that my memory does not play tricks on me. It reads:
The balance sheet as December 31, 1970 shows assets in the amount of $1,235,855, liabilities in the amount of $1,060.
I wish that my little farm had so few liabilities. They had a net profit for that year of $107,697. So let us not be led astray by some bleeding hearts who think they know about religion and who feel akin to the Hutterites because they may have stemmed from Mennonite stock. We all stem from one stock or another but we are not all in competition with our brethren in the field of agriculture as these people are, and without a doubt they are in the business. When I can pick up a judgment and quote from it a statement that one colony alone had a net profit in 1970 of $107,000, we know we are not really dealing with a small entity. This is the profit of just one out of 83 colonies in the province of Alberta, and there are some 78 other colonies in the other two prairie provinces.
In other speeches I have dealt with whether or not one could call the Hutterites good citizens and whether or not they accept Canadian citizenship. I will not go into that subject because each man can form his own opinion as to what makes a good Canadian citizen and what does not. In my opinion, they do not fulfill the requirements of a good citizen. My three sons all grew up and went through 4-H. They recited the 4-H pledge pretty regularly, and they were told by their instructors that that is what constitutes a good citizen. The very attempt not to pay Canada Pension Plan contributions suggests to me that they are not

good citizens. But I do believe that parliament was very negligent in not calling them as witnesses before the committee and asking them what in their minds constitutes good citizenship so that they could defend themselves.
I began my remarks by making the point which I just made. It is a habit of mine in making speeches to conclude by returning to the point I made at the beginning, and that is what I am doing on this occasion. I hope that throughout this speech I made members aware of what the problem is. This bill will not pass today, I can assure the House of that, but it may be passed next week if this session carries on that long. I hope that future members of parliament will not have to take action similar to the one I had to take in 1961 to correct a wrong which had been perpetrated on the agricultural industry until 1961 which allowed a segment of the agricultural industry to grow, prosper, and yet pay no income tax. We should make sure that restitution is made and that everyone is taxed for the purpose of the Canada Pension Plan.
I see Mr. Speaker is about to rise to point out that my time has expired. I have spoken on this subject at length, and I do not suppose that much more would convince those members who have failed to even attempt to compromise in this difficult situation. I do not suppose that many more words would change the minds of members of this House, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I will continue to attempt to change the minds of hon. members this afternoon at greater length than I have this morning.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend a little time supporting the amendment, which I had the honour to second, proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). First of all, it is with some trepidation that I will attempt to correct the record as laid down by the hon. member for Crowfoot, but I think that in all fairness the House should be aware of the full import of the bill before us when we consider the amendment.
The hon. member for Crowfoot mentioned the requirements of the law with regard to social insurance numbers. When I spoke on the predecessor to this bill in July last, when the government made its first attempt to exempt these religious sects, I pointed out that I was a contributor to the Canada Pension Plan but probably would not be able to receive any benefits from it because I have always been opposed to the idea of a social insurance number. Personally, I have not applied for or received one, notwithstanding the strictures of the law as it reads at present.
At that time it was my understanding that the Department of National Revenue was responsible for enforcing this provision. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) was in the House on that occasion, and I challenged him to prosecute me, if he wished, for failing to obey the law. As a matter of conscience, Mr. Speaker, I do not see why I should be required to have a social insurance number.
As I understand the provisions of the bill now before us they remove the requirement that one must have a social
May 3, 1974

insurance number in order to receive benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. That at least should remove some of the objections raised by the Hutterian brethren to this plan. I gather their main objection was that they, too, felt they should not have social insurance numbers, yet were obliged to support this plan from which they would get no benefit, and they felt they should be exempt from the program. As I say, if the government now recognizes that Deople should no longer be compelled to have social insurance numbers, that goes a long way toward meeting the objections of the Hutterian brethren.
I think that confirms the mistake that this parliament has made so far in dealing with this bill because, as pointed out by the hon. member for Crowfoot, the Hutterian brethren and the other sects that wish to be exempted should be called before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to make their positions abundantly clear, and to give the facts on which they base their requests for exemption. This information should be made available to members of the House. I suppose those sects have already made it available to the minister, because somewhere along the line this idea germinated in the minister's mind. I would not suggest that it suddenly appeared like the electric light bulb that is switched on in comic strips to indicate the birth of an idea. There must have been some pressure applied from some place. Generally, the government does not initiate action without some reason, but so far I have been given no information to indicate why these religious sects should be exempted.
The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), when he spoke on this subject on second reading of the bill, displayed an abysmal ignorance of the situation, something which I found quite surprising because he is supposed to be the official critic on this side of the House.
He talked about the Mennonites who are so active in religious work in India, and he said that this was a wonderful thing they did. Mr. Speaker, it is a wonderful thing. I happen to have the honour to represent a great number of people who adhere to the Mennonite religion, and as I have said previously I cannot think of a finer identifiable group in my constituency. These people pay their way. They do not cause trouble. They are great adherents to the principles of voluntaryism. I cannot think of a better community in my constituency than the community surrounding Acme and Linden, but I do not think the people who go to the Mennonite church at Linden are the ones who want to be exempted from the Canada Pension Plan. Neither do I believe that the people who are doing such good work in the mission field in India and other places are the ones who want to be exempted from the Canada Pension Plan.
The hon. member for Crowfoot has referred to those who want to be exempt as the Amish people from western Ontario. He has made certain remarks about that group. I, for one, am unfamiliar with them, but if he is correct in saying they neither contribute to nor partake in our system of government, there could be some reason for exempting them from this program. But I think it would be a terrible mistake for us to proceed on an incorrect understanding of the facts.
I think that our spokesman on this side of the House, the hon. member for Hillsborough, has done a very poor job in
Canada Pension Plan
researching the position of this party with regard to this bill, and I must take exception to him. As I have said, these people should have been called and made to justify their position, because I think it is quite clear to anybody who has studied the Canada Pension Plan that it is not an actuarially sound program. And if it is not actuarially sound there will have to be extensive subsidies pumped into it in order to keep it afloat. Where are those subsidies to come from? They have to come from the general taxpayer, from the consolidated revenue fund. May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. When the House suspended sitting at one o'clock, it was considering the report stage of Bill C-19, in particular the motion of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner).


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose for lunch at one o'clock, I was dealing with the motion before the House, and particularly the actuarial soundness of the Canada Pension Plan. It is my opinion that the plan is not actuarially sound and further, the more the base is narrowed, the less sound the plan becomes.
I readily admit that the number of people we are considering in this part of the bill is not large. The Old Order of Mennonite Brethren is not a large group. The Hutterian Brethren is another matter. During his remarks, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) gave some information about the number of people involved in that sect. While it may not be large now, it is a rapidly growing group, particularly when one considers that that group doubles in size every 17 years, according to the information given by the hon. member by Crowfoot. I presume that if the facts the hon. member has given are wrong somebody more learned than he, and with some basis for saying so, will stand up in this House and put the record straight. Until that happens, I guess we will have to accept the information given by that hon. member.
With regard to the actuarial soundness of the plan, I wish to quote from an article that appeared in the October 20, 1973 edition of the Financial Post and headlined "Happy Birthday, David, and congrats". The article was written by James L. Clare, a Toronto actuary and corporate tax consultant. I quote:
Federal NDP leader David Lewis could ripoff the Canada Pension for at least $14,157.
David Lewis turns 65 on June 23, 1974, and will then be eligible for a $99-a-month CPP pension. Statistical odds suggests he can then expect to live 14 years, or 168 months.
His CPP contributions for the eight and a half years since the plan began, Jan. 1, 1966, will then total $1,435. These contributions will pay for almost 15 of those $99 monthly benefits. Interest will pay for about another 10 months of benefits. For the other 143 remaining months he can expect to live, his benefits will be paid from the CPP funds contributed by us folks still working, as a subsidy or gift to David

May 3, 1974
Canada Pension Plan
Lewis, i.e., as a ripoff. The 143 months of $99 ripoffs come to a total expected ripoff of $14,157.
Rather juicy, what?
Consider a Canadian of the same age who has been paid much less, and covered by the CPP for the same 814 years, but who year by year has earned one half of the CPP maximum covered earnings. His total contributions of $626 will pay for almost 13 of his $49.50 monthly benefits. Interest will pay for about another nine months of benefits. The benefits for the remaining 146 months he can expect to live will give him a total expected CPP subsidy of just $7,227.
David Lewis will be subsidized much more than the poor man- $6,930 more.
In a word, the CPP is "upside-down welfare."
Mr. Trudeau, why are the proposed CPP amendments of your government aiming at ballooning the subsidized ripoffs to the rich still further, with crumbs from the CPP to the poor and to the elderly? Why are you in such a hurry to line the pockets of Mr. Lewis still more?
Mr. Davis,-
I presume he is referring to the premier of Ontario.
-the CPP cannot legally be amended without the consent of your Ontario government-so why are you even more enthusiastic than Ottawa in urging even bigger subsidies and windfalls to the rich? What has Mr. Lewis done for you lately?
The CPP subsidies are silly, and if amended will be even sillier. Would it not make sense instead to amend the CPP so that the monthly dollar subsidies are (a) at least as much for the poor as for the rich, and (b) at least as much for older pensioners as for younger pensioners?
Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Davis, do your men really know what they are advocating? Maybe someone, somewhere, should look at all the facts first, before the CPP is changed in any way?
I think it is clear there is a serious problem with this plan. However, I think there is an even more serious problem facing the country today. The egg producers of Canada are suffering as a result of the importation and dumping of eggs in this country. The government says it needs amendments to the Export and Import Permits Act and has proposed Bill C-4. They made some reference to being willing to proceed with this piece of legislation today. I do not know whether the amendments are actually necessary before the government can act, but the government says they are. That legislation is of much higher priority than the legislation we are now discussing. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Horner):
That this debate be now adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member's motion was proposed under the terms of Standing Order 25 which permits such a motion to be made. Under Standing Order 32, the motion is not debatable. I will therefore put the motion at this time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Norval  Homer@Battleford-Kindersley: Well, we have certainly proved that point. The government is not prepared to debate Bill C-4. The government had the opportunity and they failed to take it.
There are other things far more important than the measure we are considering. Members on this side made it clear months ago that this legislation would not, in all likelihood, be passed unless clause seven concerning special exemptions for religious sects was removed. But the government carried on with it. Today it is wasting time again, though it could be getting on with other legislation of greater importance. I think the minister responsible for arranging the business to come before the House knows this bill is put forward as a filler while the House is waiting for the budget to be brought down. They are afraid to bring anything else forward.
A motion has been put forward to delete that part of the bill which would give special consideration to a religious sect. I fully support the idea that special consideration should be given to religious sects in certain circumstances. After all, I grew up with a community of people who had emigrated here from Russia, the Doukhobors. They were granted special consideration based on their religion. They have contributed a tremendous amount to this country, and I think they are fairly happy about their freedom to practice their religion. But the crux of the matter is this: we are dealing with a bill concerning contributions to the Canada Pension Plan. In no way does this interfere with anyone practising or maintaining a religious belief. I can mention other things which are contrary to Hutterite practices-I mention the Hutterites because they are primarily the people involved in this case. It is contrary to their religious beliefs to watch television or listen to radio. Yet they pay taxes which go, in part, toward the maintenance of the CBC. They do not watch CBC programs because, in their minds, it is very sinful to do so. They may have a point there, Mr. Speaker. But ought we to rebate to them that particular portion of the tax?
To say they must contribute to the Canada Pension Plan in no way infringes upon religious freedom. And we are not talking about a poor, struggling people trying to maintain churches or build church halls. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) mentioned 73 communities numbering, possibly, six or seven thousand people, and reporting a net profit of some $6 million. These are the people who are asking that they should be exempted from the Canada Pension Plan provisions.
This is what the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) stated in his speech, as reported at page 1482 of Hansard for April 16:
I may say the government still firmly believes in the universal application of programs such as the Canada Pension Plan. It firmly believes in the universality of a pension plan. But it considers an exemption should be made because it is in keeping with a strong tradition of freedom and tolerance which exists in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I am a great one for tolerance and personal freedom, like many other farmers. But I, like many other farmers, was given no choice about whether or not I would
May 3, 1974

keep books for my operation. I was forced to do so by law. We were not asked whether we wished to deduct income tax with respect to the people who work for us. This duty was forced upon us and we had no choice. The government talks about treating these people with tolerance because there is a tradition of freedom. No one else has individual freedom. Certainly I think we should show them tolerance as far as their religion is concerned, but what we propose would in no way prevent them from practising their religion. Besides, it is basic to what democracy means. Democracy means going along with what 51 per cent of the people want. People who do not drive cars are still called upon to pay for the highways. I would point out, also, that these people are not bound to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan. They can choose to earn less than $600 a year. If they decide to earn more, they should fall into the same category as everyone else.
I could list a variety of examples. Suppose I had a choice of being exempt from education tax. If I could get back what I pay in education taxes I would be only too willing to educate my children myself. But I do not have that freedom. I live in a democracy, and democracy demands that 100 per cent of the people should do what 51 per cent of the people want to do. The Hutterites live in Canada and they are good citizens. But why exempt them while trying to carry on the principle of universality in all the other cases? It is a bad precedent, it is not necessary, and it is amazing to me that so few members can get up enough energy or enough courage to speak against it.
The Hutterites have been given special consideration with regard to education. They have been given the right to educate their children in their own way, on their colonies. I do not say it would be impossible for others to do something like this, but I believe it would be very difficult if I were living on a farm and said to the local school board: Please send me out a teacher; I have 21 children here, my own and those of a few people around here; we shall provide the building, you should provide the teacher. I think I would have a fair amount of trouble getting that privilege.
I have no quarrel with the Hutterite people. That is not what is at stake here. They raise a tremendous amount of produce and they use the land to the best of their ability. On the other hand, they contribute very little to our society. They stand in line outside the doctor's office, when necessary and they are right ready to buy the latest machines if they are likely to help them earn a faster dollar, but none of their children go to universities; none of their descendants become doctors. None of them try to solve the mystery of what causes cancer, or anything else. None of their children get past grade eight. Thus, they do not contribute to the country in the way many other people do and for this reason alone I find it difficult to understand why they should be granted special exemption from a scheme which is supposed to be universal.
On the same page of Hansard, page 1482, the minister is recorded as saying that religious sects formed after 1966 will not be exempt should they make a similar application. So, this bill practically singles out the Hutterites and a few others in the Mennonite and Amish sects, but primarily there is a strict exemption of a very small group of very, very wealthy people. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, having
Canada Pension Plan
one million acres in the province of Alberta. What would that land be worth in a few years? Perhaps $500 an acre, with land today selling anywhere from $150 to $250 an acre. I will leave hon. members to figure it out.
These are the people asking for, and the people the government is anxious to grant to, special consideration because they are a religious sect. It is not that their paying into the Canada Pension Plan would in any way prevent them from carrying on their religion. As I have said, it puzzles me greatly. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) has legislation ready to increase the cash advances on grain. I am ready to speak on this legislation. We have the import-export bill, too. Then he introduced a bill which was given first reading this morning to put into legislative form the September 12 last announcement with regard to government subsidies for grain consumed in Canada, to ensure that the farmers obtain $5 maximum for wheat consumed in Canada. So I fail to understand why the minister is prepared to sit all afternoon while we debate this particular legislation, and while it fails to pass the House.


Otto Emil Lang: Let it come to a vote.


Mr. Norval  Homer@Battleford-Kindersley: We did let it come to a vote. The Minister of Justice says we should let it come to a vote, but we have urged that this debate be adjourned so we can go on with other matters. Those on the government side have chosen not to do this, and not to pass the import-export bill today.


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, my intervention in this debate will be extremely brief and probably will not last 60 seconds. At the end of that time, I hope this matter does come to a vote and pass the House.
I merely rise to dissociate myself formally from the remarks of several members of this party I have heard today. Particularly I dissociate myself from the remarks made by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) with reference to the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie), who is one of the finest men I have ever encountered in public life and a man with whom I am proud to share the appellation "Progressive Conservative".


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The remarks made by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly) cannot go unchallenged. In making them he implied that the hon. member for Crowfoot in some way or other made some disparaging remarks about the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquar-rie), that I said something that was defamatory of his character, that I questioned his integrity, and other things such as that.
I should like the hon. member who made those remarks to consider them seriously and very closely, and perhaps to withdraw them. He can check the record of Hansard, but I disagreed strongly with the hon. member for Hillsborough. I invited him to come to my riding. I said that I would not sit on the platform with him but that I would sit in the audience and watch the reception of his words by my constituents. I did not say that my constituents would disagree with him. I did not say that they would think he was right or wrong, or would question his charac-

May 3, 1974
Canada Pension Plan
ter. I said that since I was the representative here of my constituents I would sit among them so I could better understand their feelings toward his remarks, whether they agreed with him or not. I said I would even pay the rent for the hall, and knowing how well the hon. member stood within the Conservative party, that the party would pay his transportation out there.
In the whole of my remarks, in no way did I cast reflection upon his character-whether he was honest or dishonest, whether he was the greatest man I have ever met in society. I have met many great men and he would have to be judged as ranking among these many great men. I have not taken the trouble to assess his particular position, whether it would be at the top or at the bottom of the ranking.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I want the hon. member to withdraw his words, if he said in any way that I was casting reflection-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Would the hon. member resume his seat. The standing order provides that an hon. member can clarify expressions of opinion or the remarks of other members that might reflect on some of his own comments or personal opinions, but I do not think an hon. member can start a debate on such questions. If the hon. member wants to clarify his point further, I hope he will do it very quickly so we can proceed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I quite agree with those remarks, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Ottawa West began his remarks by saying that he was not going to speak for very long. He did not speak to the amendment, motion No. 1, or to the subject matter of the bill we are debating. He said that he would only speak for 60 seconds, and if he had done so I would have risen on a point of order. He tried to implicate me in some kind of name calling game, for which I take no responsibility whatsoever. I suggest his remarks were completely out of order. If he is questioning my remarks about the hon. member for Hillsborough, he is quite out of order in attempting to raise what is really a point of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the hon. member for Ottawa West rising on the point of order?


Peter Reilly: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Not only will I not withdraw what I said, but I want to assure the hon. member that only the gentlemanly tradition of this House allows me to forbear saying what is precisely in my mind.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, that is not a point of order, I suggest the hon. member is not debating the motion that is before the House and that he has not said anything that contributes to the debate at all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I think we had better consider the case closed. The hon. member for Ottawa West rose on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot and I think this should close the matter at this time. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Horner, Crowfoot) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The next motion is No. 2 appearing on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher). The Chair does question the acceptability of the motion which is brought forward as an amendment at the report stage of the bill. The hon. member for Palliser will recall that a similar motion, one in the same terms as the one now proposed, was put by him when another Canada Pension Plan amending bill was being considered a few months ago.
The record at that time shows, at page 596 of Journals for October 24, 1973, that the Chair decided the proposed motion was defective in two regards. The hon. member is probably well aware of the remarks of the occupant of the Chair at that time. If the hon. member wishes, I am ready to comment as to the acceptability of his motion at this time, and I must say I have very strong reservations about it.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my motion is to allow married women to contribute to and receive benefits from the Canada Pension Plan. When I moved this amendment to the amending bill last year, I recognized then that it probably was not in order, but I moved it to bring attention to the problem. I think I have to say that some recognition has been given to this problem since the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has produced a discussion paper on the subject of housewives contributing to the Canada Pension Plan. The bill in relation to which the amendment was put before was pretty narrow, and I can understand why it was not found in order. I did not quibble with that ruling as I thought it was a proper one at that time.
However, Bill C-19 with which we are dealing is a much broader piece of legislation, and we find in the recommendations the following words:
-to provide in the manner prescribed for equality of status for males and females under the Act-
For that reason I feel my amendment is much closer to being in order this time than last time. Of course, it can probably be argued from the other side that 100 per cent or 300 per cent of nothing is still nothing. I recognize that the words "in the manner prescribed" are rather limiting, but I have always understood in respect of these recommendations that they should not set out the particulars of the bill before us. I would urge that because it is recommended there be equity of status as between males and females under this bill consideration should be given to my amendment. There is a large number of housewives in this
May 3, 1974

country who are female citizens and should have the right to expect coverage under the national pension plan.
I am attempting to bring this idea before the House by referring to that part of the recommendation which says that one of the purposes of this bill is to provide equality of status. In no way are we going to encourage that equality of status between males and females if we do not include housewives. Unless we include housewives, we will not meet the requirements of that recommendation and that recommendation will, therefore, be meaningless.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, before you rule on the amendment I should like to speak on this point of order. You are quite correct in that the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) did move the amendment in respect of Bill C-90. Mr. Speaker at that time felt that it did not fall within the ambit of the bill then before us. I draw to your attention that in this particular case we have a bill with a great deal more depth and one which particularly deals with the spouses, their contributions and the benefits these spouses may collect. One can look at Clauses 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 and see that we are in fact dealing with contributions that a spouse may or may not make, and the benefits that one of the survivors of a marriage may collect.
I would also bring to your attention, before you make your ruling, that during the committee study of this particular bill more time and paper was used on the questioning of this aspect of what the amendment suggests than on anything else.
It is interesting to note also that at the time of the committee study the minister did not say he was opposed to this aspect, but said he felt the government needed more time to study it. He did not say he could not fit it into this bill. Many of the members of that committee wanted it fitted in and the minister said that he had discussed it with the provinces and wanted more time to study this aspect. In view of the desirability of getting this bill through before the election everybody seems to be talking about around here, I would urge that you not rule the amendment out of order.
During committee proceedings there was wide acceptance of the principle enunciated in the amendment. We could incorporate it in the bill and the beneficiaries of the act, particularly the housewives across Canada, would be better off. Before making your ruling on the grounds the last amendment was found out of order, I would urge that this bill is completely different and much broader in scope. I think this amendment does fall within the ambit of this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I wish to thank both hon. members who have expressed opinions as to the acceptability of the motion before the House at this time. I hope the two hon. members concerned will understand that the Chair is not here to judge on the merits, the value or the sincerity of the amendment or motion put forward by the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher), or on the opinion or views of the minister. The Chair is restricted by the rules of this House which provide for limitations which are meant to assist in the progress and workings of this parliamentary institution.
Canada Pension Plan
Perhaps at this time I should refer to Beauchesne's Fourth Edition in respect of relevancy, specifically section (1) of Citation 203 which states in part:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed.
I would refer, in addition, to Citation 406 at page 285 of the same author which lists reasons amendments would be ruled out of order. It reads in part as follows:
Amendments are out of order if they are
(a) irrelevant to the bill, or beyond its scope, governed by or dependent upon amendments already negatived;
There is another point I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members, and this relates to one of our well-known references, Erskine May's Eighteenth Edition, at page 508, with reference to the same matter:
An amendment which is out of order on any of the following grounds cannot be proposed from the chair:
(1) An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the bill-
If hon. members will turn to page 510 of May's they will note in paragraph (12):
Amendments or new clauses creating public charges cannot be proposed, if no money resolution or ways and means resolution has been passed, or if the amendment or clause is not covered by the terms of the resolution.
These are the two main points I wish to bring to the attention of the mover. In fact, the motion now before the House goes behind the bill which is being considered. It endeavours to amend provisions in the main act which are not contained in the bill under consideration. The hon. member, by his amendment, is attempting to amend the act itself not by adding a subclause to clause 7 but by trying to reach the act which is not before the House at this time. Secondly, the proposed amendment is not in accordance with the financial recommendation in respect of the bill as it was not in respect of Bill C-90 in the previous session, so the same consideration applies at this time. It is with regret I must decide that this motion cannot be accepted at this time in its present form.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 3 appearing in the name of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner).


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, be amended in Sub-clause 15(2) by deleting the words 'prescribed rate' at line 25 and substituting '7%'.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this motion one tends to become involved in the whole question of interest rates. In the old bill the rate was 6 per cent. The change that this bill is attempting to bring in is to a prescribed rate. Someone across the way said that is very commendable. I have always been interested in the Liberals and their interest rates, because I well remember the debate of 1966 when the Liberal government took office and placed a freeze on the interest rate of the banks. The government at that time then decided to have a floating rate. One could look up the debate, and some of the new Liberal members should do so.

Canada Pension Plan
At that time it was decided to have a floating rate which would be 114 per cent above the short-term bond rate. Now, we are dealing with a prescribed rate. The prescribed rate is bound to be the floating rate. In 1966, the bank rate was 6 per cent but the government decided to float the rate at 114 per cent above the rate on short-term bonds. I well remember the debate. The present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) was Minister of Finance at that time. He said that the interest rate might well go below 6 per cent. That was the wishful thinking of the Liberal government at that time. The short-term bond rate in that particular year went as high as 7.72 per cent and then fell to 4.3 per cent. So, the government said that 1% per cent above 4.3 per cent would place the prescribed rate at 6.05 per cent. It is interesting to note that the bill at that time was to apply for an interim period with a rate fixed at 7V4 per cent. Then, it was decided that the Bank Act should be amended to allow the bank to bring in any rate it saw fit.
Then, it was decided that for the first year of the freeing of the bank rate a prescribed rate of 714 per cent would be arranged. The government went on to explain how the rate would fluctuate after that on a formula of 1M per cent above the short-term bond rate. However, the short-term bond rate and the 114 per cent were below the 714 per cent rate so the government was in an embarrassing position at the time. Several members from the Conservative Party and some from the socialist party to my left spoke against the freeing of the interest rate for the banks. When one looks at corporate profits one finds that in the past seven or eight years it is the banks which have had the greatest profits. The major shareholders of the banks have reaped the benefit of these higher profits earned by high interest rates.
The amendment I am presenting today is the same amendment I filed in this House I believe in the debate in the fall of 1966 when the 6 per cent interest rate freeze was removed from the Bank Act. I said that the rate should be frozen at 7 per cent. This is what my amendment in this case says. If a person should be late in respect of his payments he should be charged a rate of 7 per cent and not a prescribed rate. I have a dreadful fear concerning what a prescribed rate means in the mind of the present Liberal government. The Liberal government of 1966 said that a prescribed rate was 114 per cent above the rate on shortterm bonds. Whenever I see a bill come before this House which gives the Liberal Party the right to decide the interest rate I become concerned. The rate in the old act clearly is 6 per cent per annum. In this case it is a prescribed rate. Recently we have seen the banks of Canada increase their interest rate by 1 Vi per cent approximately. Everyone in Canada, except perhaps a person with a great deal of security, is paying between 10 Vi and 11 Vi per cent for money. There are members of this House who believe that under the present government the prescribed rate could go to the sky.
I believe everyone should examine this question. The Bank of Canada recently announced that it would increase its rate on loans to the chartered banks to 814 per cent. Perhaps no one has looked up the amount of money the chartered banks have borrowed from the central bank. In 1973, they did not borrow a red nickel or any other kind of nickel, but because the central bank raised its rate to 8 Vi

per cent the chartered banks took it upon themselves to raise their rate by 12 per cent. Although I do not have the exact figures, I would estimate that there is a total debt of approximately $40 million across Canada, and if one calculates a lVi per cent increase on that one can see that interest rates are a very important subject. All of a sudden in order to cure inflation, so we were told, a higher interest rate was imposed.
I do not know what effect this will have on payments made under the Canada Pension Plan. I think most mistakes are made honestly and without deliberate intent. I think most late filings are made honestly without deliberate intent. Why do we have to give power to the government to establish a prescribed rate? This government believes in high interest rates. If they want to curtail inflation, there are plenty of ways of doing so without increasing interest rates. When I speak of interest rates I cannot help going back to the debate when we started this cycle of high interest rates in the fall of 1966.
What was Canada's problem in 1966? At that time we were mighty concerned about the rate of inflation. Inflation was running wild. The Bank of Canada wanted to charge a higher interest rate and so did the chartered banks. That was their cure for inflation. It was argued by others that higher interest rates do nothing but increase inflation. It is not my fault, not this bill's fault, and not necessarily the Liberal government's fault that high interest rates increase inflation. The reason for inflation is the credit economy in which we are living. How have we evolved this type of economy? Goods and money became plentiful, and we borrowed. Our credit became good and people lent us more and more money. Interest rates are part of the cost.
I say that putting a prescribed rate into this legislation will only increase the cost of the entrepreneur doing business in Canada today. In 1966 the argument was used that interest rates would curb inflation, and there is no question in my mind that at that time they contributed to inflation because the entrepreneur makes them part of his cost and wherever possible passes on that cost to the buying public. The small portion of the debt in Canada will also be passed on to the consumer in the end product. In fact, 3.6 per cent of the cost of the labour force in a given business is deducted or charged against the product that the business produces. The interest rate on that money is charged to the product. There is no question in my mind that we cannot suddenly stop the credit economy that we have evolved. One member of the Liberal Party was concerned about our credit economy and tried to start a cashex system-a novel idea, but for one reason or another it did not catch on with the public.
We have been led down the garden path, or hornswog-gled, to use a good western expression, into believing that a credit economy is a good thing. I find myself in that position. I have many debts. Because the interest rate went up, I, along with everybody else, will have to pay. The argument for the high interest rate in the fall of 1966 when the Bank Act was before parliament was that it would curtail inflation. The evidence is before this government that it did not curtail inflation one bit; in fact, it contributed to it.

I do not want to make a speech today on the increase in the interest rate and what steps could be taken to cure inflation. That is not the purpose of our debate this afternoon. But surely we should consider what my amendment would do. It provides clearly that in a small way it will curtail the rate of inflation. It is the old story. If you watch the little things, the big things will take care of themselves. That is an old and wise philosophy expressed to me by many old homesteaders on the prairies. There is no question that if we look after the pennies the dollars will accrue. How many times have you heard that expression? If we look after low interest rates we will be proving this point without a doubt. Banks will have to lend money to the entrepreneurs.
It does not concern me if the government sets out its principles in pieces of legislation and states that it believes in a 7 per cent rate of interest. I would appreciate it if parliament accepted this amendment and stated that we believe it would be one small step in the direction of reducing interest rates and inflation. If the government wants to curtail inflation, if they want to bring the banks into line, why do they not change section 72 of the Bank Act which allows banks to charge an interest rate as low as 12 per cent on what might be'called negotiable reserves? If they want to tighten up the economy, let them increase that rate to 15 per cent or 16 per cent. I will listen with interest to the budget to see whether the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) suggests that. If he does, he will be taking a concrete step toward curtailing inflation without increasing the burden on the taxpayers as this bill will do and as the Bank of Canada did some months ago.
Why do interest rates mean so much with reference to the Canada Pension Plan? I wonder how many Canadians have ever asked themselves who uses all the money that has been amassed under the Canada Pension Plan. Every province in Canada except Quebec has the opportunity to borrow money from the Canada Pension Plan, that portion of it which is over and above the amount needed to pay the premiums in the province. Every province has the right to borrow that money at the rate of about 5 per cent. It is interesting to note the heavy borrowings over the years by the provinces. I should point out that the province of Quebec pays at the same rate but collects its own contributions and does not have to borrow this money from the federal government at 5 per cent.
It is interesting to point out that when the question of interest rates came up in the committee, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) readily admitted that Quebec has a different rate of interest on their bonds. They collect a 10 per cent return on the money they lend under the Canada Pension Plan. All that my amendment does is to signify that the interest rate which the government should establish on all borrowings under the Canada Pension Plan should be 7 per cent. This is not impossible to achieve. It is an acknowledgement that 6 per cent interest rate may be too low and might have to be changed. But I am very afraid of legislation which will pass this House providing that there shall be only a prescribed rate, because in all the time I have been in Ottawa I have not been convinced that the Liberal Party understands the meaning of interest rates. There is no question about it; they believe in high interest rates. They have allowed the governor of the Bank of Canada to increase
Canada Pension Plan
interest rates. For the first time in Canadian history, bank rates are 10 per cent to 11 Vi per cent, depending on the borrower's credibility, the security he can offer and the amount of the loan. Let me assure you that most people pay 11 Vi per cent.
The Canadian banks, among the best banking businesses in the world, are making all kinds of money. The government has a moral obligation to tell the banks that it does not approve of this. Months ago the government should have called in the governor of the Bank of Canada and told him it would not approve the 814 per cent interest rate that he proposed at that time. The government could begin to move on interest rates this afternoon by accepting this small amendment which proposes quite clearly that the interest rate shall be 7 per cent.
I well remember when the Bank Act was amended to remove the freeze on interest rates which then stood at 6 per cent. The whole argument in favour of a floating interest rate was that the rate would come down. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, who was minister of finance at the time, said the rate would be pegged at 7 Vi per cent for a year but after the year we could conceivably see interest rates going below 6 per cent. What kind of folly was that? Does that kind of folly still exist in the government's mind?
The government has not learned anything, because it is still trying to cure inflation by increasing interest rates, rather than increasing the percentage of funds which banks are obliged to keep in reserve. The Canada Pension Plan has become one of the greatest sources of funds for the provinces. Most provinces used to go to New York for their financing. Now, with the exception of Quebec, they come to Ottawa. The province of Ontario has borrowed huge amounts of money from the Canada Pension Plan fund. It has borrowed as much as $590 million in one year at an interest rate of 5 per cent. Certainly it is getting a good deal in this way, using the Canadian taxpayers' money. I should not say it is using the Canadian taxpayers' money, but the Ontario taxpayers' money, because the contributions of provinces are accumulated in separate funds from which the provinces can borrow at 5 per cent.
If the government allowed a prescribed rate, this could provide greater contributions to the pension fund. In fact, we might be able to increase the amount of pension payable without increasing the premium. But we have decided that the rate should be pegged at 5 per cent. Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anything wrong with pegging it at 7 per cent. That is slightly more than the provinces have to pay for money now, but surely we do not have to enforce a higher penalty than 2 per cent in this respect. The amount of money saved by the Ontario government because of the prescribed 5 per cent rate on borrowings over $500 million a year would be astronomical. I am using Ontario as an example because it has the biggest population and borrows the most money from the fund. On average it has borrowed more than $590 million each year for the past few years. I admit that back in 1966 it did not borrow so much. I am looking for the exact figures but I cannot lay my hands on them. In any case, by now the point should be clearly understood by hon. members that it is quite proper to provide in a piece of legislation that there be a

May 3, 1974
Canada Pension Plan
fixed interest rate. Of course, as we read the bill now it suggests a 6 per cent rate. I am suggesting a 7 per cent rate.
I well remember during debates in 1966 that we were told we had to raise interest rates otherwise money would not come into Canada. We were told that if we maintained a low interest rate, foreign money would not come into Canada, that American money would stay in the United States and Europe would attract investment because interest rates there were increasing. Since that time the complaint has been that we have too much foreign investment in Canada and should do something about it. If the government had accepted the advice offered by some of us in 1966 and frozen interest rates at 7 per cent, we might have encouraged a little foreign money to come to Canada but not as much as is now flooding in, with interest rates going to 1114 per cent. You cannot blame the free enterprise society in which we live if money pours into a country where interest rates go to 11 Vi per cent. I repeat that we would not have the large foreign investment that Canada now knows if our advice had been accepted in 1966. In this debate I am offering the same advice. I maintain that the rate should be frozen at 7 per cent. Let this bill be a signal to our society that we are going to freeze interest rates at 7 per cent, that we are going to take steps to bring down interest rates.
I well remember that in election speeches in 1957 and 1958 the Liberal Party was charged with being a high interest rate party. I was just a young fellow at that time and was not certain whether the accusation was true. But having spent a number of years in Ottawa I am convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is a high interest rate party. One of the beautiful things about democracy is that governments must obey the wishes of parliament. This is particularly true of a minority government. We see compromises. We see agreements being reached. Back on the farm we would even say that deals were being made. Politicians are not supposed to use that expression, but with this minority government we see deals being made. Why can't the government come down off its high interest rates? I was going to say "high horse", but we are debating interest rates so I must stick to that subject. Why can't this government come down from their high horse? There I go again with a slip of the tongue. My hon. friend says it is the wrong horse too, and there is no doubt about that, Mr. Speaker. If we go to the people next week, I hope they bear in mind that the Liberal Party has been responsible for high interest rates ever since it removed the freeze in 1966. It is still the party of high interest rates. If they reject this small amendment wnich I propose, it will signify again that they want high interest rates on even the smallest loans.
In this afternoon's debate I shall take time to drill this point home because I really believe there will be an election next week. I know the Liberal Party wants to continue to govern. This morning I listened to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) speak about Petro-Can and I realized that he wants to govern. He is throwing out a compromise, a deal with the NDP right now. He wants to continue to govern. Nothing would do the Liberals more good on the hustings next week or

next month than to wave a little piece of paper saying, "We are a party of lower interest rates. We are starting to bring down interest rates. We took this prescribed rate out of the act and froze it at 7 per cent. That is where interest rates should be frozen today. And when we go back we are going to freeze the rate of the banks at 7 per cent." They are on their high horse and believe in high interest rates. They believe that somehow they have an exalted right to rule. They really do not care how badly they bleed the public, because they believe in the theory: Bleed them well and give them back the concentrated blood mix and they will somehow survive.


An hon. Member:: Are you the only good Canadian in the House?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, I do not think that at all. In fact, I am certain there are many members who think I am practically the worst Canadian in the House; but that does not bother me. I ask the hon. member to read the debates of 1966 when I attempted to freeze the bank rate at 7 per cent and was told that the foreign money we needed would not come into Canada.


Mr. Railton:: We needed it at that time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Now people wonder why we have so much foreign investment and ownership in this country.


Samuel Victor Railton: Because of our good economy they want to invest here.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, because of our good economy we have to sell it. But the place is not for sale, Mr. Speaker. Have you ever driven by a beautiful farm and wanted to buy it, and on the gate was the sign "Not for sale"? Canada is not for sale to the Americans-and I like Americans-to the Germans or the Japanese. The sign on our gate should say that this place is not for sale, no matter what interest rate they want to pay. I can hand out all the advice I like about what interest rates should be, but the government will not accept it. They will not accept this small amendment. They have gone through every act of parliament, and wherever the rate was pegged at 6 per cent they changed it to allow it to float. That is what this bill is doing, Mr. Speaker, changing it from 6 per cent and allowing it to float.


Samuel Victor Railton: What about CMHC?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what they are doing with CMHC, floating an interest rate which has been far too high for home owners. That is wny we have so many people living in apartments and townhouses. There is a shortage of houses because they are charging too much interest. There is no doubt in my mind that this is probably one of the last statutes on the books that has a fixed interest rate of 6 per cent. They have caught up with that now and are allowing the interest rate to float.
Why do we have a prescribed rate? How does the central bank's rate of interest affect a prescribed rate formula? Recently the governor of the Bank of Canada increased the interest rate to 814 per cent, and immediately that
May 3, 1974

became the interest rate on the government's short-term borrowings. The Bank of Canada does not lend money to the chartered banks. Only 1 per cent of the money the chartered banks lend to the people is borrowed from the central bank. Indeed, in 1973 the chartered banks did not borrow one cent from the central bank. If you follow what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, the governor of the Bank of Canada, on the advice of the Minister of Finance, increased the rate to 8 !4 per cent and that became the short-term borrowing rate on government bonds.
The Bank of Canada is the buyer of last resort of government bonds. They will buy them at 8!4 per cent, and if anybody wants to pay a slightly higher percentage rate they can have them. Every Thursday at five o'clock the bids are open on government short-term bonds, but the Bank of Canada is the buyer of last resort. So automatically, if you take this prescribed rate formula that was developed in 1966 in the change to the Bank Act and add 194 per cent to it, you get the bottoming-out rate that banks can charge of 10 per cent. What happens is that many investment houses bid on government short-term bonds, so that you actually have a rate on short-term bonds of slightly above the Bank of Canada rate.
I see the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) is in the House. If he wants to correct my limited knowledge of the financial system, he is welcome to do so. He has been around here longer than I have and probably will be around much longer in the future. In any case, in the years I have been here that is how the prescribed interest rate that this bill speaks of has been arrived at. In this bill we are really not talking about a prescribed interest rate; we are talking about something better than 10 per cent. The bottoming-out rate is 10 per cent. If nobody bids on government bonds, then it might be 10 per cent; but the Bank of Canada will take them up at 814 per cent.
The whole purpose of high interest rates, according to the Minister of Finance, is to discourage inflation in our credit society. I am not blaming anybody for getting us into a credit society. As I said earlier, I too have been hornswoggled in that respect. A fellow once told me that everybody likes spending money but very few like making it. This government cannot be accused of that because they also like printing money. That is why we have the present rate of inflation. If this government wants to curtail inflation, it will not do it by increasing interest rates. That is the wrong way. They contribute to inflation. One step they could follow would be to increase the 12 per cent reserve that chartered banks must hold in negotiable securities. The banks might have less money to lend and their profits might not be so great. We all know the banks have made substantial profits since the interest rate was taken off, but that is the formula of the prescribed rate system. There is no doubt in my mind that my amendment will fix the rate at 7 per cent. It is the same kind of amendment I attempted to move to the Bank Act in 1966. If history had shown me wrong in the past seven years, I would gladly go along with letting this bill pass.
I said at the beginning of my speech that I would take the full 40 minutes I am allowed. That is because I want the backbenchers of the Liberal Party- and there are a lot of good ones-to know the high horse of high interest they
Canada Pension Plan
are riding. I want them to think about their policy, particularly if we are going into an election next week. I want the good Liberals to look at this piece of paper and say they voted for a 7 per cent interest rate. They do not have to go into detail as to how small a bill it was. It will stand them in good stead on the hustings next week, the week after, next month or, for that matter, next year.
Why do we religiously have to bring forward every statute on the books? It does not matter whether it is so small a thing as the debt under the Canada Pension Plan and whether we should freeze it at the 6 per cent rate. Why can't we signify to the people that we believe high interest rates contribute to inflation, in no way attempt to control inflation and must progressively be brought down from 10 per cent or 11 per cent?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). The 40 minutes assigned to him under the Standing Order has expired. Of course, with the unanimous consent of the House he can continue for another 40 minutes. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimity in this respect.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us strikes me as the kind of motion which would strengthen and improve this bill, which I think is a bill many members would like to see passed before events which may overtake us next week. I appeal to whichever minister is piloting this legislation through the House to accept this very reasonable suggestion whereby we could improve the Canada Pension Plan and assist the many people who will benefit from the passage of the bill.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on this motion which relates to the penalty section of the act. As I understand the legislation, at present employers making late returns on behalf of their employees as required by the Canada Pension Plan are subject to a penalty of 10 per cent of the amount, or $10, whichever is the greatest, and interest at 6 per cent per annum on the amount that should have been paid. This bill purports to take away a certain penalty and insert an uncertain penalty; that is, changing it from a fixed rate of 6 per cent to what is called a "prescribed" rate. That rate is prescribed by the minister on the advice of the bureaucrats in his department. They indicate to the minister what they feel should be the penalty because of an oversight, carelessness or some other reason in failing to make the proper remittance on time.
As far as I am concerned, this is another step along the road of delegation whereby this House of Commons in particular, and parliament in general is letting go of more and more responsibility in the day to day governing of Canada. That is a disgraceful situation whereby the executive has a completely free hand with regard to what is going on in this country, without any reference to the parliamentarians. I am sure Your Honour has heard many

May 3, 1974
Canada Pension Plan
times over the years complaints from members of parliament that they do not have any say in certain matters; they are always delegated to the bureaucrats. This is going on at an ever increasing rate. We have had examples of this during past sessions, and this session. In response to practically every problem that arises, it is proposed that a new board or tribunal be established. That is the prescribed solution. That is a typical of the present administration.
The government says it will make the proper prescriptions. However, at this time the country is suffering from a malady that in large measure results from prescriptions we have already received. It has been pretty stiff and bad medicine. I do not think the great brains on the treasury benches should be allowed to prescribe any more bad medicine for the illness we are suffering at the present time. The law should be certain. People should know what the punishment will be if they do not obey the law. It is a very bad situation when we continue to allow the executive to act with complete immunity and without any responsibility to the legislators who are supposed to represent the feelings of their constituents. I am ashamed that more senior members have not taken strong exception to the wide discretion that is being given in this case and in many others.
During the past winter the energy allocation board was set up and measures have been taken to set up a restrictive trade practices tribunal with greatly extended powers. Bill C-29 relates to excess profits and use will probably be made of this same tribunal. I could list a great many cases in which the government has asked parliament to give it the right to act as it thinks best, and in 90 per cent of those cases I suggest the confidence of parliament has been misplaced.
There is much to be commended in the suggestion of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) that a certain penalty should be specified. I do not know whether 7 per cent is the correct figure or not. However, I say it should bear some relationship to the rate at which money is borrowed from the fund when it is used by the provinces. The hon. member for Crowfoot says the rate is 5 per cent. By anybody's standards, that is very cheap money for the provinces. The fact that the borrowing rate is so low indicates what the thinking of parliament was in 1965-a 1 per cent spread was charged to those who were late in paying. I do not know why the government wishes to change to a prescribed rate, except that it may be hoping to try to get in through the back door what it could not do by the front door. They want to do it by regulation. A notice will appear in the Canada Gazette and no one will be able to do anything about it. No one will know there has been a change until they are hit by it. The new rate will probably be between 11 per cent and 12 per cent as charged by CMHC on first mortgages: it is a rate of which the government seems to approve. What a difference there is between the rate at which funds can be borrowed and the rate late payers must accept. This indicates that money can be borrowed from the fund at too low a rate for the well-being of the plan.
The hon. member for Crowfoot pointed out that Quebec accepts different rates in connection with its own fund

and that the performance of the Quebec plan is substantially better than that of the federal plan. I should like to quote from an article written by Bruce Whitestone and dated October, 1973. Mr. Whitestone is an economist. He suggests there should be further restrictions on provincial borrowing from the fund. The article reads:
The Canada Pension Plan is in danger of becoming something like Frankenstein's monster, a runaway spending machine. Provincial use of Canada Pension Plan contributions has become part of a mechanism which affects not only the pension plan but also provincial government spending and the entire investment process.
What emerges here is a pattern of borrowing from the Canada Pension Plan by provincial governments and increased spending by those governments because of easy access to the pension fund money.
The legislation which set up the Canada Pension Plan provides for the investment of the funds which accrue from monthly contributions, less the estimated amounts needed to pay benefits and costs. These funds are made available to each province, based on their contributions. The provinces are able to borrow from these funds, subject only to the supervision of the federal Department of Finance to ensure that proper controls are maintained. In general, this easy access to funds by provincial governments leads to unwise spending programs; there are not the normal constraints imposed by lenders. In other words, provincial governments do not need to go through the process or cost of borrowing money on the market, using underwriters to market bond issues. As a result it is an almost foregone conclusion that governments are tempted by an "easy-come, easy-go" attitude. The money burns a hole in the pockets of many provincial treasurers.
The huge reservoir of funds generated by the Canada Pension Plan provides a cash flow which continues almost independent of the business cycle. Hence, over-all government spending and taxing measures are out of control of the normal constraints of the legislature.
Many who favour government control and operation of various parts of the economy criticize free enterprise for its failings and then engage in operations which undermine the free enterprise system. Intragovernment borrowing and the process of short-circuiting the free market by borrowing from the funds of the Canada Pension Plan illustrate this trend. If a province needs funds, it should deal directly in the market. Borrowing from the Canada Pension Plan funds represents an intermingling of two different functions-the needs of the provincial treasuries and the rights of the provincial treasuries and the rights of the pension fund contributors. If a provincial government borrows at an advantageous rate, obviously the pension fund is lending at a disadvantageous rate.
It is extremely important that the savings of Canadians which are collected by way of premiums should be invested at a proper rate of return for the benefit of the contributors. For many citizens the Canada Pension Plan will be their main source of income when they retire and they have the right to receive the best possible return on their money. As has been stated, the regulations governing borrowing from the Quebec fund are different and result in a greater flow of income to that fund. Quebec is to be congratulated in this respect. If similar measures are not taken by the federal government, Canadians in other provinces should demand that their provinces set up separate funds, as has been done in Quebec. If people in the rest of Canada are to receive benefits similar to those paid in the province of Quebec, contributions will need to be raised. I continue to quote from the article as follows:
If the provinces did not borrow these funds there would be an incentive to maximize the yield of them and the money would obviously flow to the most productive and rewarding sectors of the economy. All pension funds should be encouraged to "work harder." They should be invested as efficiently as possible. The entire economy would benefit if these funds were handled by the free market in place of the bureaucrats.

The Canada Pension Plan would have to be amended to permit each province to run its own fund. If the yields on the pension funds could be improved, a near certainty under a free enterprise regime, contributions could be decreased or benefits raised.
If the Canada Pension Plan were revised and each province were able to operate its share of the pension fund independently of governments, pensioners no longer would be deprived of a fair return on their savings. However, such an arrangement could cause difficulties with respect to portability as individuals move between provinces. Under the national medicare plan, contributions vary from province to province and the same could apply under the Canada Pension Plan. To prevent pensioners from flocking to provinces paying the highest benefits, there would have to be some residence requirements so that, for example, a person would draw benefits from the province where he made the majority of his contributions for the last five years of his working career.
The beneficial effects of decentralised control as they could develop here are well known. The free market could provide very beneficial re* ults, not only to the pensioners, but to the Canadian economy as well. At the present, there is real irony in a situation which allows governments to disregard the best interests of pension plan contributors. After all, the only purpose of government should be to help its citizens, not unnecessarily harm them.
I think that what we have here is careless handling of the contributions of a great number of Canadians to a national program to which they have no choice but to belong, unless they happen to be members of the Old Order Mennonite Brethren or the Hutterian Brethren sects at the present time. The plan is compulsory. If you offend against the legislation, you should know what the penalty is in advance. I suggest there is no more public document than the statutes of Canada and that the penalty should be written into those statutes. The government should not be able to lend money at ridiculously low interest rates on the one hand, and be able arbitrarily to charge extremely high penalties against those who may, for any number of reasons, have neglected to make the contributions required under this generally compulsory piece of legislation.


Mr. Norval Horner (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my remarks with regard to this prescribed rate. It does not apply to a great deal of money, but I am concerned really with the principle of the matter, with the fact that the government insists on a prescribed rate rather than, as suggested in the motion, a rate of 7 per cent. The government appears to be preoccupied with high interest rates. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) pointed out in a speech made a week end or two ago, he is out to lick inflation. I think he used even stronger terms than that and said he practically had it licked already. He has said that before, so I suppose it is easy for him to do this. This follows the pattern of the increase in the interest rate of the Farm Credit Corporation on April 1 from 7 per cent to 8Vt per cent. I am sure the farm improvement loans people are very anxious for October 1 to come so they can increase the interest rate on farm machinery and equipment loans.
It is very unfortunate, but high interest rates that are intended to slow down inflation only work if the amount of money lent decreases. If the amount of money requested and granted continues to flow at the same very high rate, then a high interest rate is a real contributor to inflation rather than being something that slows down or stops inflation. High interest rates mean increased cost for
Canada Pension Plan
producers. Particularly at a time when everyone is concerned about the cost of food in Canada, we have the government actually increasing the cost of food by increasing the producers' cost of production. The producers are caught in a bind because they are trying to spend large sums of capital to bring down the cost per item, per bushel or whatever it is. These producers are faced with a labour shortage because people will not work in the agricultural industry. This government is really preoccupied with high interest rates and with trying to lick inflation by increasing the cost of money.
As the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) mentioned, each province is allowed to borrow money from the Canada Pension Plan fund at the low interest rate of 5 per cent. It is of interest to note that the government insists on having a prescribed rate in this legislation, yet provinces are able to borrow at 5 per cent. My own province of Saskatchewan appears to have borrowed almost every dollar the people of the province contributed to the fund. They borrowed $24 million in 1966-67, and in 1972-73 they borrowed from the fund $43.2 million, precisely the amount paid into the fund by the residents of Saskatchewan in the form of contributions.
If we are to get things back on the road and stop inflation, I doubt very much whether we can get food costs down by increasing production if we have a tight money supply and a high interest rate. This simply adds to the cost of everything produced. Thus, I caution the government against high interest rates in these areas. I think the people in the prairie provinces-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 apologize to the hon. member, but I have to interrupt him since it is four o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether there would be consent to continuing long enough to finish debate on motion No. 3.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, Mr. Speaker. My reason is that other members of parliament who do not happen to be here this Friday afternoon are also interested in the debate and should be given an opportunity to participate. If they had known the debate would continue, I am sure they would have been here. Since they are not here, I do not think we should take it upon ourselves to exclude them from contributing to the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Nonsense.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In your opinion, Stanley.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not unanimous consent, the Chair will call it four o'clock. The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills, private bills.

May 3, 1974
Electoral Boundaries


Mr. Foster:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of private members who have bills before the House to change the name of their ridings, namely, Bill C-277 and Bill C-281. I wonder whether we might deal with those two bills before going on to the notice of motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas). I think there is general agreement to do this, if it could be put to the House.


Mr. Thomas (Moncton):: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to accommodate the hon. members who have private bills, but on the understanding that it will be a very short debate and that we can then proceed with the debate that has been scheduled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make the same condition. We are prepared to agree to this, but I think in fairness to the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) it should be on the understanding that we put those two bills through their various stages without debate.


Mr. McKinley:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is quite agreeable. I want to assure Your Honour and the House that in the absence of the hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Frank) I have his written consent to move the bill on his behalf.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My understanding is that there is unanimous consent to proceed as suggested by hon. members who have taken part in the discussion on the point of order, that is, these bills be considered immediately, without debate, through all stages including committee of the whole.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson) has volunteered to act as Chairman of committee of the whole when we reach that stage in a moment.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mh. R. E. McKinley (Huron) moved that Bill C-277, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, why not do Bill C-281 at the same time?


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CHANGE IN CONSTITUENCY NAME FROM MIDDLESEX TO MIDDLESEX-LONDON-LAMBTON

Robert Elgin McKinley: that Bill C-281, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


Charles Humbert Thomas: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of appointing an independent commissioner to make a full evaluation of the benefits structure and financing of the Canadian National Railways pension fund, such evaluation containing recommendations on the benefits structure, including the retired pensioners, and methods of financing its benefits recommendations.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to ask for any concession in exchange for my co-operation, but I do hope the display of co-operation and efficiency we have just witnessed harbours the acceptance of my motion by the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Charles Humbert Thomas: I have one supporter anyway, Mr. Speaker. At the outset I want to emphasize that although in my motion I refer specifically to the CN pension plan, what I have to say is equally applicable to the Canadian Pacific pension plan and the CP pensioner. I would also point out that the severe restrictions placed on private members proposing anything that might be construed as a charge on the public purse hampered me considerably in the wording of my motion. Had I been sure that it would have been acceptable to the chair, I would have move that the government immediately appoint a commissioner, etc.
The minister has been considering the advisability of this for far too long. What the pensioner wants now is action to help offset the erosion of his pension by the increasing cost of living. When an opposition member files a notice of motion of this type, the odds are less than 50-50 that it will ever be debated. It must survive the draw and come out with a fairly high priority to have even a chance of coming up for debate. While my motion survived the lottery with a reasonable placing, I still felt that by the time it was called for debate the government would have ordered such an inquiry and this motion would be redundant.
May 3, 1974

Surely a government which professes such concern for the workingman would long ago have taken steps to order such an inquiry-an inquiry which was approved, in principle at least, by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) last August 31 when the House was discussing the back to work legislation. The minister has since then indicated many times in the House and at public meetings that he recognizes the necessity of such an inquiry and seemed prepared to appoint a commissioner. It appeared that action was imminent and that this motion would be a fait accompli.
On February 11, 1974, in Edmonton, the minister said:
I am giving full consideration to the calling of a complete inquiry into railway pensions. In scope, it would cover all the details of benefit cost and funding. Through this vehicle of inquiry, I would hope that the parties concerned would then be in possession of all the facts. Then when the bargaining is once again opened, they would be able to sit down at the bargaining table with the findings and recommendation at their disposal.
It is now very apparent that the minister is in no hurry to initiate such an inquiry, for on April 11 his parliamentary secretary, in the adjournment debate, made it very clear that the minister is prepared to toss the whole matter of pensions back to the railways and the unions before he makes any recommendation. This is a direct contradiction of the minister's statement to which I have just referred. The parties involved have argued the pension issue for years and have always ended up at loggerheads over the issue of cost. This is why the unions wanted the Deutsch terms of reference broadened to determine the costs of the various proposals and the ability of the fund to carry them.
Until these facts are known, what in the world is the point of starting further discussions-discussions, incidentally, at which the retired pensioner will not be represented? The minister seemed to recognize this when he said that only when both parties are in possession of all the facts should they again sit down at the bargaining table. By the minister's own admission, the parties involved must be supplied with further facts and figures. These can only come from a thorough investigation made by a completely independent person who is knowledgeable of pension funds. I cannot accept the minister's view, as stated by his parliamentary secretary, that the parties involved want further discussions.
Certainly from everything I have heard from the unions and the pensioner's associations they are fed up with discussion and now demand a completely independent inquiry. I strongly suspect that the minister is hedging, perhaps under pressure by the companies, and that he has no real intention of taking early action. Certainly from the mail I have been receiving from employees and pensioners there is no indication that these people want further discussion. They want action, now.
If the minister has his way, it would be a direct negation of the pious claims in respect of his government's concern for those whom inflation hits hardest, the pensioners on fixed incomes. The minister's colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), has recognized the necessity of adjusting pensions annually to meet the rising cost of living. Legislation recently passed to
CNR Pension Fund
remove the 2 per cent limit on annual escalation has enabled the government to adjust the pensions of people already retired to cover cumulative increases built up since their retirement. More than once in this House the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has proudly proclaimed that he has eased the burden of inflation for all federal pensioners by indexing the cost of living. But, whether deliberately or not, he consistently overlooks one large group who, for all practical purposes, have been federal employees but have not received the same treatment.
I refer, of course, to the thousands of retired railway employees and their widows or survivors. These people seem to be in limbo. The companies are no longer interested in them and the unions do not worry about them once they stop paying dues. One has only to look at the recent wage agreements: nowhere is there any mention of the retired pensioner. The reason is obvious: there was no one to speak for them. This is one reason I have never been happy about including pensions in the general negotiation. They should be negotiated separately with a third party, the pensioner, given full negotiating rights.
Lest any member think that relatively few are affected, I would refer to Hansard of May 1, 1974, and the answer to question No. 20. This return shows that 25,912 people are currently drawing CN pensions. Double this figure to allow for wives, and we have over 50,000 people directly involved-not counting, of course, the children who may be involved. Remember, this is the CN only. Other railway pensioners are not included. Now for the real shocker: 258 are receiving less than $25 a month, and 130 are getting $25 a month. So a total of 400 people are getting $25 a month or less. At today's inflated prices this would barely buy one bag of groceries.
Let us look a little further. We find that there are 6,096 pensioners, or almost 25 per cent of the total, getting less than $100 a month. Surely neither the CN nor the government can be very proud of this situation. But what is the minister's reaction to repeated requests for help for these people? Nothing more than to suggest further discussion between companies and unions with the pensioner out in the cold, literally and figuratively. But this is not too surprising in view of this government's track record of treatment of railway pensioners.
Admittedly, there have been some improvements. The 2 per cent retroactive escalation announced in 1972 and 1973, while not enough to offset the cost of living, was at least a start. But now that the legal restrictions have been removed there is nothing to prevent railway pensioners receiving full cost of living escalation similar to other retired federal employees. The minister's suggestion for further discussion will not remedy this situation.
Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to wonder if the government is trying to sucker us into settling for the proposal put forward in Bill C-139 in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Guay). Certainly the publicity given this bill far outweighs its importance as an instrument to improve the CN pension plan. Let us take a brief look at Bill C-139. It seeks to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act so that the CNR will no longer be required to meet the funding provisions. The bill quite obviously has its genesis as a result of statements made by Mr. MacMillan, then presi-

May 3, 1974
CNR Pension Fund
dent of CN, before the standing committee on transport last December. At that time, Mr. MacMillan stated that one reason CN pensions are not as good as civil service plans is that CN is required to fund its pensions annually while civil service plans are not. He inferred that if this situation were changed the CN plan would be improved. But, Mr. Speaker, when I tried to pin Mr. MacMillan down to a definite promise to improve the plan the following exchange took place:


Charles Humbert Thomas: But you are saying that if you did not have to comply with that act, you could improve your pension, so what would you do? How would you improve the pension.


Mr. MacMillan:: I think the removal of us from the requirement to comply with the Pension Benefits Standards Act would be for the purposes, presumably, of our pensions coming into line with the civil service pension and in those circumstances in so far as they lent themselves to commercial activity-and I do not know whether this is material or not, because I am not intimately familiar with the civil service fund-it would be exactly the same and the rules under which we would be operating our pension fund would be those which presumably apply today to the civil service fund.
If members of the House have gathered anything from this, I wish they would let me know what their interpretation is; but certainly it is hardly a promise to improve the pension fund. It is quite obvious that Mr. MacMillan did not commit the CN to increasing pension benefits if the funding provision was removed. His position was simply that if the CN was not obligated to fund its plan annually, it would be in a position to make improvements.
So while the objective of C-139 is commendable-and I support it fully-let us recognize it for what it is. It is not fair to raise the hopes of thousands of people, those who are mailing cards to their members of parliament asking for support of the bill because it will allow the CN to improve their pension plan. I would point out that there is a great difference between "allow" and "take action". We have no assurance that the CN, having been given this financial relief, will in turn reciprocate by increasing pension benefits. I would feel much more kindly disposed toward the bill if the government had introduced it as a government bill. Then it would have some clout.
Mr. Speaker, let us not be sidetracked by red herrings across the trail. Let us stop stalling and come to grips with the situation. There is no doubt in my mind that railway pensions must be improved. As Dr. Deutsch pointed out in his report, the object of any pension fund must be to protect the purchasing power of those who are contributing. This principle has been embodied in the Old Age Security Act, in family allowances and in pensions payable out of the consolidated revenue fund. It is only logical that it be extended to all public employees, be they in the public service or in Crown corporations. We must now extend the cost of living index escalation to the CN pensioner in the same way it has been granted to other public service pensioners. But, Mr. Speaker, we must not be satisfied with merely adjusting pensions annually to meet the cost of living. Many pensioners who have been retired for some years are trying to exist on pitifully low pensions. Surely in this age of social awarenesss we cannot let these people suffer. Their pensions should be increased substantially, immediately.

The report of the standing committee in 1970 suggested one means of financing improved benefits. It recommended that the surplus amortization payments, at that time $7 million, be used to improve pension benefits. This report was unanimously adopted by the House and I suggest that the government now instruct the CN to comply with its recommendations.
The commission I am requesting would make a complete investigation of pension benefits, and I would suggest the following changes in addition to the cost of living escalation mentioned earlier. All participants in the pension plan should be entitled to equal benefits; therefore, the 2 per cent formula should be retroactive to the first day of service. Survivor benefits should he increased to at least 75 per cent and should be extended to the survivors of the old provident fund members who do not receive any benefits. Surely some means can be found to relieve the plight of these unfortunate people. There should be provisions in the plan for early retirement without severe penalty, and there should be some mechanism for periodic review to keep the program abreast of changing conditions. Perhaps this could be done through separate negotiations in which the three parties involved, company, union and pensioner would participate.
Mr. Speaker, these changes are the minimum required to bring railway pensions up to the equivalent of public service plans. They will cost money. How much or where it is to come from is not for me to say. I am not going to get involved in the argument between company and union over the use or misuse of the funds. I listened to this for weeks during the committee hearings in 1970 and, frankly, I was just as confused when it was all over, as were most other members of the committee. This is a task which must be done by an independent team of experts in pension problems. As the Minister of Labour has said-
Matters concerning pensions, with their complex and intricate funding systems are often confusing, not only to the rank and file, but frequently to all but a small group of actuaries and administrators.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare, speaking to the Canadian pension conference last November, had this to say:
Since we are dealing with other people's hard earned money, dollars they are foregoing for present advantage in expectation of future protection during a much more vulnerable period, we owe it to our contributors to do not only what is minimally required, but what is maximally possible and feasible.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy that the Minister of Labour, in his remarks quoted earlier, has recognized the fact that reforms are necessary and because of the complexity of the problem outside expert advice is needed. Let him now heed the words of his colleague and do what is maximally possible and feasible. Let him keep faith with the railway employees and pensioners by immediately setting up the inquiry which he admits he has been considering for many months.


Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, first I would just like to point out that I have been paying into the pension fund since 1939, and when I was hired by the CNR I tried to emphasize that we should all do something with regard to pensions. At that time railway employees were interested
May 3, 1974

in two things: miles and money. When the war was on, the mileage clauses were abolished and the requirement was lor anywhere from 5,000 to 6,000 miles. The boys were not interested in pensions. This has been building up for years.
Our position on the matter is that further departmental consideration is required and that further discussions with the unions and the companies will be needed before a final decision can be made. In the latter case, the time involved in the continuing proceedings before Mr. Justice Hall is inhibiting discussions before they are arranged. The reason for this is that there were several suggestions in the Hall report. Mr. Justice Hall suggested that the unions and the company get together. This is what they are doing at present. They will take a look at pensions.
The government has been giving consideration to the advisability of appointing a commission of inquiry to review details of benefit costs and funding of pension plans covering Canadian railway employees in general, not just those employed by Canadian National Railways. A number of factors have to be weighed carefully before a final decision can be made. Not only is the Department of Labour involved, but also the Ministry of Transport through its general responsibility for Crown corporations in the transportation industry, and the department of insurance which administers the Pension Benefits Standards Act. This is the first time they have bargained for pensions. I disagree with this, but the hon. member sat in the committee with us and he knows that we lost the argument. I think it is wrong, for the simple reason that a general chairman who is bargaining for money might trade benefits for a few cents per hour increase in wages. I disagree with this because in the case of an employee who has been around for 35 or 40 years, any union representative who wants to go up the union ladder should be separate from the contract because pensions are pensions and certainly should not be the subject of bargaining in this case.
In addition, a collective bargaining relationship is concerned involving national railway negotiating groups and railway companies. A number of railway pension plan improvements have been instituted over the years. The most recent improvements resulted for the first time from a collectively bargained agreement and railway union leaders obtained significant advances for their members. However, areas of concern still remain and the following categories of complaint have been made to the Department of Labour and are listed in their order of importance. First, improvement of the 2 per cent benefit from the date of hiring rather than from 1956. Second, cost of living provision so that pensions are adjusted based on increased cost of living. Third, increased benefits for persons presently in receipt of pensions. Fourth, an increase above the present 50 per cent for survivor benefits.
All these points have merit and union leadership will no doubt pursue them in future rounds of bargaining. However, all these points have their cost and this has to be taken into account when bargaining improvements. The complexities of the costing of pension benefits is demonstrated by the need found in the recent railway arbitration proceedings to refer an examination of cost figures to a separate inquiry under Dr. John Deutsch. Some railway
CNR Pension Fund
workers believe that pension benefits should not be bargained as such and that more could be obtained by relying on the previous system under which pensions were a distinct issue and not bargained. However, the recently bargained improvements have given railway workers pension plans which are in some ways among the best to be found in Canadian industry. In any event, to bargain or not is really an issue for the unions and their membership to decide themselves under the democratic means provided in their constitutions.
A number of individual railway workers do not fully understand the financing and funding of pension plans, and with regard to many of the figures that the hon. member quoted I may say that many of these people did not even pay into the pension fund. The Pension Standards Benefits Act requires a certain level of funding which will ensure the viability of pension plans in federal industries. Such viability entails provision for participants in the plan being assured of benefits they have paid for being available, irrespective of what happens to the company concerned.
While it is not suggested that the CNR is in danger of going out of business, to remove it from the requirements of the act would have implications for other companies in the public and private sectors, including those outside the railway industry. Naturally, the requirement to fund under the act results in sizeable accumulations of assets, particularly in large-scale companies, and some individuals feel such assets could be used to improve benefits. However, to use such assets would defeat the purpose of the act, which is to provide a fund to ensure viability.
In addition, some believe that large-scale companies can provide for improved benefits, without touching funded assets, just because they are large. In the case of Crown corporations it is felt that additional financing could be provided from public sources where necessary. However, as mentioned before, pensions do have costs. Normal business principles must be applied. The public purse can only provide so much. Likewise, private companies have their financial limitations. Furthermore, to provide benefits in the CNR which would seriously distort the relationship with benefits in other major companies, particularly the CPR, could have serious repercussions for industrial peace.
In brief, pension plans available to CNR employees, and to CPR employees for that matter, provide good benefits in relation to those offered in comparable plans. Areas for improvement exist, but future bargaining will likely take these into account along with other demands that railway workers might make. An inquiry could provide useful information to the parties involved. Consideration is being given to the establishment of such an inquiry, but a number of interdepartmental factors are being weighed. Also, as has been pointed out in the House, certain aspects of the 1973 railway arbitration proceedings are still under way and are involving both companies and unions in a heavy workload.
Regarding the history of Canadian National Railways pension plans, before 1935 the company operated a noncontributory pension plan which provided a benefit of 1
2034

May 3, 1974
CNR Pension Fund
per cent of the highest ten consecutive years' earnings, for each year of service, with a minimum of $25 per month. In 1935 the company introduced a new plan which preserved the previous plan's benefits as a past service benefit based on service before 1935, and the highest ten years' earnings before 1935. The minimum pension of $25 per month was preserved for pre-1935 employees and for employees hired after January 1, 1935, who were not past age 45. The new plan provided for employee contributions up to 10 per cent of earnings by employees with ten years' service, with up to 5 per cent matched by the company. These contributions, plus interest, would provide an amount which could be purchased on approved actuarial tables.
On January 1, 1947, this plan was amended to provide for employee contributions in the first ten years, but with no contributions from the company during that period. On January 1, 1952, the plan was again amended by adding to the foregoing part I the following alternative part II:
For a contribution of 5 per cent of earnings an employee would receive a percentage of his last five or ten years' earnings, whichever was higher. The percentage was the total of (i) one per cent a year for the first 20 years, (ii) one and a quarter per cent a year for the next ten years and 1 id per cent for each extra year.
All employees at January 1, 1952, were allowed to transfer to part II and new employees could transfer within the first ten years. To receive full credit for service after 1934, the employee had to pay 5 per cent of earnings back to 1934 or date of hire. However, a reduced pension was payable if the full arrears were not met. I should like to say at this time that all the union officials went across the country and we pleaded with CNR employees to pay into the pension scheme. I had to pay back 9V4 years myself. Employees retiring before January 1, 1952, were allowed to have their pensions recalculated under the part II formula. More than half of the employees did not elect to transfer in 1952. Many continued to qualify only for the minimum pension.
The part II rules were revised in 1959. Contributions of 5 per cent to part II became compulsory for new employees after January 1, 1959. All employees at December 31, 1958, not under part II were given one year to transfer to part II. The earnings base was revised to the last 60 months or any five consecutive years, whichever is larger. Part II was amended on January 1, 1961, to provide for deferred pensions on termination with 15 years' service, where service plus age totalled 60 or more.
On April 1, 1962, the Pension accumulation rate was amended to 1!4 per cent a year for the first 30 years and 1 Vi per cent for each extra year. Contributions were increased to 5'A per cent of earnings. On June 1, 1965, the accumulation rate was revised to 1 Vi per cent for each year. The contribution rate was increased to 6lA per cent. On January 1, 1966, the plan was revised to co-ordinate with the Canada and Quebec pension plans. The benefit remained at 1 Vz per cent for service before 1966. After January 1, 1966, the benefit became 1 per cent for earnings covered under the CPP or QPP, and 1 Vi per cent for earnings not covered. The contribution rate became 5 per cent on covered earnings under the public plans, and per cent on excess earnings.
The Standing Committee on Transport and Communications dealt with the question of the Canadian National Railways' pension fund and tabled its fourteenth report on

September 9, 1970. Further improvements to the CN plan were made during the time the standing committee was holding hearings and following this report. These recommendations were as follows.
1.	Effective January 1, 1971, the pensions of 1959 plan employees retired before 1970 were increased by 2 per cent per year since retirement. The basic pensions of 1935 plan employees retired before 1970 were increased by 100 per cent for employees retired before 1966 and by lesser percentages for those retired after 1965. Survivors under the 1959 and 1935 plans received comparable increases. The company estimated the costs of these improvements at $5.2 million per annum from January 1, 1971.
2.	Pensions paid on early retirement occurring after October 1, 1970, were no longer subject to reduction if retirement took place at or after age 60. For retirements before age 60 the reduction was related to the employee's potential service to age 60, and not 65 as previously. The eligibility conditions for early retirement were unchanged. The company estimated this improvement to cost $1.45 million per annum.
3.	Beginning September 1, 1970, for the period up to October 31, 1971, active members of the 1935 plan and retired employees who had been contributing members of the 1935 plan were given the option of joining the 1959 plan. Of approximately 18,000 union members canvassed, 9,000 transferred to the 1959 plan. The additional annual cost of this provision is estimated at $6.6 million.
4.	Age and service limitations were eliminated for employees killed in the performance of their duties.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend most warmly the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) on presenting this motion this afternoon. I also congratulate him for making an excellent speech. As for the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner), I liked the parts of his speech where he was speaking for himself and as an employee of Canadian National Railways. I cannot say that I was so enthusiastic about the statement that he seemed to be giving us, the effect of which was to excuse the delay of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) in keeping his commitment to appoint a commissioner along the lines suggested in the motion of the hon. member for Moncton.
May I join with the hon. member for Moncton in stressing the point that although his motion refers to Canadian National Railways and to the pension fund of that organization, so far as those of us who are interested are concerned, we think of the motion as including the Canadian Pacific Railway, the old ICR, the Northern Alberta Railways, perhaps the Ontario Northland, and any other railways there are in this country.


An hon. Member:: The B.C. Railway?


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right, add the British Columbia Railway as well. We are concerned about the pensions of railway employees in Canada for whatever railway they worked or are working.
The hon. member for Moncton pointed out that the Minister of Labour made a statement on this matter in
May 3, 1974

Edmonton on ^February 11 when he indicated his readiness to appoint a commissioner to make a thorough study of railway pensions in their entirety. That was not the first time the Minister of Labour had made that commitment. The first time was on the floor of this House at the end of August, 1973, when we were dealing with the railway strike that was then in progress. The very day that the minister announced the appointment of Dr. John Deutsch as commissioner on a very narrow point having to do with the strike we pressed him to enlarge Dr. Deutsch's terms of reference, or for the appointment of another commissioner to go into the whole broad question of railway pensions.
I think it is not unfair to the minister to say that he agreed on that occasion and asked us to wait until the strike was over. He did agree, however, to the appointment of a commissioner who would have broad terms of reference having to do with railway pensions as a whole. The minister first made that commitment in the House at the end of August, 1973, and he made it again in Edmonton on February 11, 1974. He made it on two other occasions in this House in answer to questions of mine, once on March 11 and again on March 22, and he made it again in my hearing at a meeting of railway pensioners in Winnipeg on Sunday, March 24.
I have to say that every time the Minister of Labour has made this commitment he has done a certain amount of hedging and has asked for time, for the opportunity to discuss it further with the companies and the unions; but even so, the promise was always there. The recommendation has been made that this is the sort of thing that is necessary, and the hon. member for Moncton has underlined it. this afternoon. I think, Mr. Speaker, there should not be any further delay in the appointment of such a commissioner. I hope, for example, that the Canadian National Railways any day now will announce its 1974 cost of living escalation and that it will be equal to the full percentage rise in the cost of living. Even after that has been done it is not the end of the story. That is just one item and there are all the other matters relating to railway pensions that in my view need to be gone into by an independent commissioner. The very history of the Canadian National Railways pension fund given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour is not only interesting but it demonstrates that the plan has been built up like Topsy, and that it deserves a very thorough review.
Mr. Speaker, this is private members' hour when we have to watch the clock and make sure, not only that we do not talk the motion out but that we do not make it easy for someone else to talk it out-so I am going to cut short my remarks. As Your Honour knows, when I get on the subject of pensions it is difficult to terminate my remarks. But the hon. member for Moncton put the case very well today and I simply underline what he said. I think that probably the first thing that needs to be done is to get an escalation of the pensions of those now retired, for 1974. It must be equal to the full rise in the cost of living and it must come soon. When the Canadian National Railways do it, by gad the CPR had better do it too, even if we have to get Pierre Berton into the act. Perhaps he could help us.
After that has been dealt with, there is the question of the basic formula by which pensions are calculated. The
CNR Pension Fund
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour went over the details of how it has been changed, in the case of the CNR, from a non-contributory formula down through the various forms, and the difference between l'A per cent, 114 per cent and 1 per cent. In my view, there is no substitute for a pension that provides for at least 2 per cent for each yeai of service back to the beginning-no ifs, ands or buts about it. Even after we have a proper formula for the calculation of pensions, there is the point that the hon. member for Moncton raised, and this was dealt with in the standing committee a few years ago, to the effect that many of those who are now on pension need not only an escalation of what they are getting but the basic calculation needs to be done again. The hon. member for Moncton pointed out that we have pinpointed a way in which this can be done. We pointed to certain millions of dollars that were available and we said even before arriving at a new formula that those on low pensions should have them increased. As I say, we showed where there were millions of dollars that could be used for this purpose.
Then there is the question of survivors' pensions. I have the feeling we are making headway in terms of getting public support for this idea. A few years ago it was accepted that widows on pensions, if they were given them at all, were given 50 per cent. But that is not acceptable any longer. Even now, when we say it should be at least 75 per cent, I say why not 100 per cent? If a pension has been earned by one spouse, why should it be cut to 50 per cent after death? Why should it not continue at full value, whatever spouse survives? I think this point has to be stressed very strongly. I do not see how we in this place, where we have a plan that provides 60 per cent for our widows, can countenance a pension of only 50 per cent for survivors of pensioners of the railways.
I think early retirement plans have to be reviewed and I think the relationship among railway pensions, the Canada Pension Plan and old age security, where there is integration, needs to be sorted out. That gets us back to the whole point of the motion before us this afternoon, namely, that this commissioner should be appointed. That is what the hon. member for Moncton asked for in his motion, and that is what the Minister of Labour promised this House last August-a promise which he reaffirmed in Edmonton on February 11, gave us again on March 11 and on March 22, and which I heard him enunciate in Winnipeg on March 24. I do not think there should be any further delay in the appointment of that commissioner, Mr. Speaker.


Samuel Victor Railton: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to speak on this motion after such excellent proponents of a pension scheme for Canadians in general and railway employees in particular have put their ideas before us. I have heard three excellent speeches, each one different because of the backgrounds of the speakers.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is an expert on pensions. I have listened to him both in the House and in committee with interest and respect. I do not think he has said anything today with which I could disagree. In the same way, the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) has championed the need of CNR employees for proper pension plans, and I think most of his statements are also fairly acceptable. The hon.
2036

May 3, 1974
CNR Pension Fund
member for London East (Mr. Turner) did an excellent job of reviewing the history of the whole matter.
There are so many facets to this whole question of pensions that if we plumped for this investigation or inquiry into the Canadian National employees' pensions it would not necessarily follow that it would look after employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway and all the other railways that come into the picture in Canada. I do not think this is a high enough term of reference. The whole question of railway employees should be looked at in a comprehensive manner and not narrowed down to employees of one company.
What is more, this inquiry is not only a matter of railway pensions. That is a very narrow view to take. Railway pensions are a very small part of the whole pension scheme in Canada. Railway pensions at the present time indirectly come under the aegis of the Department of Labour, although CNR is a Crown corporation. There are other matters that must fit into each other and make them dovetail. We have the instance of the unions and employees in general.
I have been talking to union representatives in my constituency. Although they are not railway unions, they have the same problems. They are pushing for proper wages and pensions for their union members. I have taken up their representations with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). Their questions were mainly about how their company plans for pension on retirement fit in with the Canada Pension Plan and old age security in general plus the guaranteed income supplement. They were worried about the possibility of a reduction in the amount of GIS. That is a very big question which worries everyone.
As we get further along with our social security program in the next few years we will realize that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been pushing for a very good point, namely, a guaranteed annual income for Canadians and lowering of the pensionable age. I am in favour of both. However, you cannot take them out of context with the other types of retirement plans, both private and those of industrial companies. The main point is not just saying we have to raise pensions to give people more money on which to retire. That has to be part of a comprehensive review of the over-all picture of inflation in the economy in general as well as the size of contributions, the rise in the cost of living and the rise in the inflationary rate. A great many things have to come into this discussion which I have not mentioned at all today.
With regard to the question of social security, as hon. members know there has been a gradual increase over the past few years. We have made a great surge forward by recognizing the needs of people through the increasing cost of living. The government has taken cognizance of these facts. Under the Minister of National Health and Welfare we have not only had the introduction of the bills which members know about, but the increase in the old age pension and the indexing. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) comes into the picture with a reduction in the number of people on the income tax rolls and increased deductions. In other words, it has been made much easier for people when they reach retirement age.
It is important to realize that the aim of the Minister of National Health and Welfare is to take a very comprehensive view of the whole matter of social security. His working paper, the orange booklet which members know about, indicates that he is taking a comprehensive view. We will be debating many recommendations contained in it. The situation will certainly change from time to time and from year to year. There is no such thing as a perfect act or policy, but it is important that we have a stable approach to the policies which envisage an improvement in our social security scheme.
On the question of railway pensions, you cannot get away from the fact that there must be a comprehensive review of the whole problem and how it relates to unions. The unions have good advice for the employees. After the rail strike settlement last summer there was good arbitration. The railway workers returned to work. They are as good citizens as you or I. They simply felt they were not being properly looked after. One of the reasons the minister has not instituted this over-all review of all the railways in the pension plan is that some things are still coming out of the arbitration process. These are being discussed with the unions and employers. In my opinion, the hon. member is quite wrong in calling for this-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. It being five o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order this House stands adjourned until two o'clock on Monday afternoon.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday May 6, 1974