1975-05-30

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the shockingly bad attendance on the ministerial benches because of 'flu or Friday-


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Your benches are not exactly crowded. It is not exactly standing room only over there.


Gerald William Baldwin: -on the ministerial benches by people who have a duty to be there-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Twenty-three Tories in the House right now!


Gerald William Baldwin: -I should like to address this question to the Acting Prime Minister, the compendium of all knowledge.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Dinsdale:: Take it easy.


Mr. Drury:: The first sensible word you have uttered so far.


Gerald William Baldwin: In the last few weeks, Canadians have become increasingly aware of the tainted meat issue. It now appears they are being faced with tainted statistics. In the light of the fact that the average housewife sees her food cost rising at a far greater rate than. portrayed by Statistics Canada, will the minister instruct Statistics Canada to consult with the Food Prices Review Board and together establish a food index which more accurately illustrates the rising food prices for the average Canadian family?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: In case the interjections did not get on the record, may I say there are a number of ministers away today on official business. I hope there are enough Tories on the other side to ask sufficient questions.


John Napier Turner: Only 23 present!


Mitchell William Sharp: Since there are only 23 of them here, I am afraid they will have to double up to meet their responsibilities.
The Bureau of Statistics does expect to list a representative basket of food items on the basis of which to make its calculations. This is always subject to review, and I am sure the bureau has been reviewing the situation constantly. This has been its practice in the past and I am sure it will be in the future.


Gerald William Baldwin: In the light of the fact that all indicators point to a substantial increase in food prices in the next few months, and since the Statistics Canada survey of prices is about two months old, would the minister instruct Statistics Canada to improve and speed up its procedures so Canadian housewives can be provided with accurate and up to date information?


Mitchell William Sharp: These are very difficult statistical problems. I believe our index of consumer prices is a reasonably good one. Though I do not think the Bureau of Statistics would claim it is representative of every family, it represents an attempt to achieve an average. I do not think there is any need to issue any such instruction to the bureau as the hon. member has suggested. They are certainly concerned about their professional competence.


SUGGESTED PUBLICATION BY FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD OF MONITORING FOOD BASKETS IN TWELVE CITIES
Gerald William Baldwin: My request was with regard to time. The minister might bear that in mind. I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In light of the moderating effect that the publication of the results of the monitoring of certain food baskets by the Food Prices Review Board has had in Ottawa, would the minister instruct the Food Prices Review Board to publish similar statistics for the 12 cities they are already monitoring?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take up the matter with the president of the commission.
6276

May 30, 1975
Oral Questions


AGRICULTURE
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is related to the tabling today by the Food Prices Review Board of its special study on potatoes and its recommendations, particularly those directed toward the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the statement in the report this morning that the board rejects mandatory supply controls as a method of stabilizing supply swings and instead recommends a potato market information organization and a contributory income insurance program that will be operated by the federal government, is the minister in essential agreement with the conclusions and recommendations of the Food Prices Review Board? What steps will he take to implement those recommendations?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, from the beginning I said that we would be establishing a federal-provincial potato study committee, and that has been established. It is holding discussions to try to work out what kind of program can be developed for the potato producers. I have said that it should be a one-desk selling system. I have not had time to read the report that was put out by the Food Prices Review Board, but they have been wrong many times in the past. I am not saying they are wrong this time because they have also been right many times in the past.


POTATOES-REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATIVES FROM ATLANTIC REGION TO COMMITTEE STUDYING MARKETING
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am glad that the minister is keeping an open mind in this situation, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps for him it may be the triumph of hope over experience. As a supplementary question, may I ask him whether, in light of the fact that some of the recommendations apply to more than just departments of agriculture, either federally or provincially, particularly in the area of increasing transportation difficulties and the present tariff problems with the United States, the minister will be adding to his committee representatives from the Atlantic transportation commission, which is presently studying this issue, as well as from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in order that a full and effective decision can be made with respect to the recommendations put forward today?


Eugene Whelan: I think the recommendations are obvious ones, Mr. Speaker. No committee would be that naive not to take them into consideration because they are so obvious. I do not know whether I should congratulate the Food Prices Review Board for putting the obvious into their report or suggesting the obvious, but any committee of any intelligence at all would be suggesting and studying that matter.


POTATOES-POSSIBILITY OF COMMITTEE ON MARKETING INVESTIGATING COST OF PRODUCTION
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, may I put one supplementary question to the minister. In regard to the terms of reference of this committee, will it have authority to look into input costs of production as well as merely the marketing of the product?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, again this would be a natural thing for them to do. With regard to the tariffs, if the Food Prices Review Board have experts on tariffs we would certainly appreciate hearing from them. Tariff discussions are going on at the present time in Geneva with regard to this very commodity.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The media in my constituency have mentioned a report commissioned by the minister to look into problems faced by consumers in the north. Specifically the news broadcasts mentioned the dumping of hazardous products which have been banned by the department into the northern market. Is the minister prepared to table this report?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I shall look into the matter. I am sorry, but I am not up to date on this matter. I shall find out whether the report can be tabled and, if so, I shall be glad to table it.


REASON FOR FAILURE TO ENFORCE HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS REGULATIONS SIMULTANEOUSLY IN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN PARTS OF COUNTRY
Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the minister. In view of the fact that products such as certain models of Sony television sets and children's bubble bath, which have been labelled hazardous by the department, were on the shelf for a considerable period of time after they had been removed from the southern market, can the minister explain to the House why the department's regulations were not enforced simultaneously in the northern and southern parts of the country?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I cannot. I shall check and give the hon. member an answer later on.


Walter (Wally) Firth: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister prepared to commit more of the resources of his department in the future to the task of ensuring that
May 30, 1975

northern consumers are afforded the same protection as consumers in the south?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, obviously, my department would like to give all Canadians equal services, regardless of where they live. Still, as all other departments, mine has budgetary constraints.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General of Canada. Can he tell the House whether he has read the resolution of the Chamber of Commerce of Abitibi requesting that a referendum be held on capital punishment at the time of the next election; and also tell us whether he considers that request reasonable which would allow the Canadian people to express their wishes with regard to that very special matter?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have received a copy of the resolution passed by the Chamber of Commerce of Abitibi on this subject. I can only say to the hon. member that it is not our tradition to have that type of referendum on important subjects. Parliaments are elected to deal with these matters.


SUGGESTED INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION ON GUN CONTROL-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the increase in the numbers of culpable and non-culpable homocides by the use of firearms, will the Solicitor General now move from his study process and bring forth for examination a bill to restrict certain guns and control others?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as I have pointed out to the House on several occasions, we do have a special group within our department studying the present laws in order to make recommendations for reform and amendment. We are also having a meeting in Ottawa on Monday and Tuesday of next week of firearm registrars in order to get their opinions on these matters. While I want to speed up the report on this subject, I think we should recognize that this is a complicated matter and there are no simple solutions or panaceas. I think it is better to wait a few months and do the proper thing rather than do something just for show right away.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that Mr. Stevens said in the Globe and Mail that the minister said the same thing a year ago, does he not think he now has enough data, facts and evidence in reference to culpable and non-culpable homocides to bring forth a bill that is practical, realistic and workable?
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the date in that report is correct. I do know we started this study several months ago, and because of certain serious crimes committed recently with guns we have upgraded the status of that particular working group and have established a date for the completion of its report. We hope to have that report by the middle of the summer.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, as the Governor of the Bank of Canada appears to be prepared to allow interest rates, including mortgage rates, to rise as a mechanism for enforcing anti-inflationary discipline upon the economy, will the Minister of Finance tell the House whether he agrees with the Governor's position and, in that circumstance, whether he would approve such an increase in the cost of money, bearing in mind the consequences such a policy will have on housing demands and business investment intentions?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Governor of the bank pointed out in his recent address to the Life Underwriters' Association that he contemplated an expansion in the money supply sufficient to accommodate expansion in the economy, but not an amount that would provoke inflation. The hon. member really ought to make up his mind. He has spent a good deal of time during the past few weeks worrying about overexpansion in the money supply. Obviously, if there is to be any discipline of the money supply, interest rates will be affected.


SUGGESTED ASSISTANCE TO SECTORS OF ECONOMY AFFECTED BY HIGH INTEREST RATES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance had made up his mind a little earlier he might have been able to introduce a budget prior to June 23. In any event, if it is decided by the government that higher interest rates are required, does the minister propose to initiate any special assistance to sectors of the economy such as housing, which will be particularly hard hit by a higher interest rate structure?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is dealing with budgetary matters and he will have an opportunity to express his views shortly.


REQUEST FOR ESTIMATE OF CASH DEFICIT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, with government cash balances having fallen $1.2 billion since January and, as the minister has indicated, our cash deficits this year will be $3 billion, will the minister indicate if that is still his estimate of our cash deficit, bearing in mind the foreseeable unemployment insurance deficit and
29561-53/4

May 30, 1975
Oral Questions
the possible falloff in future tax revenues due to the current recession?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will be giving a precise; statement on the cash balances of the government on June 23 and the projected cash deficit.


AGRICULTURE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture who is in charge of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration. According to the press today Howard Ernest Buchan, chief of field operations for the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, is to appear in magistrate's court on a charge of defrauding the federal government. According to an inspector of the Mounted Police the charges relate to the 1974 federal election campaign and favours and pay-offs to PFAA employees with Liberal sympathies. In the absence of the Minister of Justice, who is the minister of elections for the Liberal party in Saskatchewan, I ask the Minister of Agriculture what about this charge; are other charges to be laid and, in particular, because this investigation has been going on since December or perhaps prior thereto was Mr. Buchan suspended pending the result of the preliminary hearing and/or his trial.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether Mr. Buchan has been suspended, but in any event his term of office is up either the first or the end of July.


An hon. Member:: He is going to the Senate.


Eugene Whelan: I wish to make it plain that I did not hire him. As I said earlier, if there is any wrongdoing let the courts take the proper procedure. I just received this report yesterday. I have not issued any instructions concerning whether he should be suspended. I will be meeting with my officials this afternoon.


John George Diefenbaker: I will return to this subject on Monday. The jovial minister is always here and I know he will be around. I notice that at the preliminary hearing the Crown apparently made the request that this charge be set for June 12, the day after the provincial election. Is there any significance in that fact?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this minister certainly would not interfere with the decisions of the courts or the police.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask some general policy questions about the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the UN meeting on criminology. In the absence of the Prime Minister and in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I guess I am stuck with the House leader.


An hon. Member:: And we are stuck with you, Al.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: In light of the revelations as long ago as May 9 that the government of Ontario made representations to this government and to the Prime Minister that it would be displeased if the PLO was admitted to the conference in Toronto this summer, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if a reply has yet been given the Premier of Ontario by the Prime Minister. If not, when will it be forthcoming? Will we be advised about this? Is the government still adamant in its stand that any invitation extended by the United Nations automatically will permit any such terrorist group to come to Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that a reply has yet been sent because the government has been looking very carefully at this question. As the hon. gentleman knows, we are host to a UN conference; we do not invite the members. There is a problem, however, with which we are now trying to cope, which is that we do not allow terrorists into this country under our immigration proceedings. This is a very difficult problem which I am sure my hon. friend understands. We have a responsibility as a member of the United Nations to observe the organization's rules. We also have a responsibility not to allow terrorists into this country. It is a very difficult problem and one that I am sure my hon. friend understands and would not want to exploit.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: As usual, the House leader is making assumptions he should not be making.
In view of the apparent contradiction between the prohibited class as outlined in the House the other day by the minister whose responsibility it is to speak on these matters, and in view of what the Acting Prime Minister has now indicated, could he advise the House when the government could undertake to terminate this contradiction, whether there will be a determination of government policy, and if the government, out of courtesy if nothing else, could advise us whether there would be an opportunity for us to discuss the matter when the decision is made and certainly when a reply is given to the Premier of Ontario?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the hon. gentleman knows, this conference is to be held in September. We have to make our decision soon. I am sure it will be conveyed to the House and the public, if the House is then in session. I do not know whether I can undertake to promise that there would be a discussion in the House. There are many
May 30, 1975

opportunities to exploit the issue, as the hon. member is doing now.


INQUIRY WHETHER UNITED NATIONS INFORMED CANADA DOES NOT WELCOME REPRESENTATIVES OF TERRORIST GROUPS
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has the United Nations been informed by the minister, by his department or by anybody in the government that, generally speaking, terrorist representatives in Canada are not welcomed and a member of that prohibited class would have to make an application to enter Canada, UN meeting or no?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the information I conveyed to the House the other day was that the PLO has been decreed as being an organization the members of which are prohibited. But there is a provision in the law under which a minister's permit can be issued for a temporary entry for specific purposes where no danger is involved, and that is a judgment that has to be exercised. I am not aware of any specific communication to the UN about this to date, but I am of the mind that the UN may be familiar with those conditions. However, as the Acting Prime Minister has indicated, this is the situation at present, and the policy is being reviewed.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that nurses belonging to the Public Service Union of Canada went on strike at midnight last night in the Yukon, that this strike will likely spread to all parts of Canada within the next week, that these nurses are making extremely reasonable demands in that they are looking for parity with their counterparts in the provinces, and that they have indicated that they would accept either a one year contract or a contract which includes a COLA clause, will the President of the Treasury Board tell the House if he is prepared to instruct his negotiators to make an offer which is more in line with the demands of the nurses and comparable to settlements being made in the provinces?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, this group of public service professionals has had the right to strike for several weeks. There have been isolated strikes across Canada in this regard. The government position is clear. There has been a unanimous conciliation report. The union spokesman, the government representative and the president of the conciliation board have all submitted a unanimous report that was accepted by the government. Naturally, when a union
Oral Questions
spokesman accepts a report, I would be ill-advised to contravene it.


John R. Rodriguez: I have just returned from the Yukon, and the nurses I have spoken with are extremely reasonable people, and the community in the Yukon is completely behind the nurses. Is the minister prepared to reconsider his obviously unacceptable decision, which will only result in hardship for the nurses and the patients?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Everyone in Canada knows that I am a very reasonable man, too.


REPORT OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION INDICATING VIOLATIONS OF MERIT PRINCIPLE IN APPOINTMENTS- GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board, and it has to do with the annual report released by the Public Service Commission. That report indicates that one out of every four appointments in the civil service, and I am quoting from the report, "may constitute an actual or potential violation of the merit principle". In addition to this there are another 2,754 cases cited as failures to carry out the administrative directives issued by the commission. In view of these statements and reports by a reputable commission, is the minister carrying out an investigation to ensure that the integrity of the public service has not been violated, particularly with respect to the merit principle in the hiring and promotion of public servants?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the instructions are specific on the subject. There may have been some cases of violation, as was stated in the report, but they were not voluntary. Directives on the subject are clear and specific. Naturally, the hon. member is entitled to question the chairman of the Public Service Commission if he wishes to obtain further explanations on the subject.


Walter David Baker: Unfortunately, the chairman of the Public Service Commission is not in the House this afternoon to put questions to, but the President of the Treasury Board is. Would the minister then advise the House what steps were taken or will be taken to rectify this? Has he caused any investigation to be made of this to see whether the merit principle has in fact been violated, to what extent it has been violated and who has suffered as a result of the violation? Is the minister planning any investigation at all, or does he intend just to slough this off on the chairman of the Public Service Commission.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not in charge of the Public Service Commission. The directives concerning the

May 30, 1975
Oral Questions
merit principle are well-established when it comes to hiring federal employees. We do our utmost so that the principle be respected. But the Public Service Commission is a body totally independent of my administration and directly answerable to the House of Commons.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. As the minister's department is studying whether the manufacture of aerosol cans should be prohibited in Canada, and as the proposed Anglo-French Concorde jet is to be flown into Canada, will the minister also investigate the United States study which claims that these supersonic jets could also pollute the atmosphere and cause increased skin cancer like the freon gas from aerosol cans?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the danger referred to by the hon. member has been signalled. We are not yet certain whether this danger is real. We are just making studies on the use of this gas in spray containers to see whether they change in the atmosphere or not. This summer, in August, the department will make an experiment in the Arctic, because it is the area with the thinnest ozone layer, to measure this gas which can be suspended in the atmosphere. As for Concorde flights, the hon. member knows that Concorde has not yet been cleared to fly above Canadian territory. Therefore, although this problem is important, neither I nor the Department of Transport have promulgated rules about this.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In late March I posed questions in respect of rumours regarding the elimination of the RCMP marine patrol service of Canada. The minister seemed to be unaware of such a retrograde step at that time. Following this, in a letter to me the minister confirmed that the present vessels would be replaced by 20 foot skiffs. In light of the many objections which have been received concerning this matter, would the minister consider having this decision reversed?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out to the hon. member in the letter I sent to him, this change was made as a result of a study carried out by the RCMP. The study indicated that better service could be given by smaller boats which were more mobile and which could be supported by aircraft. This was an

administrative decision taken by the RCMP and not a policy decision of mine as minister. In response to the question by the hon. member, I have not received very many complaints. I have received a few, but a very small number.


Robert Muir: In view of statements by former senior marine personnel that skiffs are simply not the answer to marine police and rescue work in Canada's coastal and great lakes environments, and that the use of skiffs would be like sending a boy out on a man's errand, would the minister investigate and report to the House who the marine and seafaring people are within the force who recommended this move to the government? In view of the fact that the minister said this was to save money, would he not consider the saving of lives to be more important than saving a few dollars?


William Warren Allmand: I do not think the purpose of the change was to save money. It was to bring about a more effective policing system within the RCMP. The larger boats could not be used on inland lakes and waterways, whereas the smaller boats could. They can be transported, so they can be used both on the sea and on inland waters. I might say that these suggestions were made after a long study of the subject by people who are supposed to be experts. I do not have the names, but I will try to find out who they were.
I must point out as well that there are other services within the federal government which provide help at sea, such as the coastguard, the Fisheries Department, and so on. They have vessels which are working in this area as well.


FINANCE
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. With respect to the 10 per cent excise tax on privately owned aircraft and motor driven pleasure boats, which was part of the November budget, will the minister now advise as to what degree this tax has limited oil consumption in Canada?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will have to consult with my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but I would hope it had some result.


John Allen Fraser: In view of the fact that small boat consumption of petroleum fuel in Canada is less than one half of one per cent of the total Canadian petroleum consumption, can the minister advise whether it is the view of the government that it is necessary and practical to persist with this tax and whether it will result in any significant conservation of Canadian oil? The tax does appear to be illogical and discriminatory.


John Napier Turner: Every tax has a certain arbitrary feature to it, as the hon. gentleman knows. In terms of the policy of conservation, the government is
May 30,1975

Oral Questions
reviewing every method to attempt to conserve petroleum [English]
and natural gas resources in this country.	UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


John Allen Fraser: Would the minister, with his other colleagues, please consider the discriminatory effect of this tax on small boat owners and private aircraft owners as opposed to the great many other uses to which the gasoline engine is put in this country, keeping in mind the relatively small amount of fuel consumed in this area?


John Napier Turner: This matter, of course, was debated thoroughly in committee of the whole when the bills pursuant to the November budget were before the committee. The hon. member will recall that the scope of the tax was reduced as a result of those committee discussions.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. As actual net proceeds derived from the sales of Olympic stamps and coins on March 31, 1975, totalled only $22.3 million, far below the projected ultimate $260 million, as only one year is left before the Olympics and as the shortfall is likely to add even more to the already exorbitant deficit Montreal faces, can the minister advise this House if the cabinet has decided to supplement the existing program, perhaps by minting a gold coin piece or by some other ways and means, and will the government be introducing legislation to this effect?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the government is considering the requests of COJO to find procedures to increase revenues. As soon as the decision of the cabinet is taken, we will probably be introducing legislation in the House in the near future.


MINTING OF COMMEMORATIVE GOLD COINS BY HAITI- INQUIRY WHETHER PERMISSION SOUGHT
Otto John Jelinek: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As Haiti has minted and is now marketing Olympic gold coins of its own honouring the Montreal Olympics, will the minister advise the House if the government of Haiti approached the government of Canada for permission to mint such coins; was such permission given, and, if not, what assurances can be given that these coins will not find their way to markets where they will compete directly with our own fund raising coin projects?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether a request was made to mint foreign coins for the Olympics. Evidently if this affects the positions of COJO, we will take the necessary steps. But to my knowledge, no permission was granted in that connection.


PROJECTION OF BENEFIT PAYMENTS TO END OF 1975-POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF BENEFIT PAYMENTS
Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and has to do with the state of the unemployment insurance fund. Has the minister seen recent forecasts which project to the end of 1975 payments which will be made out of the fund in 1975, and has consideration been given to extending benefits to those workers whose benefits will run out and who therefore will be deprived of UIC pay.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, in another place the other day I indicated possible benefit pay-outs in 1975 at various levels of unemployment and took into consideration the other factors, such as duration of unemployment, duration of benefits, wage rates, and so on. To answer the second part of the hon. member's question, no decision has been taken to extend benefits. In fact, the extension of benefits would require amendments to the act.


POSSIBILITY GOVERNMENT'S CONTRIBUTION TO ACCOUNT WILL EXCEED AMOUNT IN MAIN ESTIMATES-REQUEST FOR ESTIMATE OF AMOUNT
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration? Noting that the conference board rather conservatively estimates that the unemployment rate will rise to 7.8 per cent by the end of the year and that benefit payments are already running at a 29 per cent higher rate in the first quarter of this year than in the first quarter of last, I ask if the minister is now prepared to concede that the government's contribution to the unemployment insurance account will have to exceed considerably the $864 million forecast in the main estimates for 1975-76?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my reply to a similar question the other day, the hon. member, with respect, does not understand the operation of the fund. The $890 million-odd in the main estimates for 1975-76 represents the amount calculated as being required to repay the advance made in 1974, that is, to repay the government's share of costs for meeting 1974 benefit payments. There will not be any requirement for additional funds for that item in the main estimates.


Frank Oberle: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister prepared to give a rough estimate of the previous year's requirements; that is, is he prepared to give a rough estimate of the cash drain on the government during this fiscal year which is resulting from its contributions to the unemployment insurance fund. Obviously, the minister needs the money this year, even though he is to include it in the estimates next year.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I indicated the other day in another place when answering questions about various

May 30, 1975
Oral Questions
levels of unemployment and the way these would affect varying levels of benefit payments for the full year, the government costs required to meet those varying levels of payment and these were tabled. I do not have those details before me. They are public knowledge and I should be glad to furnish them to the hon. member on another occasion; or, he could refer to the transcript of the recent meeting of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Now that the minister has read the security report on General Quang sent to him by the United States, and as the U.S. has evidence which could block any re-entry of Quang into the U.S., is the minister now of the opinion that allegations levelled at Quang in this House are correct and, if so, what steps will the minister take to get rid of him?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we have not completed our investigations. Although the hon. member obviously has access to information, I do not think his comment about the existence of evidence, which would prevent U.S. authorities from accepting General Quang, is necessarily correct. The decisions in this matter have not been taken, and I do not accept the premise of that particular aspect of the preamble.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As the regional staff of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development themselves do not know about the contents of the D-l guidelines on local government how can we expect these guidelines to be enforced on the date on which they are to apply to native peoples across Canada?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that they have been informed about D-l. Other materials have gone out, to elaborate further these guidelines. Quite by chance I was looking at them when the hon. member asked his question.


Arnold John Malone: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. How can the minister reconcile conflicting statements in D-l which suggest a higher degree of self-government and, at the same time, the provision of operators' manuals on

how native people should run their own affairs, including their own money?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously when dealing with the subject of guidelines, we feel that as substantial amounts of public funds are handled by Indian organizations, it is imperative from their point of view and ours for us to adhere to definite guidelines, procedures and auditing requirements in the disbursement and administration of these funds.


Arnold John Malone: That is not the issue, and the minister knows it.


FUNDY TIDAL POWER PROJECT-COMPLAINTS CONCERNING LACK OF ACTION ON NEW STUDIES
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Have any complaints been directed to the federal government by the government of Nova Scotia or any of the appointees to the Fundy Tidal Power Review Committee regarding the lack of action on the undertaking of new studies which have been agreed on by the governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I shall make inquiries.


Robert Carman Coates: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister check some of the public statements which have been made in Nova Scotia by some of the people who have been appointed to the committee I mentioned and determine who is holding up action in this matter, so that we may know more clearly what is happening.


FINANCE
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I believe he received notice of it. In light of recent recommendations made to the minister by various members of this House to extend the May 31 deadline of the winter capital works program for those municipalities whose projects have been delayed for various reasons beyond their control, for example, such as labour disputes or delays in approval by provincial administrative tribunals, is the minister in a position to announce today until when the completions of these specific projects will be extended?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, despite the courtesy of the notice, the answer is, no.
May 30, 1975


INDUSTRY
Mr. Joe Flynn (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As court decisions will prevent our wine industry from using the word "champagne" on labels of champagne products, will the minister, in conjunction with the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs attempt to find some way to alleviate this serious difficulty of which our wine industry is a victim, and which is affecting adversely in particular Niagara area producers and six Ontario wine distillers?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to discuss this matter with my colleagues.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, may I direct my question to the Minister of State responsible for fisheries. In light of the Prime Minister's interview with George Radwanski of the Gazette on May 16, 1975 in which he said, "international law gives us sovereign rights over the seabed out to the edge of the continental shelf", is the minister aware whether in fact this statement is true?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer, but I understand that by the 1958 convention that statement is correct.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, if it is a correct statement, then why has the Canadian government not begun asserting its control over this area to protect its mineral and marine resources, since it obviously already is sovereign territory?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the words "sovereign territory". I will have to check the exact quotation that has been used by the hon. member. My understanding is that the 1958 convention applied only to the natural resources of the seabed. However, as I say, I am not a lawyer and I hesitate to venture into this area.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in his capacity as mayor of Banff. The minis-
Oral Questions
ter is counting upon the town of Canmore to provide housing for Banff. I wonder whether he has noted the statement of the town of Canmore that new housing will not be available for Banff and the statement of the chairman of the Banff Advisory Council that unless new housing is announced for Banff, there could be demonstrations or other approaches to violence in Banff this summer. In that case, will the minister consider the possibility of making new housing available in Banff in the near term and not delaying it until the filing of the Oberlander report?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, that comment really does not square with the meeting I had with Mayor Klotz of Canmore and his councillors. They indicated they did not want to be purely and simply a bedroom community for Banff, but they were quite interested in participating in the development of visitor service facilities and along with that would go residential accommodation.


Charles Joseph Clark: When the minister checks with his officials and finds out that in fact Canmore has now indicated that no subdivisions and new development will be made available to residents in Banff, will he then seriously consider his refusal to allow new housing in Banff for the short-term and act to relieve the housing pressures in that community in the near future?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to look at the situation. However, we made it quite clear that we do not want to see unrestrained or unrestricted expansion in Banff. The residents of both Banff and Canmore are well aware of our efforts in this area.


HOUSING
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. CMHC is financing, under the National Housing Act, the construction of several senior citizen housing projects in Halifax. I might add that there is a great need for such accommodation in Halifax as there are over 800 applications now on file. One of the buildings presently under construction is a project of Centennial Properties, a firm which our party has had cause to bring to the minister's attention on previous occasions for reasons of its questionable practices. My question is this: will the minister look into the Centennial Properties project and find out what problems are holding up completion of the building which was to have been finished a year ago this spring?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing the situation to my attention. I will certainly look into it and be in touch with him.


John Gilbert: I understand that the subcontractors on the Centennial Properties project have not been paid since
6284

May 30, 1975
Oral Questions
December and that further funds were not to be advanced by CMHC until the next stage of construction is completed. Will the minister assure the House that payments to Centennial Properties will not be speeded up until the minister has ascertained that the company is capable of completing the project and providing the desperately needed senior citizen units?


Barnett Jerome Danson: As I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, I will look into it thoroughly. I will not make any commitment until I know what the situation is. I want to see projects completed for senior citizens, especially in Halifax.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can the minister advise whether the Hawker Siddeley aircraft corporation or the province of Manitoba has made representation either to the minister or his department with reference to Saunders of Gimli, Manitoba?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge there have been no representations by Hawker Siddeley on behalf of or with respect to Saunders Aircraft. I have had discussions with the province of Manitoba with regard to the difficulties of the Saunders Aircraft Company.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: In view of the problems of Saunders up to this point, and the fact the financing was done almost exclusively by the province of Manitoba, is the minister now in a position to indicate the type of financing or aid he has in mind for Saunders and whether it will be in the same proportion as that given to eastern companies such as de Havilland?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions with regard to Export Development Corporation financing and with regard to PAIT grants for any industrial applications. To date there have been two problems. One is that the advance in industrial technology has not met the terms of the program for the advancement of industrial technology. The other is that the firm has been unable to sell its aircraft outside the country in order to take advantage of Export Development Corporation financing.


BROADCASTING
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. Since the hearings of the Canadian Radio and Television Commission on the allocation of channel ten in Vancouver are now

completed and because of the long delay in announcing the abortive results of channel ten hearings the last time they were held, can the minister advise when the allocation of this channel will be announced?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any specific date. It is a thorny problem, as mentioned by the hon. member. A first hearing did not result in the issuance of a broadcasting permit. Unfortunately, the date of a decision remains the secret of the CRTC. However, I could inquire whether the CRTC is now ready to promise a decision for a specific date.


PUBLISHING
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I assure him it concerns a very important principle in Canadian publishing. In view of the recent speech by his colleague, the Secretary of State, in West Virginia to United States publishers when he stated that the Canadian government is prepared to intervene and scrutinize carefully any impending new foreign presence in Canadian book publishing, what action is the minister taking to ensure that the United States publisher Sterling will not be permitted to sell the American edition of the Guiness Book of Records in Canada, protected by a monopoly, thus taking away 50,000 annual sales of this book by a Canadian publisher, Mel Hurtig of Edmonton, who depends on this book for 20 per cent of his business and who is about to receive an award as Canadian publisher of the year?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I have no power under the Foreign Investment Review Act to deal with a commercial transaction of this nature. I fully appreciate the problem the hon. member has mentioned. I deplore the transfer but, as I have said, I have no power under the Foreign Investment Review Act to intervene.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third and fourth reports of Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, in both official languages-Mr. Bechard.
[Editor's Note: For texts of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
May 30,1975

Mitchell William Sharp: the first reading of Bill S-25 (from the Senate), to amend the Privileges and Immunities (International Organizations) Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


NATIONAL CAPITAL
[Stage Direction]
On the order:
That a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to review and report upon matters bearing upon the development of the national capital region, including the programs and operations of the National Capital Commission;
That 15 members of the House of Commons to be designated by the House at a later date be the members on the part of this House of the special joint committee;
That the said committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses; to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House; to report from time to time; to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable; to delegate to sub-committees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly to the House; and to adjourn from place to place within Canada; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed special joint committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid on the table the ninth report of the Clerk of Petitions.

The Clerk of the House announced that the above mentioned report meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I request, under Standing Order 67(8), that the petition presented by the Committee of One Million be now read by the Clerk, and because the subject is a
Abortion
grievance requiring an immediate remedy I ask that the matter be brought into immediate debate. Notwithstanding Your Honour's previous ruling under Standing Order 43 that abortion, while important, is of continuing rather than immediate concern, I respectfully suggest that the spcial circumstances of this petition enjoin members to give it their immediate attention so that we can urge upon the government a speedy and urgent remedy.
Never before has parliament received a petition containing one million names, and these one million Canadians will be affronted by this institution if the petition is relegated to the musty shelves of our basement, all the more so because abortions, which have quadrupled over a four-year period to 43,201, are now recognized as constituting a grave social problem.
I remind Your Honour that the groups making up the Committee of One Million have previously presented briefs to the government urging that section 251 of the Criminal Code be amended to tighten the law so that hospital abortion committees would be empowered to permit abortions only in cases where the medical need is indisputable. The government has not acted, and abortions continue to escalate. The Committee of One Million has therefore appealed to parliament to redress this grievance. Members of this institution are also ombudsmen and we must be permitted to debate vital national questions irrespective of the government's willingness or unwillingness to present these matters to us. Nor is this a partisan matter, as the formation of the Interparliamentary Group in Defence of the Unborn, composed of members from all parties, clearly shows.
Yesterday, the willingness of the House to take on this exceptionally important subject was evident. I ask, and will so move if acceptable, that we now debate the petition of the Commmittee of One Million.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has put into question the idea that we should consider an immediate debate on the petition which was put forward yesterday. The motion is that the petition be now read by the Clerk of the House and, further, that it be brought into immediate debate.
The hon. member has referred to a previous ruling of the Chair. I would remind him of that ruling; I do not propose to quote it. It was based on an explicit ruling of the Hon. Lucien Lamoureux whose tenor left no doubt about the principle, and nothing which has happened in the interval persuade me otherwise. The principle of the operation of a representative government, as this parliament is, is that the representatives are elected to bring here the views of their constituents and it is through them, in debate in the House and by representations to the government, that amendments to the law ought to be proposed, discussed, debated and finalized if it is the will of the House.
Nevertheless, there are exceptional provisions with respect to petitions once they have been received and certified as to form. The purpose of those petitions is to redress a personal grievance. The hon. member is first of all asking that the petition be read. He is aware that yesterday the petition was read by the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni) when she put the petition forward. The fact of the matter is that the statement
29561-54%

May 30,1975
Abortion
which was read as a preamble to the petition yesterday was somewhat different from that which is attached to the petition today. This, of course, was done in order to make it acceptable as to form. The portion which is now attached to the petition does not in any way state the case as strongly as was stated in the reading of the preamble by the hon. member for York South yesterday. In other words, it seems to me that one of the remedies the hon. member is seeking today is less effective than was already granted yesterday.
In the second place, the rule under which the hon. member was proposing to have this petition read and then brought into debate is Standing Order 67(8) which reads as follows:
No debate shall be permitted on the report but a petition referred to therein may be read by the Clerk of the House at the table if required-
Certainly, under the circumstances it does not seem to be required. The Standing Order continues:
-or if it complain of some present personal grievance requiring an immediate remedy, the matter contained therein may be brought into immediate discussion.
Clearly, a representation that an existing law which has been under consideration by the House in various ways and which, on the undertaking of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), will be looked in to by a committee and is to be the subject of further consideration, is a matter of general concern and can in no way be interpreted as a matter of personal consideration.
For all three of these reasons: first, that the petition has already been read; second, that it is not a personal grievance but, rather, a matter of general concern to all members; and, finally, that recommendations and suggestions for the amendment of legislation ought, surely, to be carried on by members who, obviously, have been influenced by the petition itself, I cannot accede to the hon. member's request. There is nothing the matter with a petition of this magnitude influencing members to take action in the House, but I still maintain, based on earlier precedents, that it is the members of this House who should make representations respecting changes in the law, and not outsiders by way of petitions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,097, 2,144, 2,161, 2,166, 2,338, 2,355, 2,390 and 2,418.
If question No. 1,275 could be made an order for return the return would be tabled immediately.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Laprise: 1.	What are the names and dates of appointment of members of the arbitration boards serving the regional offices (a) Quebec City (b) Levis (c) Trois-Rivieres (d) Sherbrooke (e) Drummondville?
2.	For each such office, how many (a) cases were (i) heard (ii) settled in favour of the recipient (b) days did the hearing last?


Robert Knight Andras: 1.
(:i) Quebec City	Chairmen	Date of Appointment
	Fortin, Jacques Lavigne, Georges A. Lessord, Gil	February 1, 1973 March 16, 1967 August 18, 1972
	K mployers	
	Bradet, J. Ovide Delisle, Paul Dupere, Guy Dutil, Paul Frechette, Louis Racine, Guy Savard, P. A. Turgeon, Denis	March 8, 1973 September 25, 1961 April 6, 1967 December 11, 1973 October 30, 1962 December, 11, 1973 January 24, 1963 September 1972
	Insured Persons	
	Dorval, Arthur Girard, Claude Lebreux, Benjamin Marcotte, Jean-Paul Pelletier, L. G. Poulin, Jude Richard, Jean-Marie Vezina, Pierre-Henri	March 10, 1967 March 10, 1967 September 19, 1962 Se p te m be r 21, 1948 March 5, 1964 October 9, 1959 August 11, 1965 January 1975
(b) Levis	('hair men	
	Brulotte, Robert Gonthier, Gilles	December 20, 1974 September 12, 1974
	Employers	
	Levesque, Vital Moquin, Claude	January 2, 1974 January 24, 1975
	Insured Persons	
	Lemay, Marc-Andre Roy, Monique (Miss)	January 1974 December 1974
(c) Trois-Rivieres	(-hair men	
	Lacoursiere, Gilles Pcllerin, Gabriel	November 1, 1973 March 1, 1973
	Employers	
	Bai beau, J. O. R. Groleau, Gaston Lafontaine, Pierre Lemieux, Roland	September 13, 1972 September 13, 1972 March 13, 1975 November 22, 1961
May 30, 1975

(cl) Sherbrooke
			Order Paper Questions
Insured Persons		Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary	
		master General): 1.	
Biron, Lionel	April 12, 1973		
Caron, Joseph	April 14, 1971		
Emonel, Pierre	March 2, 1973		
Lemire, Roger	October 7, 1963	1.	Millions of Dollars
		1964-65	10.9
Chairmen		1965-66	30.7
		1966-67	47.7
A re ham haul t, J. II.	March 1, 1973	1967-68	67.2Dallaire, Claude	March 1, 1973	1968-69	90.3Proteau, Denis	March 23, 1972	1969-70	55.9Roger. Roger	January 16, 1975	1970-71	100.41971-72	77.0Employers	1972-73	90.91973-74	177.2Bordua, Cieorges-Emile	September 18, 1973	Gourcleau, Denis	February 19, 1970	2.	Millions of DollarsLett.re, Marc	December 11, 1973	Libotte, Louis	October 2, 1968	(a) 1974-75	255.0Trudeau, Gilles	July 12, 1973	(b) 1975-76	370.9Insured Persons	Boisvert, Florent Boychuck, William McManus, Gerald Rouillard, Richard Tardif, Roland	January 20, 1909 May 24, 1973 January 8, 1905 June 1970 May 24, 1973('hairmen	Bernier, Marcel Rousseau, Paul	July 25, 1974 July 25, 1974Employers	('ournoyer, Lueien Croteau, Majella Forcier, Gaston	January 2, 1974 January 2, 1974 July 9, 1974Insured Persons	Du hue, Paul Marcheterre, Ghislain Riverin, Pierre	January 1974 January 1974 February 10, 19752.	Settled in	Duration offavour of the	hearings.Cases heard	claimant	in days(a) Quebec City	857	109	79(b) Levis	132	10	13(c) Trois-Rivieres	317	42	45(d) Sherbrooke	552	119	50(e) Drummondville	210	42	34


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What was the amount of the deficit in the Post Office Department for each of the past ten years?
2.	What is the estimated deficit for the year (a) 1974-75 (b) 1975-76?
3.	Do the figures include estimated salary increases and, if so, what amount is included for increases in salaries not including the costs of additional personnel?
3. Provisions are included in the Estimates on the basis of the following instructions from Treasury Board for salary increases not covered by signed agreements: 197475: Rate of 5 per cent per annum, 1975-76: Rate of 7 per cent per annum. Those salary increase provisions are: 1974-75: $12,970,751, 1975-76: $41,731,241.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On what date was the decision made that the Royal Military College, Kingston, Ontario, is to become a bilingual institution (a) was this decision made by Cabinet (b) what are the names and job designations of all persons recommending or taking part in arriving at such decisions (c) what are the reasons for the government not following the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism that RMC should remain an English language institution?
2.	(a) What is the full nature of the entire estimated or budgeted cost of making RMC bilingual (b) a description and cost of all new capital construction (c) the number of additions to the staff and total salaries involved?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. September 14, 1972. (a) No, it was made by the Treasury Board, (b) The Defence Management Committee composed of senior officials of the department made the recommendation to the Minister of National Defence who approved it and submitted it to the Treasury Board, (c) The decision to introduce the programme of instruction in both official languages at RMC was taken to meet a requirement for training of future professional officers in keeping with the government policy on bilingualism.
2. (a), (b), (c). The estimated cost of the program to make RMC institutionally bilingual is as follows: (1) Capital construction to improve teaching facilities for the whole college and to provide the additional classroom, laboratory and office space necessitated by the requirement to provide academic programmes in both languages-$5,990,300. (2) Up to 84 additional civilian staff members and some 23 military personnel will be employed gradually over the next three years, as the program is implemented. The salaries of such personnel, once the

May 30, 1975
Order Paper Questions
program is fully implemented would be about $1,517,000 per annum.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Has the Postmaster General been made aware that witnesses for the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, when appearing before the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service, stated that the objective of the convention mandate to go for a Crown corporation was because of a preference for the Canada Labour Code rather than the Public Service Staff Relations Board?
2.	Has the Post Office Department considered granting to Post Office workers the same contract negotiation privileges enjoyed by employees of Crown corporations?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. Yes.
2. The Postmaster General has stated to Postal Unions that the Department is prepared to negotiate the effects of technological change on the workers. However, labour relations in the Post Office are subject to the Public Service Staff Relations Act, whereas most Crown Corporations are subject to the Canada Labour Code.


Mr. Schumacher: Are any plans being made, or have they been made, for the provision of military (a) personnel to assist in any way with the Olympic Games in Montreal in 1976 and, if so (i) how many persons will assist (ii) what are the ranks of each group (iii) what type of services will be performed (iv) what costs are involved in each case (b) equipment and, if so (i) what equipment (ii) what is the purpose of the provision (iii) what costs are involved in each case?


James Armstrong Richardson: (a) and (b). Plans are presently under study to provide support to the Olympic Games. In accordance with present planning approximately 5,500 personnel will be involved with security in support of the RCMP; approximately 2,600 personnel will work in direct support of COJO and an additional 2,500 personnel will provide command and control and administrative as well as logistic assistance for the forces involved. No special equipment is being procured for the support role to the Olympic Games. However, the normal replacement procurement of some equipment used by the forces has been accelerated.


Mr. Dinsdale: Is the Post Office Department issuing colourful plastic bags free to customers and, if so (a) for what reason (b) how many have been printed (c) what is the cost per unit (d) what was the total cost (e) who received the order (f) are they being distributed across Canada or are they restricted to specific areas?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: The Post Office has made these bags available to customers, (a) To package sheets of stamps and other philatelic material to enable the customer to carry items home without damage, (b) Initial Printing was 100,000-November 1974. (c) Cost per unit was $60.60

per thousand, (d) Total cost was $6,060. (e) Flexopack Mfg. Ltd., Montreal, (f) Bags were distributed across Canada as a stock Postal Stores item for distribution to Philatelic Outlets.


Mr. Laprise: Since 1968, what amount has the Parti pris publishing firm received from the Canada Council in annual subsidies?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Canada Council as follows: The Canada Council's program of annual block grants to Canadian publishers began in 1972. The Parti Pris publishing firm has received $36,000 under this program. Since 1968, a total amount of $40,885 has been awarded to Parti Pris by the Canada Council. This includes grants for the publishing of individual works as well as the above mentioned block grants.


Mr. Lawrence: 1.	Have any National Defence establishments in Canada been closed or had their staff, either Armed Forces or civilian employees, reduced during the fiscal year 1974-75 or the current fiscal year and, if so (a) what are their names and locations (b) in each case, what was the effect of the reduction or closure on the (i) Armed Forces staff (ii) civilian employees (c) to date, has alternative employment been offered to any of the civilian personnel (d) for each establishment, what is the anticipated saving to the Department as a result of such closure or staff reduction?
2.	Does the Department plan to close or reduce the staff of other bases during the current fiscal year and, if so (a) what are their names and locations (b) how many (i) Armed Forces personnel (ii) civilian employees will be affected (c) will the civilian employees be offered alternative employment (d) what is the anticipated saving to the Department as a result of such closures or reductions?
3.	Does the Department have long-range plans for closing down other defence establishments and, if so (a) what are their names and locations (b) what are the anticipated dates for their closure?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. (a) The following Department of National Defence establishments were closed or commenced phaseout during 1974/75. Data concerning closures or reductions for 1975/76 are given in Part 2 of this question. Patricia Bay, B.C. (Part of CFB Esquimalt)-Transferred to MOT September 1, 1974; Canadian Forces Station Armstrong, Ont.-Closed September 30, 1974; Canadian Forces Station Foymount, Ont.-Closed September 30, 1974; Canadian Forces Station Ramore, Ont.

Closed September 30, 1974; Canadian Forces Ammunition Depot Renous, N.B.-Commenced phase-out terminating September 1, 1978. (b) (i) Armed Forces personnel were posted for employment with other Canadian Forces units, (ii) Positions at other locations of the Department were offered to qualified civilian personnel. For those who did not wish to relocate, or did not have the necessary qualifications, every effort was made in conjunction with the Public Service Commission and Manpower centres to find suitable alternative employment. Moving expenses were paid by the department for those who accepted employment at other locations, (c) Yes. (d) Estimated savings as a result of closure for 1974/75 is as follows: Patricia Bay $ .673 M; CFS Arm-
May 30,1975

strong $1.27; CFS Foymount $1.06 M; CFS Ramore $1.1 M; CFAD Renous $ .325 M (Similar annual savings are anticipated until final closure in 1978).
2. (a) The following stations will be transferred or closed in 1975/76. Canadian Forces Station Val d'Or, Quebec-To be transferred to MOT March 31, 76. Canadian Forces Station Moosonee, Ont.-To be closed August 1,
1975. (b) (i) and (ii).
Number of Number of Military	Civilian
Personnel	Personnel
Base	Affected Affected
CFS Val d'Or	335	80CFS Moosonee	135	59
(c) Yes. (d) CFS Val d'Or $3.55 M; CFS Moosonee $1.82 M.
3. (a) and (b). There are no current approved plans for further base closures or reductions. However, it is department policy to continually review the requirements for all Canadian Forces establishments and installations in conjunction with allotted roles and functions.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Korchinski: 1.	In each of the past five years (a) how many foreign doctors were admitted to Canada (b) from which countries did they emigrate (c) in which provinces did they set up practice?
2.	In each of the past five years in each province (a) how many doctors were practising (b) what was the average population per doctor?
3.	In the past five years (a) how many graduate doctors were in Canada (b) how many doctors emigrated from Canada and to which countries did they immigrate?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Jeanne Sauvé: that Bill C-37, to provide for the control of dumping of wastes and other substances into the ocean, as reported with amendments by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now, by leave.
Dumping at Sea


Jeanne Sauvé: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, in rising to speak on third reading of this important bill I wish to make the point to the House of Commons and to the public of Canada that we are dealing here, on third reading, with a much better bill than we started with-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -because in this case the House of Commons has been able to do part of the job that it was convened to do and introduce some amendments that were accepted by the government and which improved in committee the bill sent to the committee by the House of Commons. My colleagues and I regret that many of the very progressive and important reforms which were proposed in committee were not accepted by the government. This is a matter to which I will return later in my remarks.
I begin by reviewing for the House the contents of Bill C-37 which in effect will ratify, on behalf of Canada, an international convention that will try to bring some control over dumping of substances at sea as well as some protection to the oceans and shorelines not only of Canada but of other countries of the world. Unfortunately, the bill as introduced, and to a large extent the bill as it emerged from committee-due to the intransigence of members on the government side-still allows a very substantial and dangerous discretion to lie in the hands of the minister, particularly with regard to the issuing of permits to people who might want to be exempted from the provisions of this bill.
In effect, those permits could be regarded, as my colleague from Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) indicated earlier, as permits to pollute. They are permits that allow a shipping company to be exempted, at the discretion of the minister, from prohibitions against the dumping of dangerous substances at sea. So the minister has this substantial power to issue a permit to a shipper which, in effect, could become a permit to pollute. There is, in my view and in the view of my colleagues, inadequate protection against the way the minister can exercise that very broad discretion.
There has been established a board of review which will allow a partial appeal from decisions made by the minister. Unfortunately, this right of appeal is open in a mandatory way only to the polluter; the people who are the victims of the pollution must rely upon the ever-present discretion of the minister to have the right to bring their objections to the board of review.
In the extensive committee hearings that were held, we sought some safeguards and were successful in achieving some safeguards. But I say frankly that we did not achieve all of the safeguards that we should have. There are still some serious weaknesses in the bill. However, it is a very important bill, a bill that will enable Canada to advance the development of the law of the sea and the process of building up respect for international law.

May 30,1975
Dumping at Sea
The bill could have been much stronger if, first of all, the government had used the opportunity that the bill presented to meet Canadian dumping problems which are not met or addressed by the international convention. I think particularly of the matter raised by my colleague the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) in regard to the very serious problem of small coastal communities on both coasts of Canada that make a practice of dumping by barge and who will be affected by the provisions of the bill.
We were given verbal assurances that this question was in hand, that there had been discussions between the federal and provincial authorities in regard thereto; but it is clear that the government should have brought some action into play that would bring relief to these communities, some guarantee that they would not be victimized by this law, and so that the provincial governments concerned could have acted to help protect those communities. That is one instance where the bill could have been improved. Another is with regard to making more stringent the regulations regarding Canadian ships operating in Canadian waters. These would augment the provisions that are already part of the international convention.
Another way the bill could have been made much stronger would have been for the government to accept amendments regarding public participation and the public's right of appeal. It is not only the polluters and the bureaucrats who have an interest in environmental questions, Mr. Speaker; this is a matter that is of vital concern to all Canadians, particularly the growing number of Canadians who are anxious to preserve the environment of Canada. Yet the public has been virtually shut out of this legislation, as unfortunately it has been shut out of too much legislation emanating from the Department of the Environment.
As I say, several improvements to the bill were made in the committee, and I think the work done in committee is a demonstration of the good work that committees can do if they are given the time. I want to make particular reference to the excellent contributions in the committee debate made by my colleagues from South Shore (Mr. Crouse), Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco), Fraser Valley West, Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), Prince George-Peace River, and St. John's West (Mr. Carter). I think that all of us who sat in the committee will agree that the procedures we have just come through revealed three major difficulties with the committee system, and I want to deal with them briefly at this point.
The first difficulty was that at the outset there was an indication that the government expected the committee stage to be a rubber stamp stage; that it would be short and would yield no changes. After the bill was reported from the standing committee, the parliamentary secretary declared, as he had before, that the standing committee did the job that it was supposed to do and that it took the time it needed to improve the bill. As I say, the government expected the committee to be a rubber stamp; to have a short debate, with no changes emerging. Instead, the committee was active, but it was active against the wishes of the government, at least in my view.

The second problem-I say this frankly because it also applies to other bills-was that in the debate around the table there were often traces of excessive partisanship. I admit quite frankly that this was the case on both sides. I confess to the House that one of our proposed amendments was not sufficiently thought through and it probably deserved the rejection it received. But I suspect that many other reforms were defeated simply because it was the opposition that proposed them. They were not defeated on their merits but because of their sponsorship. The government was not prepared to consider a good idea because of the source of the idea.


Arnold John Malone: So what's new?


Charles Joseph Clark: This has very serious consequences. My colleague from Battle River (Mr. Malone) asks, "What's new?" The point is that we have this kind of thing happening in committee after committee. The government rejects too many good proposals coming from other parts of the House simply because they do come from other parts of the House. Unfortunately, members of the government party abide too slavishly by the wishes of the minister and her officials and subjugate their role as members of parliament to that of supporters of the government.
The third major problem revealed in our consideration of the bill was lack of research staff available to committee and the problems that this can cause when committees are dealing, as ours was, with complex questions of law and international practice. The officials of the department specifically declined my invitation that they assist the opposition in preparing amendments. I understand their declining that invitation, but I would made the point that the minister could have made their expertise available. Instead, we relied on the official opposition research office which, while abundant in talent, is limited in time and was busy with other bills. We relied on such help as we could borrow from interested environmental lawyers. It is a clear deficiency of the system, in dealing with complex matters of this kind, when the official opposition and other critics, including private members on the government side, do not have the access which they should have to the expertise that allows for careful consideration and improvement of government legislation.
In view of these faults that I have mentioned, as well as others that are known to members of the House and which have become clearly evident to members of other committees, I suggest we are not dealing with a satisfactory system in relation to our committees. I notice the presence in the chamber of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) who is one of those responsible for putting together a package on parliamentary reform. I hope that this is one aspect of our present system in parliament that will be reviewed in any serious attempt that is made at parliamentary reform.
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, this bill is better than when it was introduced. However, it contains several major weaknesses. We have sought to correct some of the more obvious shortcomings in committee. However, gov-
May 30, 1975

ernment members rejected the amendments that could have protected the interests of the public while at the same time giving to those people who are concerned about environmental problems the same rights that this bill gives to those who cause those problems.
We tried unsuccessfully to make sure that large shipowners who cause damages to marine coasts could not escape the resulting legal responsibility simply because the minister granted them a permit. We tried other reforms that I will mention in a while and we think that those changes should be included in the bill. Of course, with the approval of this bill by the committee, we asked ourselves quite seriously whether we should reintroduce the amendments at this stage. However, we knew this course would result in two things. First, the government majority which defeated those reforms in committee would repudiate those measures in this House also. Second, if the government thought there would be a long debate about the amendments, it would have withheld this bill. In order to avoid this delay by the government, we decided not to reintroduce the reforms that the government rejected in committee.
We took that decision because it is important that Canada be one of those countries which will sign the international convention on ocean dumping. It is not only a matter of prestige. The first 15 countries which ratified that convention have the right to set up certain guidelines about the international law and its interpretation as well as its application.
It is important that Canada be allowed to take part in the drafting of these guidelines, because other countries might not be as exacting toward polluters as we could be. If the bill had but national implications, we would study it more closely to reinforce it, but in view of its international import, we are willing to support it today in the hope that its passage will strengthen the international law against dumping.

The government itself introduced several amendments at the committee stage. Some of those amendments were simply technical, designed to clear up mistakes in drafting or to clear up meanings. Once again I point out to the House that this indicates the very real importance of the committee stage, because even governments, I would remind the House, make mistakes. In this case the government had made some mistakes which it was prepared to clear up in the committee. Other government amendments accepted suggestions that were put forward either during the debate on second reading or at the committee stage by members of the official opposition.
One very important amendment introduced by the government, and one very important way that this bill is stronger than its predecessor, can be found in the fact that it is now clear that the minister who will manage this bill is the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) and not some other minister. This was a proposal I made, as well as colleagues of mine, at second reading. We are delighted it has been accepted by the government and we believe it is an important improvement.
Another very real improvement which was introduced by my colleague the hon. member for Kootenay West was to extend to wild animals the protection and consideration
Dumping at Sea
the bill would extend only to domestic animals. It may well be that in most constituencies in the country elk, deer and other wild animals do not have the vote, but there is at least concern shown for their welfare initiated by that hon. member and, I am pleased to say, adopted by the government.
Finally, there was an agreement to establish some limit, an inadequate limit but a limit at least, of a year in the life of the permits-which, as I said earlier, could be considered permits to pollute-that can be issued by the government. When the bill was first introduced, as it was read literally the minister had the power to issue a permit to pollute that could last as long as Methuselah. This has been limited now to a year as a result of pressures brought on by the official opposition in the committee.
In addition, amendments introduced directedly by members of this party made other important changes. One of those was to place the onus on the minister to appoint qualified persons as analysts and inspectors. As the language first read, the minister had the discretion to appoint anyone she might choose-anyone who might drift in off the sea-to be an analyst or an inspector. At the insistence of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and some members on the government side, an agreement was reached that there should be something written into the statute as to the necessity that these analysts and inspectors be qualified. That improvement has the effect, in my view, of making the minister liable for a mistake and it allows some recourse for people who are the victims of pollution when a mistake is made as a result of an incompetent analyst or inspector having been appointed by the minister.	.
Again, a slight improvement was made when the government accepted an amendment from this side that required the minister to advise parliament formally, via regular reports, of actions taken under the act on permits granted. The government also accepted the mandatory requirement that the permit shall state terms regarding the effect upon human and marine life and the conditions upon which the permit is issued.
A more important amendment, in my view, proposed by the official opposition and accepted by the government was the one to ensure the impartiality of the board of review established to handle appeals. Unfortunately, these are appeals only from polluters because the public has no statutory right of appeal under this government. The board of review as established in the original bill could have been a board controlled by the minister; it could have been a board appointed from within her own department, and thus subject to her direction and control. It was improved, we believe, in that the board is to be an independent board. We achieved that independence by proposing the amendment, which the government accepted, to the effect that the chairman shall not be a public servant. The chairman of this board by definition will not be someone who is subject to direction by the minister or any minister of the Crown.
Again, the government accepted a proposal by the official opposition that would increase the maximum fine for the offence of failure to report emergency dumping. This increases the maximum fine to be paid by such as Christina Onassis from a paltry $25,000 to at least $75,000. This

May 30, 1975
Dumping at Sea
brings that maximum into balance with other maximums in the legislation. I make the point that this is a maximum fine. We argued, with success, that the maximum should be higher than it was.
Clearly, many of these amendments introduced directly by the official opposition, or introduced because our criticism inspired them, are important. It is clear that together they improve the bill. However, several other important amendments were lost. They were lost sometimes for technical reasons, because of a technicality, and sometimes because government members simply voted against reform. One series of amendments which were introduced, and which were automatically out of order because they would have involved expenditures that had not been contemplated on second reading, would have substantially increased the ability of the public to keep track of ocean dumping problems.
They would have done that in two important ways. First, they would have created a registry in which would be listed the names of those people whom we could call the environmental public, those people particularly interested in questions related to the environment. They would require that people whose names were listed there would receive notice of the action taken by the minister under this act. That was one reform which, for technical reasons, was ruled out.
The second recommendation was that notice be published in newspapers of general circulation in areas where dumping may occur, instead of in the musty tomes- "tombs" might be the proper word-of the Canada Gazette, a publication which few members of parliament and no one in his right mind reads with any regularity. Unfortunately, that is the only medium now in which the minister is required to publish notice of some of her decisions. We proposed that the general public, as well as the eccentric public which reads the Canada Gazette, be included in the ambit of notice. As I say, those amendments were ruled out of order for reasons which I do not dispute.
However, the point I make is that the minister at this stage had the opportunity to adopt those amendments as her own and to bring them forward here. They would have received immediate approval on this side of the House and I am sure by my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and the Social Credit party. They would have received immediate approval if the minister had committed herself to the principle of public participation and adopted those amendments as her own and brought them in.


Mr. Bechard:: Why did you not move amendments?


Charles Joseph Clark: My colleague, the chairman of the committee, asks why I did not move amendments. I tried to explain that during the French portion of my speech. I apologize to him if my French is so difficult to understand in Bonaventure that he did not follow what I said. The reason we did not introduce any amendments was this: we knew that if we did introduce amendments and raised the prospect of a long debate, the government would not give this bill the priority it requires and would not have brought it forward. We wanted the bill brought

forward because it is important for international law. That is the reason we did not press those amendments.
We also knew that the same Liberal majority which obediently voted down reform in the committee would have obediently voted down reform in the House of Commons. We did not want to take the time of the House in delaying the development of international law for that purpose. I hope that answers my friend, the chairman of the committee.
A small step was made regarding information to the public. In the original bill the minister was required to report to an international agency. I make the point, and underline the anomaly and the irony, that in the first bill that international body had more right to information than the Canadian parliament or the Canadian public. The minister agreed to present to Parliament those reports which she will give the international body. We will get that information a little late, but now at least we in Canada in parliament and the public of Canada will be on an equal footing with this new international agency. It is a small step but it is a step.
My only regret is that the minister was not prepared to go further. I regret that she was not prepared to introduce simple provisions, which would not cost much money but would establish the principle of the public's right to participate in environmental matters, by ensuring that there is general notice of actions being taken regarding dumping, instead of those actions being filed away in the obscurity of the Canada Gazette.
Now I want to review some of the amendments that were lost and some of the problems we addressed which go unaddressed in the bill before us. Early in the discussion in the committee it became evident that the bill would cause problems for small coastal communities, as I mentioned earlier, some of which dump by barge. The minister assured us that the matter would be looked into, but her supporters-particularly incredibly, her supporters from British Columbia-voted against an amendment which would guarantee some protection for those small communities by requiring the agreement of the provinces. That amendment, introduced by my colleague the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), incredibly was voted against by Liberal members of parliament from both coasts.
I wish to refer to another amendment that was lost, and a weakness which persists in the bill. The bill provides that when a permit to pollute is granted, varied or changed, there must be notice in that well-read publication, the Canada Gazette. However, not even the Canada Gazette gets to learn when a permit is suspended or revoked. It is suspended or revoked in secret. There is no requirement for notice. It is a matter which no one has been able to explain satisfactorily. The law requires a birth notice in the Canada Gazette but refuses to require an obituary notice in the Canada Gazettee.
It is clear that the public of Canada is as interested in the end of a permit as it is in the issuance of a permit. We sought a reform which would require the government to tell Canadians, even if only in the Canada Gazette, when a permit is suspended or revoked. That amendment, however, was defeated and that information shall remain
May 30, 1975

secret unless the minister in her discretion, or the company, choose to make it public.
There is another very serious deficiency in this bill as it stands which we sought, unsuccessfully, to repair. The present bill creates a double standard regarding the right to appeal decisions by the minister. Some big company which holds a permit or seeks a permit has a statutory right to appeal the granting, suspension or revocation of a permit. That is the law for the big guy. But the citizen or the community which might be affected by dumping has no statutory right of appeal. The public has to ask the minister, "Please, may we appeal?" The minister, of course, has the right to say no.
However, companies such as those of Christina Onassis and other big shippers have a stronger right than the public of Canada. They have the right to tell the minister they will appeal. There is a statutory appeal for the dumper. There is only a discretionary appeal for the dumpee. That is a double standard and unfairness which should not have been allowed to remain on the statute books of Canada. We sought to end that double standard, but the government members protected the privilege of the potential polluters and left the public at the minister's discretion.
There is another serious weakness which we tried to repair in this bill. Once an appeal board has been established, the bill gives all "interested" persons a right to appear. The problem, Mr. Speaker-you are not a lawyer, as I am not-I am advised by legal advisers, is that the word "interested", in law has a specific meaning suggesting a pecuniary or proprietary interest. We tried to broaden that adjective to "concerned" in order to allow a larger segment of the public to take part in any hearings that could be called. That attempt to involve more Canadians rather than a narrow group was rejected by Liberal members.
Again, another problem in the bill which we sought to address, without success, is that the bill says that any action against any dumper-a person who dumps, such as Christina Onassis or any other big shipper-must be brought before the courts of law within two years of the dumping. There is a two year time limit. Some environmental effects simply cannot be foreseen in two years. Some of them take much longer to become evident.
We tried an amendment which would write in a period of ten years instead of two years, in an effort to cover some of the unforeseen and unforeseeable environmental consequences of dumping. That attempt to protect the public of Canada was also defeated. Therefore a coastal community of Canadians concerned about the environment can do nothing in law about a company which dumps, so long as it takes longer than two years for the effects of that dumping to become known.
This bill, in the opinion of a departmental legal officer, may very well create a situation where the fact that a permit has been issued protects the polluter from civil remedies. Mr. J. C. Carton, the director of departmental legal services for the Department of the Environment, as recorded at page 27:46 of the committee proceedings said:
-there is jurisprudence on both sides of the fence. I certainly could not come down on one side or the other with any degree of assurance whatever.
Dumping at Sea
The legal officer said there was no assurance. We introduced an amendment that would build-in that assurance, that certainty that a permit would not protect a polluter from civil action. However, incredibly, it was defeated because a sufficient number of members of the Liberal Party voted against it. I should say that some members of the Liberal Party supported that very progressive measure, but enough objected to it for it to be defeated.


Albert Béchard: Is it possible for members of the Progressive Conservative Party to be progressive?


Charles Joseph Clark: May I say to my hon. friend who asked me if it is possible for the Progressive Conservatives to be progressive, that anyone who has watched events unfold in Caada particularly in the years since 1968 knows that a more appropriate question would be whether it is possible for a Liberal in Canada to be liberal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My colleague makes the point that so many of the reforms in Canada have been not simply progressive but Progressive Conservative initiatives.
Finally, we tried in the committee to have the reports which the minister makes to the international body, and which she has now at least agreed to table in parliament, referred to the standing committee. If that had happened, it would have allowed a reliable and extensive parliamentary review of what the minister was doing and how she was exercising her substantial powers of discretion. That procedure of course has implications for other committees. It gives committees rights of their own in the House of Commons and does not make them simply obedient creatures of the government. The reform, however, was just too revolutionary for the government; it wants to keep committees as dependent as possible upon references from the government. So that was lost also.
The bill before us, as amended and certainly as introduced, reveals serious weaknesses in the approach of the Department of the Environment, particularly regarding the highly important question of the right of the public of Canada to participate in environmental decisions. I have spoken about some of the amendments that we proposed in order to advertise decisions. I want to draw the attention of members of the House to the record of committee debates and in particular the contribution made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Marchand). When we were talking about introducing reforms which would inform the public of Canada, the parliamentary secretary said, "They are picayune, small points all the time". That is on the record at page 27:22 of the committee's proceedings.
We in the party disagree that public participation in environmental questions is a small or picayune point. We believe it is the essence and at the centre of the rights of the Canadian public in environmental matters, and we reject out of hand the suggestion of the parliamentary secretary that the right to public participation is a small matter.

May 30, 1975
Dumping at Sea


Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: How about the amendment that was rejected by your own party?


Charles Joseph Clark: The parliamentary secretary is trying to explain the inexplicable in trying to defend his actions. He knows that the record shows that his references were specifically to the proposal to involve the public in these decisions He called the rights of the public small, picayune points, and that is what we reject. Unfortunately, there has been an almost contemptuous attitude toward the rights of the public regarding environmental matters, not simply in this bill but in others.
Let me review the evidence of that contempt in this bill. First of all, there is a double standard regarding appeals. The big guy is given the statutory right to appeal, but the same right is denied to the public. This is a law that is clearly biased in favour of the big guys, of the polluters, and against the rights of the individual citizens and concerned groups. Second, there is an excessively wide ministerial discretion, a discretion that has been slightly limited, but only slightly so, in the amendments that we were able to bring through in committee.
Third, there is an incomprehensible satisfaction with the Canada Gazette as a medium of mass communication and the refusal to publish important public matters in publications which the public reads. Finally, there is the failure to introduce broader provisions regarding advertising or to create the registry which we proposed and which the minister could have introduced at this stage, at no cost and with no opposition, but which she chose not to do.
Unfortunately, this contemptuous attitude toward parliament and the public goes beyond this bill. For example, in the environmental impact assessment procedure there is a fundamental and excessive ministerial discretion which stands in dramatic contrast to the statutory rights of the public which exist, for example, in the United States. In the procedure there is virtually no right to public participation unless the minister chooses to let the public in. That is clearly an antiquated and unsatisfactory situation.
Again, in the Berger inquiry the Minister of the Environment has refused to intervene. She has given a right, which I must say appears to be a very limited right, to her officials to participate. It is unclear at this moment whether she will give those officials time off to participate. She nods that she will. It is also unclear whether she will pay their travel expenses and make funds available to them to go there. She nods that she will, and I am delighted to know that. It is also unclear whether they will go there not simply as witnesses but as resource people subject to questioning by other officials. She says they does. Excuse me for my lapse into incomprehensible grammar, but I am so overwhelmed-


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Hansard will straighten it out.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am so overwhelmed-


Jeanne Sauvé: By the generosity of the minister.


Charles Joseph Clark: -by the generosity of the minister. It is significant that she regards it as generosity rather than as her duty to make her officials
available for public scrutiny. Because I was overwhelmed I lost track of my syntax.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't suggest a "sin tax." The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) might put it in his forthcoming budget.


Charles Joseph Clark: While I might have expected opposition to a "sin tax" from other members of the House, having it come from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is almost overwhelming. Bill C-37, which has been substantially improved in committee, is highly important for international law and for the development of better protection of our coast lines from pollution. It could also have been important as a sign that the Department of the Environment has changed its attitude and wants the public to be actively involved in issues concerning the environment which are, I submit, the most public of all issues because in the final analysis the fate of our environment affects each one of us more than any other matter which comes regularly before the House of Commons.
I had hoped that the bill would be used as a demonstration that the minister was prepared to encourage the public to participate in environmental questions. Instead, it has been used to demonstrate the opposite. We have a double standard regarding appeals. We have no willingness to advertise in publications generally read by the public, and no statutory right to review decisions. The bill is highly important for purposes of international law. It will allow the government to take place in the elaboration of the terms of administration in the details of the international convention, and that we applaud.
We think it is a very important bill for purposes of international law. We have done what we can to make it a better bill. If it were simply a domestic matter, we would have debated it at much greater length and introduced many more amendments. But it is a bill which we are very pleased to support as an improved bill on third reading.


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to prolong the debate, but let me just say that I am very happy the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) claims paternity to all these amendments. As he knows, in matters of parenthood it is only the identity of the mother that is beyond doubt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: How are you going to follow that one, Stanley? What do you do for an encore?


An hon. Member:: You have a tough act to follow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad that one does not have to explain remarks made just prior to getting to one's feet. In spite of its shortcomings, we welcome Bill C-37, to be known as the Ocean Dumping Control Act. We are pleased that it will soon be on the statute books. I realize that when I say "soon", I am

May 30,1975

assuming that the other House will not take very long to deal with it.
The bill is important to us in Canada because of the urgency of protecting the wholesome sea which is at our gates, if I may use the words which are carved over the entrance to this building. It is also important to us because of our international obligations.
It is not my intention to speak for more than a moment or two at this third reading stage. The bill received a good going over at second reading and in the standing committee, and I join the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) in welcoming the improvements which were made in the standing committee, whatever the parentage of those improvements might be.
We note that the minister, instead of being just some undisclosed person, is to be the Minister of the Environment. We note, also, that a number of definitions have been sharpened. We welcome the fact that in the case of one very serious breach of this law the potential penalty has been increased substantially. I am aware of the weaknesses and shortcomings which have been referred to by the previous speaker and it is our hope that in the not too distant future these shortcomings will be corrected.
Mankind is pioneering in the whole area of trying to do something about our environment. Perhaps prehistoric man tried in his way, but he did not face the problems and critical situations which confront us today. It is, therefore, good that we are getting started with legislation which will at least enable governments to do something about protecting the various elements of our environment. Accordingly, we welcome this legislation and we call on the minister and the government to use it to the full to protect our oceans.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACTS, 1867 TO 1965 AMENDMENTS RESPECTING SENATE REPRESENTATION FOR YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-3, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mitchell William Sharp: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-3, an act to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, be amended by striking out clause 3 thereof and substituting the following therefor:
"3. This Act may be cited as the British North America Act, (No. 2) 1975, and shall be included among the Acts that may be cited as the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1975."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Senate Representation


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 12.56 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion was put before lunch. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Sharp) agreed to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That motion corrected a typographical error.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 2 standing in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it seems to me that as the change proposed by motion No. 2 does not involve the spending of money, any member of the House can second the motion. I may argue the opposite on another stage that may come in a moment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We do not need a minister to second the motion. The House can agree on a seconder by unanimous consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member's proposal?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Mar-ceau, moves:
That Bill C-3, an act to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, be amended by striking out the long title thereof and substituting the following therefor:
An Act to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1975.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Sharp) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Chretien, moves that Bill C-3, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Should the motion not read as it has been amended, "to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1975?"


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What a great observation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe the amendment is necessary.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. This material, of course, was prepared in advance without prejudging what

May 30, 1975
Senate Representation
would happen in the House. I will make the necessary correction.
Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Chretien, moves that Bill C-3, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1975, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


An hon. Member:: By leave, now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Chretien, moves that Bill C-3, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1975, be now read the third time and do pass. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A moment ago I suggested that a report stage amendment could be seconded by a private member, but Your Honour has now named a seconder who is not in the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I had not noticed that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) had left the House. I will rectify the matter.
Mr. Sharp, seconded by Madam Sauve, moves that Bill C-3, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1975, be now read the third time and do pass. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, having made some simple corrections to this bill, having corrected one or two typographical errors, and so on, we have reached the final stage of debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Judging from the applause, this bill has a fairly good chance of passing. As everyone knows, the bill will merely add two more bodies to the other place.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Great!


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) says "Great!" He may represent Calgary North, but that is not far enough north to entitle him to one of these additional Senate seats.


Mr. Lefebvre:: Stranger things have happened, Stanley. People have moved. Canadians are mobile.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This bill will add to the other place a senator from the Yukon and a senator from the Northwest Territories. As I have said a number of times previously, we think this is a waste of time. We think that it is insulting northern Canadians to suggest that these new appointments will somehow bring them into the mainstream of Canadian life. This bill will merely add two more Liberals to the other place. In recent years, particularly in recent months, the other place has

become merely the campaign headquarters for the Liberal Party of Canada. I oppose this bill.


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the hon. member will permit a question. How can the hon. member be so sure that Liberals will be named to those two positions? What proof has the hon. member? Can he prove his assertion?


An hon. Member:: Are you a prophet or the son of a prophet?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I cannot prove it-I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet-and to that extent I am stymied. However, judging from experience I say that within a short time two more Liberals will be appointed to the other place. It will be said that both represent our north. Perhaps the appointees already know about their prospective appointments. The salaries they will receive will be much greater than the salaries which applied when this bill was first put on the order paper. They will be Liberals, don't worry.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, on a further point or order, as we say in French-

You are striking a blow at your great experience in the House when you say that I am only guessing-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Although the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) sits far from the Chair, he should address his remarks to his hon. colleague of the opposition through the Chair.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) whether, by guessing like this, he is not afraid of losing his great personal value and his great experience in the House which are universally conceded. Moreover, I wonder if his reputation as a great man will not suffer from such risky guessing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to admit that it is just a guess, but I suggest it is an awfully good one.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words with regard to this bill. Although I do not come from the territories, I think this bill advances a very important principle. The principle is that all the people of Canada, whether they reside in the provinces or the territories, have a right to be represented in all of the federal representative bodies in this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: That is the simple principle of this bill. I know that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has certain feelings about the other place, which he has expressed. There are some who share those views in some respects, at least in so far as the members of the other place are concerned.
May 30, 1975

However, that does not mean that the institution, properly manned, does not have a place within the Canadian context.
Every time I hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre attacking the Senate, I feel it is like one institution of parliament attacking another. Before we attack the Senate we should remember the purpose for which it was established in Canada. It was established for the purpose of ensuring representation in a different way to minority area groups which find themselves in the minority in terms of number in relation to other groups in Canada. If that is part of the purpose for the establishment of the Senate, then as much as I may condemn the government from time to time for some things they do, I think they are doing the proper thing in terms of the territories of this country.
A lot could be said about appointments to the Senate and those who are appointed. An argument could be made for at least broader consultation in terms of appointments to the Senate. These consultations might range among provincial premiers even though the premiers may be of different political cloth. It is not unreasonable to say that if the Senate is to be representative of the regions in Canada, it ought to be representative as well of certain of the political differences in Canada.
The quarrel I have with the Senate is not with the institution or the place of the institution in the scheme of things, but the way in which the institution has been used. I have said before in this House that I believe it is important that the Senate not be taken away or weakened, but that it be strengthened. Through the quality of its appointments, the representative aspect of its appointments and the geographical representation, the Senate should be given a new infusion of life with the appointment of youth. The youth need not only be in terms of chronological age; I am talking more in a sense of equality of mind, people who have an ability to express themselves, who have an investigative turn of mind and are prepared to devote a certain amount of their time to the service of their country. I think it important that we consider this bill in that light.
It is not a universal failing that every Liberal appointed to the Senate is necessarily a bad appointment; there have been some fine appointments from the other party. I hope there will be recognition of the need to strengthen the Senate on all sides and in terms of the political spectrum. It could not only become a livelier place but a much more vital place in terms of Canadian political content. We should consider this and urge the government to make the Senate a stronger institution of parliament, an institution to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre might some day like to go because of the vitality and strength of the place.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is rising on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is that I thought the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) was my friend.
Senate Representation


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would disabuse the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre if I thought he was suggesting I was anything else. I have said before in this House that he is not only a friend but a neighbour. It is generally known in Canada that there was at one time a political union of a sort between the NDP and the Liberal Party. I point to the twenty-ninth parliament. There is at least a mechanical union between the NDP and the Conservative Party, because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I have a quarter interest in the same snowblower. Sometimes when he says things about the situation in the Senate, and other matters, I am tempted not to send my children across the street to push his car out on a snowy morning, but my friendship has always caused me to relent. That does in fact happen; the hon. member knows it, and our friendship is deep.
I said that in jest, but I think it is important that the Senate be a place that is aspired to for the right reasons, because it is an important institution in the body politic of Canada. It is in that spirit that I rise in the debate to urge the House, particularly the Prime Minister's colleagues, to consider the importance of this institution in the parliamentary process.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I spoke at some length on second reading of this bill. I do not want to repeat what I said then or to delay the passage of this bill. I wish to point out to our friend, however, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that if he finds he has leisure time over the weekend he might read some of the debates in the other place. While two or three times a year he amuses this place by making a motion that the other place be abolished he may be surprised to know that similar motions are being made in the other place to abolish this House. The arguments there are as persuasive as his. There are some interesting speeches made at those times.
I want to add some thoughts as to the possible commpo-sition of the Senate by comparing it to a similar body, another federal institution which I had the opportunity to examine very carefully during the past couple of weeks. I refer to the federal Republic of Germany whose federal constitution is an amalgam of things British, things French, things American and things German. I wonder how some people in this House can feel that our House of Commons with a temporary majority, should have the say right away and that it should be final; in other words, the people are said to have spoken.
Should the Senate in our parliament be named by the provincial administrations bearing in mind the differing political blends? Under the German constitution, where there is a small senate of 45, the landers or the provinces name a limited number of ministers, and usually the premier or the state president of the lander, to the body. All legislation is submitted to the lander before it is presented to the equivalent of the House of Commons in an informal way to get their view on it. Certain amendments might then be suggested or decisions made, or it might not again see the light of day, depending on the attitude of the bundesrat. It then goes to the bundeshaus

May 30, 1975
Senate Representation
where it is debated and amended. Subsequently it is returned for final approval to the house of elders, the bundesrat.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The wise men.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Remembering that they are the ones appointed by the provinces, it would be interesting to see that kind of framework in operation here. We could see a bill like the Competition Act, for example, or the National Petroleum Act submitted to the Senate first for general comment and, perhaps, suggested amendment. Then it would be brought back into this House, considered, passed and returned to the Senate, that body having the full power to amend it or defeat it, though being of a different political complexion.
It would make the temporary majority which sometimes blithely sits in this chamber think twice or maybe three times before going forward with certain items of legislation. But it would have the effect, in a federal constitution where there are differing responsibilities, of making possible a more equitable discharge of those responsibilities. At the moment we are seeing here a series of acts going forward-the Competition Act is one of them-in connection with which the federal government simply moves into what is clearly provincial jurisdiction under some spurious ground of need for order and good government and says, "We shall fill the lacunae, and if the provinces do not measure up, we shall jack them up." Mr. Speaker, this is a usurpation of power by a bureaucracy, a form of centralized bureaucratic thinking to which this administration and others before it have become captive. It is posing a grave danger to our constitution and to our national unity.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and I am warning members of this House, that the malaise which exists in certain parts of the country is growing. Do not think the malaise has died in the province of Quebec. It has certainly increased in the western provinces and it may yet appear in the Atlantic provinces. This is in part attributable to the actions, the philosophy and the centralized thinking of the Government of Canada intent on the usurpation of power. It may be a gradual process, but one notices the nature and type of legislation brought forward in the last two or three years and it becomes apparent that the pace of this usurpation of power has been stepped up a notch or two. I say that Canadians as a whole must step back, watch and re-examine their position.
I hope the government will choose the best men or women it can to represent the Yukon and the Northwest Territories in the other place, and that we shall see the beginning of a change in the nature of the appointments. As my hon. friend from Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said, there are some eminently suitable public figures who have been appointed to the Senate and who discharge their duties as well as any member of this House. A number of them have the advantage of experience in this place.
It must always be remembered that the world was not discovered yesterday, that everything was not invented yesterday and that mankind was not born yesterday. There are a good many lessons from the past which can be applied to the present and the future. The work that comes

out of the Senate depends entirely on the initiative of the government. Their Honours have done excellent work in examining bills. The competition legislation is one example. Even before they received the bill they carried out an examination of the subject matter. Their report is an excellent one. I do not wish to sound patronizing when I say that many of the committees in the other place put our committees to shame in terms of the assiduity with which the work is pursued, the depth of study and the value of the contributions made.
In conclusion, may I say I entirely support the bill before us. I hope the appropriate appointments are made and that the vacancies which now exist are filled so that we may join with our colleagues in the Senate and make a far better job of considering legislation, watching government programs and discharging our responsibility to the people.


Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I spoke against this bill on second reading and I wish to reiterate briefly my opposition to it now. There is one feature of the bill which is obviously welcome-the fact that northerners will have additional voices here in Ottawa. No one can complain about that aspect. Nevertheless, I am opposed to the bill in principle. The government and its predecessors have on a number of occasions promised Senate reform and it is inopportune, to say the least, that we should be moving to add new members to that body before we have carried out the fundamental reforms which successive governments have promised.
I feel there is another side to the argument. It is entirely possible that the constitutional evolution of the territories may differ from the evolution which historically accompanied the development of the other provinces. A different approach might well be needed although, conceivably, no matter what kind of evolutionary path they may follow, representation in a reformed Senate might still be necessary.
In the present circumstances, the government should not be moving to add to this body. Let me reiterate. We all agree that the Senate is non-representative and non-elective. As long as it remains that way it is completely out of date. We should be moving to reform the Senate before we add to its members.


Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the comments made on this bill, but I feel at this time that something more should be said concerning the people who will be going to the Senate itself. It seems to me that my words would probably not be quite appropriate, but I might abridge the words of the great Lebanese Kahlil Gibran, who thinks of the Senate as "To be a garden without walls, a vineyard without a guardian, a treasure house for ever open to passers-by". If we think of the manner in which the senators, having completed their years, look down upon us, then they might feel, as Kahlil Gibran said:
To be robbed, cheated, deceived, ay, misled and trapped and then mocked, yet with it all to look down from the height of your large self and smile, knowing that there is a spring that will come to your garden to dance in your leaves, and an autumn to ripen your grapes; knowing
May 30, 1975

that if but one of your windows is open to the East, you shall never be empty; knowing that all those deemed wrongdoers and robbers, cheaters and deceivers are your brothers in need, and that you are perchance all of these in the eyes of the blessed inhabitants of that City Invisible, above this city.
And now, to you also whose hands fashion-
And we say this to the people of the North.
-To be is to be a weaver with seeing fingers, a builder mindful of light and space; to be a ploughman and feel that you are hiding a treasure with every seed you sow; to be a fisherman and a hunter with a pity for the fish and for the beast, yet a still greater pity for the hunger and need of man.
I say that to each of these people who would come to us from the north. Kahlil goes on:
And, above all, I say this: I would have you each and every one partners to the purpose of every man, for only so shall you hope to obtain your own good purpose.
This is why they must be with us. This is why they must be part of our institution, whether they be as elected members of this chamber or of the Senate. As Kahlil said:
My comrades and my beloved, be bold and not meek; be spacious and not confined; and until my final hour and yours be indeed your greater self.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to waste much more time on a bill that is already taking up a lot of time in the House, a bill that I do not think is of that much importance to the people of the Northwest Territories or the Yukon. We did not ask for the bill, and I have become a little suspicious of being given something-at least it appears we are being given something-for which we have not asked, about which we have not been consulted and which we do not want.
We have now reached the point on a Friday afternoon where we seem to be getting some kind of poetry being tossed into the debate. But I should like to make an important point. When discussing this bill previously, I mentioned in the House that if the government had discussed the matter in detail with northerners and had talked to the people in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, the government would have come up with a practical solution to what the government seems to regard as a problem, that we have in the other place no senators from the territories.
For about the same amount of money or less, a practical solution would have been to have an ombudsman represent both the Yukon and Northwest Territories. This would be more practical than the present bill. This would lead to a situation that would be non-partisan, where the individual concerned would be answerable to the House of Commons and would be able to represent well the people of both territories. That would have been a far more welcome proposal to the people of the north than what is in this bill.
I just wanted to make that comment again, and I hope that in future the government will take my words into serious consideration. I shall not waste any more time of the House on this matter.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Northern Canada Power Commission


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


NORTHERN CANADA POWER COMMISSION ACT
Mitchell William Sharp: the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-13, to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is a procedural one. The act contains a lot of amendments fleshing out, shall I say, the existence of what had been a very small body, the Northern Canada Power Commission, which has now been given much greater strength and frankly has become a monopoly in the north. Many of us in this House have regretted this development. I have had a good deal of contact with the utilities that developed from very humble beginnings and struggled to develop resources in order to meet the needs of the people both in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Then along comes this colossus, this big, ravenous animal known as the Government of Canada and gobbles up a development that so many people have worked so hard to achieve over the years.
I do not think the people of the north are going to get any better performance as a result of the creation of this power commission, which frankly is going to be permitted completely to dominate the scene in regard to the provision of electric light and power to both the territories. Having said that, the Senate have taken steps to remedy something that I suppose was forgotten along the way which deals with the timing of meetings held by members of the commission. The meetings must not be held unless one clear day's notice has been given to each member of the commission at his place of residence. If that same principle were applied to many other government statutes, there would need to be many other changes. The centralized kind of thinking we have in Ottawa has always been that notice shall be deemed to have been received and the

May 30, 1975
Northern Canada Power Commission period for appeal will expire within ten days after having made an order or having issued a notice in Ottawa. In light of the postal service which it is Canada's disgrace to have at the present time, it is very chancy that one could get notice within the appropriate time to consider a government or court order and instruct a solicitor or take the necessary action.
There is one thing I want to point out in this bill that is ironic in that we are going to discuss the Judges Act later when dealing with salaries. This bill increases the number of commissioners from five to seven and provides for the payment of expenses, including travelling and living costs incurred by the commissioners in the performance of their duties under the act. I am wondering whether certain individuals in this House or engaged in the media, particularly the more hysterical ones, will take these expenses and add them to the salaries or honoraria of the commissioners and say that shall be their remuneration for the year.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is only for members of parliament.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) suggests, this is a unique privilege reserved for members of parliament whose expenses are added to their salaries and the total deemed to be their revenue for the year. It does not happen in respect of public servants, editors of newspapers, publishers or radio station disc jockeys, many of whom earn a great deal more than members of parliament. I hope when we see the reports in respect of the salaries of the commissioners of the Northern Canada Power Commission in the public accounts, they will include their travelling expenses and all those things chargeable to their accounts.
As to the amendment put forward by the Senate, of course it is acceptable and it is a good thing that it has been brought forward.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to say a few words about Bill C-13, to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission. I understand it has been around for a long time. As a matter of fact, it has been in the planning stage, and so on, for a number of years.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is known as the Sir John A. Macdonald bill.


Walter (Wally) Firth: It was considered for a long time in committee, where we heard from a number of witnesses from both territories. I think the amendment to this bill is a very small but perhaps important one. The bill did receive approval of the House before, and I suppose it should now pass. However, I do want to make a couple of comments because of some criticism by the council in the city of Yellowknife. I hope the government will take into consideration these points at this time when the bill has almost passed the House.
The first point relates to the request by northerners regarding the Northern Canada Power Commission, that it establish its headquarters in the north. I hope that the commission will eventually be answerable to the councils

of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. It has been recommended that there be two power commissions, one for the Yukon territory and one for the Northwest Territories, with an operational headquarters in the north.
The other important recommendation is that the commission should have the sole right to generate and distribute electricity for the benefit of northerners, at the cheapest rate possible. The commission should seriously consider bringing power to small businesses and homes as cheaply as possible, with the larger companies such as those in the mining industry paying the full rate.
Several other points have been made. I hope the government will seriously consider moving toward implementing the wishes of the people of the north. I do not think I need say more on this bill, but I do hope the government will look again at the very important suggestions made by representatives of both territories regarding the splitting of the commission in two, with headquarters in the north.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-47, to amend the Judges Act and certain other acts for related purposes and in respect of the reconstitution of the Supreme Courts of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order having to do with some of the details of these proposed motions. They would appear to have been drafted by someone who had before him at the time only a copy of Bill C-47 as it was passed at second reading and sent to the committee. The committee made several amendments and ordered a reprinting. We now have the reprinted form and that is what is before us.
I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, in particular to the (b) part of motion No. 1 where it says "by striking out line 1." That ought to be "line 3". In part (k), where it says "Eighteen judges of the Dis-", that should just be "Eighteen judges of the". In motion No. 2, where it says "by striking out line 12 on page 24", it should read "by striking out line 11 on page 24".
The same changes need to be made in the new recommendations from the Governor General, and there are one
May 30,1975

or two other corrections that should be made in the French version of these motions. It seems to me if we are going to have amendments moved to the bill, they should fit the bill in the form in which it is now before us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), but it would be very difficult at this stage for the Chair to identify all these corrections. The hon. member has brought to the attention of the House the corrections to be made in connection with motion No. 1. Perhaps I should refer the hon. member to Standing Order 75(7), which states:
An amendment, in relation to form only in a government bill, may be proposed by a minister of the Crown without notice, but debate thereon may not be extended to the provisions of the clause or clauses to be amended.
Perhaps at this stage, if the hon. member could inform the House of the modification to be made we could proceed with the amendments so long as they are brought to the attention of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am not seeking, under the guise of a procedural point, to delay consideration of this measure this afternoon, but I do insist that we follow the rules. The rule you just cited, I submit, does not cover this situation at all. That rule permits the making of what is, in effect, a consequential amendment. The plain fact of the matter is that the wording of these motions as they appear on the order paper is faulty. They were obviously drafted by someone who did not look at the bill in the form in which it is before the House. I am prepared for the correction to be made before we proceed with these motions, but let us do it properly.


Mr. Poulin:: Mr. Speaker, I was chairman of the committee on justice and legal affairs at the time the amendments were presented. I presume the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is referring to amendments which are now intended to be made at the report stage, and that he has no objection to those amendments that were made at the earlier stage before the committee and were passed.
Speaking as one who was present for all the proceedings on this bill before the standing committee, I may say I have not had an opportunity to see numerically the lines to which these amendments mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should refer. It may well be that we could verify what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said. I believe there is agreement on his part, from what I heard him say, that we proceed so long as the lines are referred to in the correct order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member is correct in saying I am not raising a procedural point in respect of the amendments passed in the committee, although I did study them carefully to see if I could find something wrong with them. It is clear that they were made within the terms of the royal recommendation.
Judges Act
What we now have before the House is a reprinted bill as amended in the committee, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) is proposing report stage amendments to that reprinted bill. Royal recommendations are required, and he has presented the royal recommendations. My point, however, is that if we passed motion No. 1 in its present form we would be making a change which would not make sense because of the lines listed and a few other things which are incorrect. It is a simple matter to make the corrections, but surely the way in which we do it should be correct.


Walter David Baker: I think there is some sense in the suggestion of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin). Perhaps we might take a few moments, provided we do not take too long, to see whether there is some way in which the changes might be made. Although I do not know whether this is possible, perhaps by unanimous consent something could be done in respect of the order paper this afternoon so that we could proceed with the matter. I am sure all members wish the matter to be pursued and disposed of.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I say that the mistakes are not the mistakes of the committee. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin) is not on the spot. It is the Minister of Justice who has put down the report stage amendments and has not worded them correctly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is quite right when he says the motions before us now do not correspond to the reprinted copy of the bill. I must bring to his attention that the bill was reported back on Wednesday this week, and the minister had to give notice of his amendments which are amendments to the bill which was before the committee. To my mind, the reprinting of a bill is more for the convenience of members than for the purpose of changing the bill on which the committee has worked. I understand the point raised by the hon. member, which is that we would be examining amendments that do not correspond to the reprint of the bill which is before hon. members.
Unless someone has a solution to propose to the Chair, I think perhaps we should set aside this order for the moment and go to another order of business.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, may I say that the amendment is not a substantive amendment. Surely the bill could be considered at this stage as amended, unless my friend from Winnipeg North Centre can point out that this is a very serious amendment related to the substance of the bill. If he could do that, I would be sympathetic to his viewpoint, but surely we should not delay this matter on such a small point of procedure. With the greatest respect, I think the error was made when the , documents were handed to you, sir. But surely we can debate the bill. The amendment is not one of great substance.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre does not wish unnecessarily to delay consideration of this bill on a technicality. I think if we take these amendments which are before us and relate

May 30, 1975
Judges Act
them to the bill in its form prior to the reprinting, we could make sense of each motion we would be debating. Then if each motion should pass, this could be done with reference to the new bill which has been presented in reprinted form as of May 28. In this way we could debate the matter with a clear understanding of the motions presented. The motions could be interpolated with reference to the bill dated May 28.
I think in this way we might follow the suggestion of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and continue with consideration of the bill today and make some sense of it. If these motions should pass, they could very easily be interpolated into the bill as amended. Unless, as the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton said, we could clarify the matter in a few minutes, I would like to see debate continue. It is clear to all of us where each of these motions is intended to be inserted. I think we should continue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there have been occasions at the report stage when opposition members have made similar motions and the Chair has insisted that they be corrected in order to conform with the bill before the House. I think the rule should apply both ways. Although it is not my desire to expedite this bill, since I am opposed to it, I am prepared to be procedurally helpful.
All that needs to be done with regard to motion No. 1 is to change "line 1" in the (b) part to "line 3", and to change the phrase under (k) "Eighteen judges of the Dis-" to "Eighteen judges of the". I have other corrections to make to the other motions, but if these changes could be made, this one at least procedurally will be in order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This is exactly what I proposed at the beginning. If the minister wants to move an amendment to the motion in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), the House will be ready to consider it. I would hope the hon. member would not ask the Chair to become involved in the correction of an amendment or the modification of an amendment of which notice was given by the minister. A representative of the government should ask the House to consider modifications to the motion.


Mitchell William Sharp: That Bill C-47, an act to amend the Judges Act and certain other acts for related purposes and in respect of the reconstitution of the Supreme Courts of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, be amended in Clause 5
(a)	by striking out line 13 on page 3 and substituting the following: "(e) One hundred and one puisne";
(b)	by striking out line 1 on page 6 and substituting the following: "(b) One hundred and seven";
(c)	by striking out line 22 on page 6 and substituting the following: "(h) Thirty-one judges and"; and

(d)	by striking out line 33 on page 6 and substituting the following: "(k) Eighteen judges of the Dis-".


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move an amendment to the motion which would read as follows:
That paragraph (b) of motion No. 1 be amended to read
"(b) by striking out line 3 on page 6 and substituting the following:" and that paragraph (k) be amended to read
"(k) eighteen judges of the"


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent)) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Shall motion No. 1 as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 1, as amended, agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 2.


Mitchell William Sharp: That Bill C-47, an act to amend the Judges Act and certain other acts for related purposes and in respect of the reconstitution of the Supreme Courts of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, be amended in clause 28 by striking out line 12 on page 24 and substituting the following:
"(k) eighteen judges of the".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, according to my reading of the motion, it needs to be corrected toward the end of it, where it reads "by striking out line 12 on page 24". It should read "by striking out line 11 on page 24".


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker I wish to move:
That motion No. 2 be amended so that the words reading "by striking out line 12 on page 24" read "by striking out line 11 on page 24".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent)) agreed to.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make some comments on this bill, and it is during the debate on these amendments dealing with increases in the salaries of judges that it would be appropriate for me to make my comments rather than on third reading of the bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have to catch a plane.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) would prefer to speak
May 30, 1975

now, then I will yield my place to him to facilitate his timetable which he cannot alter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have other commitments and I have agreed to catch a plane, but I intend to make some remarks on third reading of the bill. I am sure the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) would be in order at that time. Perhaps he would be prepared to agree to these amendments and to get to third reading of the bill. My remarks will take no more than five minutes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: So long as I am not
prevented from going into details.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will put the question on motion No. 2 and see how fast we can proceed.
Shall motion No. 2, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 2, as amended, agreed to.


Mitchell William Sharp: That Bill C-47, an act to amend the Judges Act and certain other acts for related purposes and in respect of the reconstitution of the Supreme Courts of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, be amended in Schedule IV
(a)	by striking out the first line of paragraph 19(b) thereof and
substituting the following:
"(b) one hundred and seven judges and";
(b)	by striking out the first line of paragraph 19(h) thereof and
substituting the following:
"(h) thirty-one judges and junior judges"; and
(c)	by striking out the first line of paragraph 19(k) thereof and
substituting the following:
"(k) eighteen judges of the District Court".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any amendments to this motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: In response to your question, Mr. Speaker, I will say what I want to say on the substance of this bill when we get to third reading; but so far as the form of motion No. 3 is concerned I find no procedural errors in it. Perhaps that is an accident, but at any rate that is it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt motion No. 3?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 3 agreed to.


Mitchell William Sharp: that the bill be concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time, by leave now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave.
Judges Act


Mitchell William Sharp: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
[DOT] <1510)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker,
I will be very brief this afternoon. This bill, as we know the procedure, came up for second reading and we had a debate at that time. It went before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and was carefully studied clause by clause. The committee met on May 27. We sat overtime, and the bill was analysed very carefully. I just want to repeat our position. We believe that judges should have an increase. We said that at second reading. I and all hon. members in the committee, with one exception, took that position.
I repeat that we have a very high calibre of judges in all our courts at all levels in this country. As a senior lawyer before the bar of Alberta and the bar of Saskatchewan I can say that we can be very proud of our judiciary from coast to coast, and particularly of our Supreme Court of Canada. We believe that the judiciary of Canada must always maintain its independence, not only from political institutions but also from any conflict of interest.
We believe judges should be secure in their jobs so that they can carry out their duties and responsibilities with the degree of independence we expect the judiciary to have, which separates it as an institution from other democratic institutions in the country.
In reference to the increases, perhaps it might have been better to discuss the question of income tax in this House on another occasion. My chartered accountant looked at the salaries of judges, and I have a chart of present and proposed judges' salaries and allowances, 1974 to 1976, which was prepared by the Department of Justice, and in checking the bill I find that it is accurate. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre mentioned at second reading that there was a $3,000 difference in my figures. That $3,000 is a special allowance to judges under another statute, so I think that explains it.
I am taking the salary of the Chief Justice of Canada at the total rate as of 1974. He was paid $50,000. His increase will bring his salary to $68,000. His total federal and provincial taxes on $50,000 could be $21,126, and on $68,000 could be $31,772. These are based on Alberta figures, and I might say that in Ontario they are higher because our province has the lowest personal income tax of any province outside of one.


An hon. Member:: New Brunswick has the highest.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am prepared to accept that. These figures may be approximations only to the extent that deductions are made in reference to any contributions which are now paid on pensions and so forth.
For the Chief Justice of Canada to gain $18,000 he is going to pay $10,600 more taxes. Really we are only increasing the salary of the chief justice by $8,000.
Let us consider the other judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. This bill moves their salaries up from $45,000 to $63,000. Their taxes on $45,000 were $18,181, and on $63,000 at the same federal and provincial rates they will be $28,785.

May 30, 1975
Judges Act
The salaries of the chief justices of the provinces will move from $44,000 to $58,000. On $44,000 they pay $17,640 tax. On $58,000 they will pay $25,840 tax. In other words, to gain that $14,000, they pay another $8,000 taxes. These are interesting facts, and when judges pay tax that money goes back to the same fund which pays the salaries.


An hon. Member:: It comes off the cheque before they get it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is taken right at the source. I thank the hon. member. Judges of the territorial courts will receive $56,000 instead of $40,000. On the $40,000 their income tax was $15,503, and on $56,000 it will be $24,661.
The salaries of superior court judges rose from $38,000 to $53,000. On $38,000 their tax was $14,434. On $53,000 it will be $22,894. So in actual fact the figures will be 50 per cent or 60 per cent less than we are talking about today and, as my hon. friend says, it comes off the cheque before you get it.
The chief judges of district courts will receive $44,000 instead of $30,000. On $30,000 tax was $10,271, and on $44,000 it will be $17,640.
Other judges of county and district courts will earn $40,000 instead of $28,000. That is in the second phase. I have not referred to the third phase because it is not payable until 1976, and I am not a futurist. On $28,000 taxes were $9,287, and on $40,000 they will be $15,503.
If these judges, especially the senior men, have any savings or any other income, the tax increases accordingly, because we are operating under the progressive rate. I do not intend to name them, but I know that hon. members- at least one in particular pays the government more money than he receives as a member of parliament because he has other income. I would like to emphasize that here before the media.


An hon. Member:: What media?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There is someone here from Canadian Press, anyway. I could have prepared the same chart with regard to members of parliament. Surely we do not all come here as poor as church mice. Some of us did make a little money before we arrived, even though we left home with no education and with holes in our pockets and at our knees. I am one who can talk like that. But the fact is we do have other income, so many hon. members are giving practically all their salaries to the Department of National Revenue. During the war such people were known as dollar a year men.
If the judges salaries did not increase, does that mean none of the men who are going to have these jobs, or very few would be more accurate, could not make almost double what they will be paid? One may say that after all they are serving their country and they should take much less. They are taking much less, but if we are not going to pay them more, what we will get will be from the bottom of the heap. How many Canadians would like to have the judiciary made up of men who came from law practices which made so little money they were glad to grab the job? What kind of judgments would we have from that kind of grey matter? We need men of some calibre.
While I am on my feet I would like to make another point because of remarks already uttered. I always accept another man's right to express his viewpoint. I have said many times that if we all think alike, there is no thinking. I would not want to think that in this House of Commons we would have men who could not earn two, three or four times as much. I know men sitting on the Treasury Benches, I know men on the backbenches, and I know men on our backbenches who could do that manyfold. But they come here. I will not get into why they are here, but I will say that anyone who comes to parliament, if he stays here long enough, is making a great financial sacrifice. I think that is necessary. I do not think he can serve his country unless he does.
I must tell the House about the funniest letter I ever received. It was in regard to the increases in the salaries of members of parliament. I received this letter from one of my friends in my constituency. I did not know his age until I read his letter. He wrote, "Eldon, I served my country from 1914 to 1918 and never took my wife to the trenches. You do not need little Erva in Ottawa." I have not answered that letter. He may be right. That is but one letter. The writer suggested that because I was serving my country, I should be prepared to make sacrifices. I do not think we are called upon to make those kinds of sacrifices.
In the last few years many young members made a significant contribution to the life of this House. Many of them have children who need educating. Are they to be left in Vancouver or elsewhere while their father serves parliament? When children reach their teens they need their mother and father.
Similarly, are we to ask judges to make those kinds of sacrifices? Frankly I do not think this bill is out of line. By appointing Chief Justice McGillivray to the bench in Alberta the government showed a remarkable lack of partisanship. I cannot say what the judge earned as a counsel, but I think I could guess. In that case the government appointed a man of proven ability, intelligence, and character. I am sure it has made many similar appointments.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps the government made a mistake.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Perhaps. Our judges have always been of high calibre. Let me tell the House a little story which impressed me when I was in law school and which shows that our judges are endowed with knowledge of human psychology, decency, and a sense of humour. I do not remember the name of the case. Some years ago a lady complained about noises coming from a tent pitched on the banks of the Red River. She complained to the RCMP about noises of revelry at night. When the RCMP investigated they found the occupants of the tent asleep, and a few empty wine and whiskey bottles as evidence of revelry. The occupants of the tent were sleeping off the effects of their revelry. The occupants of the tent were brought before the local judge on a charge of disturbing the peace. After hearing the complaint of the lady who had been on the opposite side of the Red River, the judge dismissed the charge. He said that the complainant was not annoyed by

May 30, 1975

what she heard and saw, but was annoyed by what she did not hear and see.
As long as appointees to the Bench show a similar understanding of human behaviour, our law and jurisprudence are in good hands.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, I did not have an opportunity of speaking on the second reading of this bill, nor of participating in the committee deliberations. Also, I did not participate in the debate when Bill C-44 was being considered by the House.
I must say, having been in parliament for some 18 years and seen some of the changes which have taken place with regard to the levels of remuneration paid to those in the House of Commons and elsewhere, that I am not confused but very concerned about the attitude shown in many quarters of this country with regard to the remuneration of people in public life or in public office. I am greatly surprised that members of parliament and Senators have been singled out by media and correspondence for an unprecedentedly vitriolic, uninformed, biased and hypocritical attack related to pay in public life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We saw an exhibition, both in this House and outside, on the part of the media, directors of the media, and others who should know better, which was nothing but a hypocritical, demogogical outburst. Many statements contained blatant untruths with regard to Bill C-44, as it was originally introduced.
Although flat percentages were applied to figures coming under Bill C-44, the same yardstick was not applied to Bill C-24 dealing with the salaries of Lieutenant Governors. Goodness only knows, those salaries needed changing, having gone unchanged for so many years. Although some salaries were increased by well over 100 per cent, was anything said of a critical nature? Oh, here and there we heard a tiny murmur; but was it said this was wrong, after it had been said that the increases for members and Senators were wrong? That was hypocrisy; that was evidence of a double standard. That is my first point.
Second, during consideration of this bill, Bill C-47, which first appeared on the order paper in December last, there has been a little tut-tutting on the part of the odd editorial writer, but nothing has been really said about percentages. And, remember, the percentages under Bill C-44 were all wrong-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must inform him that he may not discuss bills that have already been passed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, I do not want to criticize a ruling, but I may refer to any legislation that has been adopted. I cannot question a ruling of the Chair, according to our Standing Orders, but we may refer to such legislation. I apologize for disagreeing with the Chair, but we may refer to a legislation which has just been adopted, incidentally, during a debate, and very easily. That is done quite often.
Judges Act

Percentages were applied to Bill C-44 and great shock seemed to be expressed by some, who said that was all wrong. But on a bill which applies even greater percentages, what do we hear? Nothing. Again this shows that there is a double standard. The judges, I suppose, are not the favourite kicking boys of the media and some other people.
It is not that I object to the level of salary that the judges are going to get because, in the general scale of pay, they will soon be overtaken. We know what is going on at the executive level in the public service. In a few weeks we will hear the rumours about the increases due to come at the executive level of the public service. Where will members of parliament be then? They will be as newborn babes in their relative innocence.
Let us look at the provincial and civic administrations. Let us look at education, both the administrative level and teachers. There is a story in this morning's Globe and Mail which states that in a certain school district in this province the top is going to be over $26,000. We must remember that has security of tenure and pension rights. There is no application of any merit principle at any time. They refused it. Their job is not on the line every few years. As far as I am concerned, my job has been on the line eight times in 18 years. Teachers work ten months of the year. It is true they have to do some other things, but there is no such thing as working 12 months a year.
Let us look at industry. The so-called blue collar workers now receive $12 or $13 an hour with a guaranteed 40 hour a week and plenty of overtime all year long. True enough that may be the aristocracy of the blue collars, but before the last pay increase went through, on the basis of time put in by an average member of parliament, he was paid at the level of a plasterer's labourer. He was actually paid less than $5 an hour. When you work out the $1,800 a month salary, which is $450 a week, it comes to $5 an hour.
I find it ironic that in all of the discussions it was felt that people in this House after four years, and in my case as in many others for the third time in 18 years, were contemplating a change in salary levels. The number absolutely overwhelms me. I ask those who criticize, where do they sit? How have they benefited? What percentage increase did they get in the interval? Do they have other income? We sometimes wonder about their great stories here. We wonder what are their sources and responsibilities. Do they have children to educate? How far do they live from Ottawa? What is the cost of separate homes?
In so far as the judges are concerned, there are some similar considerations. A judge has to be the leader of his peers among lawyers. He is a man who has worked hard to reach that desired degree of excellence that we hope to have in our judiciary.
The salaries proposed in this legislation are not out of line. It is rather funny when you consider that a chief judge of a county court goes up more than 70 per cent over the proposed schedules of this bill and he will get the benefit of retroactivity. Up to now the judges have had a non-contributory pension scheme. Has that ever been translated into actuarial value? What is the value of a

May 30, 1975
Judges Act
pension after 15 years' service, which is the minimum requirement under the act? There is a regrettably small survivor's pension, but it is part of the revenue from the position.
Superior court and county court judges are paid travelling and living expenses when they are away from their homes. Has anyone ever added that to their salary when totalling their revenue, as is done every day by some uninformed, misguided person in the media with regard to the salaries of members and ministers in this House? But everyone cluck-clucks and says it is wrong that the judges had to wait so long for changes. The same is true for lieutenant governors.
Cabinet ministers waited from 1952 until 1975 to have their increment changed. I think the appreciation the Canadian public shows to these men is really great. If ever there was a thousand per cent job, that is it. There is 1,000 per cent involvement. I speak with some experience. There is no other job in this country that has so much involvement from midnight Sunday all the way through to midnight a week later.
I will not speak about the emoluments of the Chair. I went through this same problem at the time I occupied the chair. There again there was no change in the increment for Mr. Speaker. I think that was a niggardly act on the part of the nation with regard to that office.
The same applies at the provincial level. The increments are subject to income tax. I have before me a schedule drawn up by a tax adviser as to the amount of tax that will be paid by a superior court judge, supreme court judge, Chief Justice of Canada, the superior court judges of the provinces, and the district court judges. How much will be recaptured by the treasury because it falls into the one taxation year? I leave it to hon. members, who can say just how much of the retroactive part of their salary increases went to the Department of National Revenue. The net cost of that pay increase to the Crown was very much smaller than would appear.
I do not think it does anyone any good to behave as this parliament and the public of Canada behaved over the last pay increase. It is very easy to say it should not be done, but somewhere the buck has to stop. Someone must take a decision. We have to amend bills every now and then to pass on judges' salaries. I believe the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) and his advisers make the best examination of the subject they can before putting forward proposals. These may have to be altered because the minister's colleagues will not accept them. Then, in this House, are we competent to decide exactly what a judge's salary should be?
We do not seek to determine the salaries paid to public servants at the executive level. We do not try to fix the wages elevator operators should be paid. There are standards set. There is an independent committee which advises the cabinet on the desirable level of executive remuneration.
Why not set up a parliamentary commission charged with reporting every two years with regard to changes which should take place in the remuneration of judges and parliamentarians, these recommendations to become law

within a certain period unless negative action is taken by way of resolution in this chamber? To my mind this would be eminently fair to all parties concerned, the public included-and the public is to be considered in this-I do not mean to add them as an afterthought.
In France a member of parliament is paid $35,000 a year plus certain allowances; 45 per cent of that salary is not taxable. That salary is fixed by statute-it is to be the mid point, the average of the highest and lowest in the executive class of the public service. In this country it would be somewhere around SX-3 or SX-4. It is automatic-no fuss and feathers about it. Members of parliament there serve the people just as we do.
In Germany, a member of parliament is paid about $35,000 at today's exchange rates, plus certain allowances.
When one looks at pensions I have to laugh at the Globe and Mail and certain other papers when they insist that members of parliament enjoy the benefit of a most generous pension scheme. They ought to broaden their outlook and get a little more information. If people are adequately paid they will pay their proper contributions. I can agree that the front end load is wrong in some cases. On the other hand, the people who serve here for six years, especially if they are professional people, cannot step out of the chamber and adjust to civvy street as easily as changing a suit on a Monday morning. There is no severance pay as there would be in private industry; if there were we could dispense with this idea of a person serving here for six years and then drawing a pension.
One must consider, too, the entitlement of the widow or the spouse of this individual, and the role that person has to play in the life of a member of parliament. This is something which the media and the public forgot. In the case of a male member, the wife has rights too-she works damned hard for them, but in all this fuss and fury, amid the stage plays that were put on here and elsewhere, this was forgotten. However, my colleagues here do not forget it. They know what it means.
So, I would say this pay increase is needed. It is indeed unfortunate that the percentages have to be so high. I am glad for the sake of the 500 or so judges affected that the media have not decided to make them kicking boards because, on the basis of the performance of last December and later on, they should be kicked all over the lot at the present time. But no, there are double standrads, and I do not mind saying it. Double standards have been applied in this case.
I commend the bill before us today. I am sorry it has taken so long to get to it. I think there are better ways in which to proceed. I have suggested one, and I commend it to hon. members opposite as I would commend it to my hon. friends on this side of the House in the event we were forming an administration. There still has to be a decision made.
I don't give a damn about an argument which says we should not make up our minds for ourselves. This is what boards of directors do. It is done in all walks of life. The publisher of a newspaper sets his own remuneration. An editor who is a member on the board of a newspaper sets his own remuneration. It is not wrong for him to do so, but
May 30,1975

it is wrong for parliamentarians. It is the same in broadcasting stations.
I am sorry if I have been tempted to vent some spleen this afternoon, using as a vehicle a bill to which I give full approval, and I apologize to hon. members for having taken overly long. However, I did not say anything on the other bills, nor during previous stages of the bill before us.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, it is often true in this House that we can differ widely on an issue that comes before us and yet find some measure of common ground. At least it is usually the case that we can understand each other despite wide differences of opinion which may exist. I am afraid, however, that on this issue, as between many of my hon. friends in the chamber and some of us in this quarter, it is awfully hard to understand each other. The gulf between us is too wide.
I comprehend what the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) are saying. They believe in those at the top getting percentage increases that correspond to the percentage increases that others have had. Thus they believe that those at the top should get more. I just do not share that point of view, Madam Speaker.
I believe it is the job of government and parliament to try to get rid of the inequalities in this country and to concentrate on raising the incomes of those in the middle and lower brackets. We do not move in that direction when we add substantial increments to the salaries of those who are already in the top 10, 5 or 3 per cent of our wage or salary earners.
It is not my intention to prolong this debate. Apparently I shouted "nay" so loudly a while back in an effort to drown out the "yeas" on that Senate bill that I did something to my voice which will protect members from a long speech from me at this time. I have also got to save my voice a bit because in a few minutes we will be dealing with a motion of mine calling for an increase in the old age pension.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: What will happen to that motion?


A. Daniel McKenzie: I will support it, Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) says he will support it. I expect lots of members will support it. In fact they will speak about it so long that they will talk it out.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You have not the right to increase the pension anyway.
Judges Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have here an interesting contrast. Our judges are getting these high salaries, and my hon. friend from Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) slopped over into a rehashing of Bill C-44. Others are getting high salaries. A spirited defence is made for them that they should get these massive increases. I just do not agree. I think that this should not be our first concern, and I again make the point that I have tried to make in debates like this on other occasions, that at this particular moment in our history the issue is not whether our judges, lieutenant-governors, cabinet ministers or Senators need an increase in pay; the issue is the state of our economy.
The state of the economy is such that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is preaching restraint, and he seems to be doing his best to give us some hints of what is going to be in his budget. The budget is going to contain restraint measures.


Prosper Boulanger: Right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend across the way says "right". If from this place restraint is to be preached to the Canadian people as a whole, then how can hon. members stand in this place, time after time, and support massive increases for those who are already at the top?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Why not tell that to your friends?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do. I made a speech when we were dealing with the Treasury Board estimates along this same line. Reference was made to massive increases that are coming to executives in the public service. When those increases come, Madam Speaker, I shall oppose them as well. I think percentage increases should apply only to that portion of one's income that must be increased in order to meet the basic cost of living. As for any increase above that point, especially in light of today's economy, my answer is no.


Walter David Baker: Is your answer still no even to the postal workers who are asking for 70 per cent?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My answer to these outlandish requests is that they are wrong, especially in the case of those who are already some way up the scale. But I point out that this rash of outlandish demands has come about since in this House of Commons in December it was proposed to give members a 50 per cent raise.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Nonsense. We did that a long time before.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend shouts "nonsense" and others show their sensitivities with respect to this issue, but that is the fact. We have fanned the fires of inflation by what we are doing in this House.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I saw a settlement of 35 per cent for one year last November.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am getting lots of help in saving my voice because of all these interjections, so I welcome them.
6308

May 30, 1975
Judges Act


Prosper Boulanger: You had better go to Ste. Anne de Beaupre if you have hurt your voice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That sounded interesting but I did not hear what my hon. friend said.


Prosper Boulanger: I said you will have to go to Ste. Anne de Beaupre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I seem to be standing alone here today, Madam Speaker, but I was not alone on the vote on Bill C-44; there were 25 of us that opposed the bill. This shows that some members of the House have some conscience and are sensitive about this issue.
In regard to increases for people at the top, I say that the issue is not how long it is since they had their last increase. It is not whether they need it or that they should preserve their place in the pecking order. The issue is whether it is fair to the Canadian people to give them an increase in view of today's state of the economy, and I say it is not. I say that we did wrong, that we committed an outrage in passing Bill C-44. I say that we were wrong in raising the salaries of those in the other place and of cabinet ministers. I say the same thing in regard to judges and lieutenant-governors.
From this place, Parliament Hill, where we speak to and for the people of Canada, there should be a conscientiousness in what we do, and we should have an eye to the effect of what we do on the economy as a whole. It is for these reasons, Madam Speaker, that I opposed Bill C-44, and it is for these reasons that I oppose this bill as vigorously as I can.
I go along with all those who have argued about the importance of the judiciary, that they should be independent and so on. But to suggest that we will get impartial judges and good members of parliament simply by paying higher salaries I think misses the point altogether. I still hope that from this place, from this Parliament Hill, the voice of reason will be heard, and if there is to be the preaching of restraint to the Canadian people as a whole, which we will probably get on the night of June 23, I suggest that right here is the place where the practising of that restraint should begin.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. On
division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being 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.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Notice of motion No. 2, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). Shall the motion stand?


Mitchell William Sharp: At the request of the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Stand at the request of the government.
Motion No. 15, the hon. member for Hamilton-Went-worth (Mr. O'Sullivan). Shall the motion stand?


Mitchell William Sharp: At the request of the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Stand at the request of the government.
Motion No. 19, the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson). Shall the motion stand?


Mitchell William Sharp: At the request of the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Stand at the request of the government.
Motion No. 20, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). Shall the motion stand?


Mitchell William Sharp: At the request of the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Stand at the request of the government.
Motion No. 34, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). Shall the motion stand?


Mitchell William Sharp: At the request of the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Stand at the request of the government.
Motion No. 37, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona (Mr. Roche). Shall the motion stand?


Mitchell William Sharp: At the request of the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Stand at the request of the government.
Motion No. 39, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


OLD AGE SECURITY ACT-CANADA PENSION PLAN SUGGESTED REDUCTION IN AGE ELIGIBILITY AND INCREASE IN PENSIONS
Stanley Howard Knowles: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give immediate consideration to the advisability of amending the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan to provide for the pensions payable under these two acts to be available at age 60 to all persons who meet the other requirements of the said acts and who are not in or are prepared to withdraw from the labour market, and also to provide for the basic amount of the pension payable under the Old Age Security Act, at age 60 for those not in the labour market and to everyone at age 65, to be increased to $200 per month, for this basic amount to be escalated each year by an amount that will enable pensioners not only to keep up with rising living costs but to share in
May 30,1975

rising living standards, and also to provide for the elimination of any means or income test from the Old Age Security Act, so that the full pension thereunder will be recognized as the established right of all our people.
He said: Madam Speaker, this is an interesting coincidence, but there are those in the House who know I did not plan it this way. It was the officials in one of the offices that lined up this motion for debate this afternoon at four o'clock, and it was the government that lined up the bill to raise judges' salaries for earlier this afternoon. I hope the readiness that most of the members have shown to support substantial increases in the salaries of judges will reflect itself now in a readiness to support the proposal for a substantial increase in the pensions paid to our senior citizens.


Mr. Whittaker:: They are going to accept it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend to my right says they are going to accept this motion. I would not be surprised if there are a number of speeches in favour of the general principle for which I am asking, but at five o'clock they will still be talking about it.
It is still my view that one of the finest moves ever made by the parliament of Canada was when the Old Age Security Act was passed and came into effect on January 1, 1952. The passing of that legislation changed the situation we had for a number of years in which older people got a pension only if they could meet a very severe means test, and in its place it was determined that everyone who met the requirement of residence and age, at that point it was age 70, would draw a pension as of right.
Let me say also that I think one of the finest acts ever performed by my late friend, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, was when he announced after the passing of that act that he was going to apply for his pension. He was the Prime Minister of Canada, he had a private income, but he was of pensionable age and he said to the people of Canada that he wanted to demonstrate that this was something that should go to all people who were of pensionable age and there was to be no stigma attached to it on the part of anyone. He said that was the reason he was applying for old age security.
Not only do I see this in terms of having lived through it all, but I feel we have changed the character of retirement living by the extent to which we have made other things which are available to older people a matter of right. We have come a long way in many respects since the Old Age Security Act came into being. That in itself was tremendous progress from what was done back in the mid 1920's. We have now added, even where they are not provided for everybody, hospitalization, medicare, prescription drugs, and free or low-cost travel on public transportation and so on, including half rates to movie theatres and the various other benefits which accrue to a person now simply because he is 65, without any questions being asked.
My concern is that these social advances which were made with the adoption of the Old Age Security Act should be continued, and we should improve the whole picture by substantially raising the amount of the old age security pension, by getting rid of the means or income
Old Age Security
test that applies to that portion known as the guaranteed income supplement, and by bringing these things into effect at age 60 instead of age 65.
The motion as you read it from the chair, Madam Speaker, proposes that the basic pension under the Old Age Security Act be raised to $200 a month. I draw your attention to the fact that the motion was filed on October 10, 1974. A lot has happened since then. I believe it was two weeks ago today that, under Standing Order 43,1 tried to move a motion to raise the basic old age pension to $300 a month. If it were possible to amend this motion now before us I would amend it along those lines, because in the past few months since this motion was placed on the order paper we have spread money around lavishly and easily for certain other persons. It is also the fact, of course, that the rise in the cost of living has escalated old age security pensions and the guaranteed income supplement to the point that an individual who is drawing the full amount is now getting more than $200 a month, but it is still only $123.42 for the person who draws only old age security.
The time has come to raise that amount to a figure like $250 or $300 a month, and to see to it that it goes to everyone as a matter of right. A few moments ago one of the defences made in regard to higher salaries for judges, members of parliament and others was that they would pay a good chunk of it back to the Department of National Revenue in income tax. If that argument is good for judges and members of parliament, I submit it is also good for those who are in receipt of old age security.
What has always been the basic theory behind the universal program is that the most fair, the most dignified, and the most humane way of providing social benefits is to give them on a universal basis and let the income tax take care of those who, because of their other income, really do not need it. I know the same Liberal party which took nearly half a century to get to the point of being willing to go for universal old age security has now backed away from it and is preaching the gospel of selectivity. Like Arthur Meighen, and I had better bring a Conservative into the picture since I mentioned Mr. St. Laurent, I am unrevised and unrepentent about this. I still think the best way to provide benefits like old age security is to provide them on a universal basis without applying a means or income test beforehand, letting the income tax apply afterwards.
That is the reason why I argue that the basic pension should now be raised, as the motion says, to $200 or, as my motion of two weeks ago suggested, to $300, and that the guaranteed income supplement portion be paid to everyone, that there be no means or income test on it and that we get back to what we started out to do in the early 1950's, namely, bring to our older people the full measure of dignity that is their right.
I get teased around here sometimes for having been here for quite a while. I do not mind that teasing; I am proud of the fact that I have been here quite a few years. One of the things that is very prominent in my memory is the realization of the difference we have made in the lives of the older people. Some 30, 40 or 50 years ago they were kept in back rooms. They could not go anywhere as they did not have the clothes or the car fare. Now older people get out
6310

May 30, 1975
Old Age Security
to all kinds of things. They have the clothes and they enjoy public transportation. Golden wedding anniversaries today are much more widely attended then they used to be because people can afford to get to them. We have made improvements. I am not only prepared to admit that, I assert it, and we have been able to do that to the extent we have practised the principle of universality.
I ask that this parliament continue that principle and that it do so along the lines I suggest in this motion; that is, that the basic amount of the pension be raised to a figure high enough that everybody gets more than is now being paid under both old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. I argue also that the age for that pension should be brought down to 60.
My motion refers not only to lowering the age for old age security but also to lowering the age in respect of the Canada Pension Plan. I attach to both of these pensions at age 60, and up to age 65, the requirement that a person be out of the labour market. That could be because of having left the labour market or of never having been in it. As hon. members are aware, I think this is a much better way to pay pensions at age 60 than what the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) will be proposing in a bill in which he will give it only to those between the ages of 60 and 65 who are spouses of one who is 65 or over. I think the time has come for the pension to be available on a voluntary basis to anyone at age 60 provided that person is out of the labour market.
Although life can be richly rewarding, we also know that life has become more difficult. The rat race in our industrial society today is such that many workers have great difficulty in trying to continue to age 65. I think one thing we could do that would most enhance life in later years is to permit people to retire when they are young enough to plan their future and their remaining years. That is the reason why in this motion I plead that there be a reduction of the age to 60 on a voluntary basis, and that it apply to both old age security and the Canada Pension Plan.
There is no point in telling a person he or she can receive the old age security at age 60 and expect that he or she will retire if they cannot pick up any other benefits which are available. If we can induce many people in this age group to retire this would incidentally open up many jobs for those who are younger and unemployed. So, I present the motion to the House this afternoon as earnestly as I can.
I suppose this motion epitomizes the type of thing I have worked on the hardest during the decades I have been in this place. I am aware of the needs of those in other age groups. I am very much aware that there is a move in the direction of having a guaranteed annual income to cover all our people. Indeed, I press for this to be done. I am aware of the arguments from the other side that if we are to start spending we should spend the money on the needs of single parents and people who cannot work. The difficulty, however, is that although we are told the money should be spent in this other place, it is not spent in either place.

There is a whole broad spectrum about which we should be concerned, but I submit that our society is easily measured on the one hand in respect of what it does for our children and younger people, and on the other hand by what it does for our older people. I say we should take steps to make still better the life of the senior citizens in Canada and add to the glory that was Parliament's when it passed the Old Age Security Act in 1951, which became effective in 1952. Therefore I present this motion and hope that the House will agree with me, as I say in my motion, that the full benefits available to our people should be recognized as the established right of all our senior citizens.


Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He has achieved a remarkable reputation in this House for fighting on behalf of Canada's old age pensioners. This motion is of interest to many Canadians, including the senior citizens of my constituency of Wellington.
At the very outset, Madam Speaker, I believe it is important to point out that the combination of old age security benefits and retirement pension now available to Canadians aged 65 and over, under the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act, is one of the most advanced in the western world. These two acts form an integral part of the Canadian social security system. They enable millions of people to provide financially for themselves and their families during crucial periods, that is, when retirement arrives, when disability strikes, or when death takes away the breadwinner. It might be worthwhile taking a moment to consider the number of Canadians who are already receiving assistance under these acts.
Each month approximately half a million senior citizens and their families receive a benefit cheque under the Canada Pension Plan alone. In addition to this over 1.8 million Canadians, that is all long-standing residents of Canada 65 years of age and over, receive a monthly benefit under old age security. Of these over 1.1 million people receive a further payment each month under the guaranteed income supplement program.
This is a highly successful program which this motion proposes to change. In fact there are three parts to the hon. member's motion. The first advocates making old age security and Canada Pension Plan benefits available to all persons who retire at age 60. The second is aimed at increasing the benefits of the old age pension to $200 a month and indexing them to the standard of living. The third calls for the elimination of any income or means test for receipt of guaranteed income supplements. I would like to consider each of these parts in turn to show why, at this point in time, it would be unwise to adopt this motion.
There are sound economic reasons for not undertaking the first proposal to increase the old age pension and Canada Pension Plan rolls to include all those who retire at age 60. First of all, retirement at age 60 would reduce the productivity of this country at the very time when it is most important that everything be done to keep production at as high a level as possible.
All too often we forget that workers between the ages of 60 and 65 possess skills which took many years to develop.
May 30, 1975

This kind of an amendment could add another 800,000 people to the lists of those dependent on the government for their income, and deprive the community of the valuable energy and skills which these men and women can offer. This is becoming increasingly important with the changing age structure of our population.
At present 8 per cent of all Canadians are over 65. But by 1985 at least 13 per cent of our citizens will be over 65. This, combined with the trend to smaller families, means that we may well be facing a severe labour shortage in the coming years. Therefore the contribution that our senior citizens can make to the work force will be even more significant. As it is, these demographic changes mean that we will almost certainly have a smaller proportion of people in the labour force who will have to support a larger retired population. To accept this motion for the provision of retirement pensions at age 60 would make this situation even worse.
Secondly, let us consider the cost of providing pensions and guaranteed income supplements to those who retire between 60 and 65. It would be approximately $1.2 billion. This measure by itself would double the current federal contribution to Canadian public assistance. This money must come from somewhere. In fact it will come from the taxes paid by other Canadians and at the expense of other needs in society. In this as in every other instance of government spending we are talking about priorities.
Should our priority be to provide additional funds to a limited group of people in the population, many of whom already hold well paying jobs, before we tackle the more urgent problems of poverty in this country? If we are really concerned about fighting poverty in Canada we will aim our resources at those who are the worst off, not to broad groups across the board, but in a selective fashion to the poor, the disabled, and the needy.
The government is presently conducting a comprehensive review of its social security programs with a view to improving the distribution of income across the country. The reform which will follow should benefit Canada's senior citizens as well as others, but according to their need as individuals rather than as a group, regardless of need.
Finally, this resolution makes the assumption that the majority of people between the ages of 60 and 65 want to retire. This is by no means always the case. A ndmber of cases have come to my attention of people who are being compulsorily retired at age o5, and who object to being pensioned off in this way with good working years ahead of them. To make Canada Pension Plan benefits available to people at age 60 would only encourage private industry to retire people earlier.
In the past businesses have tended to accept the age at which old age security or Canada pension payments begin as the normal age for compulsory retirement under their private plans. When the eligible age for social security payments dropped from 70 to 65 many private firms dropped their own age for compulsory retirement. To lower this age again to 60 would penalize many Canadians who are not happy to retire at that age, and who have productive years ahead of them.
Old Age Security
Already more and more people here and in the United States are questioning the value of early retirement and the widespread policy of compulsory retirement. A Conference Board study reports, for instance, that in those companies which already offer early retirement plans, only 10 per cent of eligible employees actually take advantage of this option. There is a strong argument which suggests it may be preferable to reintroduce a system of optional retirement in view of the extended lifespan and productive capacity of many people over 65.
Too many of us in the past decade have been persuaded by advertisements and a media campaign which glorified the "Pepsi generation", those under 25, to the point where we assume that the world belongs exclusively to the young-where we assume that a man's or woman's productive years are finished at age 60 or even earlier. This is not so. For instance, were we to introduce compulsory retirement at age 65 in this House we would lose the valuable contributions of such colleagues, among others, as the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), as well as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Truly this would be a shame.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis William (Frank) Maine: I am particularly concerned at the number of industrial firms who seem reluctant these days to hire older employees, who put so much emphasis on the bright young men around that they forget how much more experienced and older employees can offer. This is a subtle, but socially debilitating, form of discrimination. In my view we need less talk about lowering the age for pensions and more support for hiring and recognizing the contribution of older and experienced employees.
This government has deliberately been emphasizing that great potential to be found among Canada's senior citizens-a productive potential which is now being developed through such programs as New Horizons. There are good reasons why New Horizons has been one of the most successful and widely acclaimed programs ever launched by the federal government. This kind of project, which employs and funds the activity of senior citizens, must be considered a more productive utilization of funds than a simple extension of the pension.
Another good example of Canada's senior citizens working not only for their own country but also abroad, is the Canadian Executive Service Overseas. This is an agency funded by the federal government which, at the request of the developing nations, sends out over 200 retired Canadians a year-between the ages of 65 and 70 for the most part-who use their expertise and experience to help solve particular problems or challenges facing the developing nations. In this way older Canadians have helped in over 40 countries of the world. In the past year under this program, Canadian senior citizens have given voluntarily of their time in a wide variety of projects. Some have worked, for instance, to increase barley production in Sri Lanka, to improve car leasing in Thailand, and to modernize the hotels of Nigeria. These people are proving that not only Canadian young people, but also our senior citizens, can make a contribution to development around the world.
With the same goal, the government introduced amendments to the Canada Pension Plan last year which were

May 30, 1975
Old Age Security
designed to enable all pensioners, including those from 65 to 69, to continue to work full or part time and receive wages. Before these amendments were passed, contributors between 65 and 69 had to retire from regular employment before they could qualify for Canada Pension Plan benefits, and recipients of these pensions aged 65 to 69 faced the prospect of having their pensions reduced if they earned above a certain amount.
I am surprised that the hon. member's motion is designed to make a pension payable at age 60 only on condition that the individual retires. Surely this flies in the face of all recent moves to allow senior citizens to continue to work while receiving a pension. This may suit some professionals who can readily resume their work again at age 65, but surely it works to the detriment of the average working man.
The second substantive part of this motion calls for an increase in the old age pension to $200 a month. I do not think that this is unreasonable at all. But I want to point out that an individual who receives the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement at present already can receive $209.99 a month-as much, indeed more than the hon. member's motion calls for. I realize that it is the basic rate of pension, now at $123.42, that the hon. member wants to raise, but I feel it is worth noting that those who need the higher amount can already receive it under the existing plan.
We have indeed come a long way since 1926 when parliament first passed legislation giving senior citizens the magnificent sum of $20 a month at age 70. In the last two or three years alone the budget for social security, for old age pensions, has doubled from $2 billion to $4 billion, and income tax exemptions have been provided to allow a couple over 65 to earn an income as high as $8,000 a year before paying tax.
The key difference between the government's policy and the hon. member's proposal is basically that the hon. member would like to eliminate completely any pension dependent on an income test, so that $200 would be the basic amount received by all persons 65 and over, or those over 60 and retired. This means that the wealthiest businessman in Canada with substantial personal assets will receive as much as a widow with no other means of support. This is hardly fair. It is hardly just. The key advantage of our pension system as it now stands is that we can direct the resources to where they are most needed. That is to say, we can increase the pension payable to those individuals with little or no income in a way that this motion would not allow. This is both the most efficient and the most equitable use of the money available.
Therefore I am opposed to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It would not lead to an equitable use either of the resources of the country or of the resources devoted to the senior citizens of Canada.
Fairness is the goal at which old age security should aim, and that is precisely the goal of the present system. This is why old age security benefits are now fully indexed to the cost of living and payable quarterly to ensure that our senior citizens, who have worked hard all their

lives, are protected from the damage of inflation. This is why we retain an income test in order to ensure that those who most need support receive it.
There is an old Hasidic saying that the prosperity of a country is in accordance with its treatment of the aged. By this standard I believe that Canada can be judged among the most advanced and prosperous countries in the world. When compared, for instance, to the American schemes, the Canadian system comes out clearly ahead. Not only are Canadian pension payments higher, but they are available without retirement at age 65, whereas substantial retirement is required to receive a pension in the United States before the age of 72. All too often the United States sets the trend for Canada, but in this area Canada is among the leaders of the world.
We have an old age security and pension system in Canada of which we can be proud and which deserves our support.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to support the motion brought forward today by my neighbour from Winnipeg, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I will just take a few minutes to speak in support of this motion because I do not want to be accused of taking part in talking it out.
When one talks about lowering the pension age to 60 and increasing the pension up to $200 a month, people ask where the money will come from. I do not think I would have any trouble finding the money in the $30 billion budget of the Liberal government. There are hundreds of millions of dollars-and the Conservative Party has mentioned this many times-which would be available if some of the departments were to be phased out. For example, Information Canada is just duplicating what each government department has now, its own information offices. They are expanding, and we can certainly do away with Information Canada and find hundreds of millions of dollars there.
The government is expanding its expenditures on outside consultants, and that is reaching about $1 billion per year. We can certainly start phasing out outside consultants, and there we would find the money for increased pensions and for lowering the pension age. We had no trouble finding money for increases for members of parliament and judges, so I am sure the money can be found quite easily.
The Progressive Conservative Party has long supported an increase to about $200 a month and the lowering of the pension age, and I would like to quote from the position paper we presented in the last election:
The Progressive Conservative Party pledges itself to ensure that our aging population lives in comfort and dignity.
We refuse to engage in the kind of demeaning auction room bidding which has often been directed to our senior citizens. Recognizing what inflation has done to this deserving group, a Progressive Conservative government will provide a substantial increase in the basic old age security pension. We regard such an increase as a just and proper act to partially remedy the inflationary pressures that have so diminished the economic security of these Canadians who have given years of service to their country.
May 30, 1975

It is not our view that people of 60 years of age be compelled or urged to retire, but in a country like Canada citizens should be enabled to retire in comfort and dignity at 60 if they so desire. We would consider gradually lowering the age of benefit eligibility if an applicant is no longer employed.
A Progressive Conservative government would ensure that when a wife or husband reaches age 65 the spouse is deemed eligible for old age security and guaranteed income benefit if he or she is not employed and is more than 50 years of age.
I find that this is what the majority of Canadians want today, contrary to the remarks made by the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine) that people do not want to retire at 60 today. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre put it very well when he said that with the rat race today in certain industries people are exhausted at 60, and that no contribution is made after 60.


Mr. Cullen:: Come on!


A. Daniel McKenzie: In certain industries today one cannot make a contribution after 55, and I refer to the industry in which I was involved. That is communications, and I observed this because I was in that field for 30 years. I am speaking from some knowledge, not just something I pulled out of a hat.
The position paper goes on to say:
The withering away of savings has put in jeopardy the private pension plans of many Canadians. A Progressive Conservative government will encourage effective action to bring remedial justice to people whose financial security has been undermined by inflation.
I just do not agree that the answer to every problem is to pay people more money. The government also has an obligation in this field to do something about inflation. That would help senior citizens in two ways, and not just with an increase.
The position paper continues:
Far too many senior citizens are unable to find space in housing units. A Progressive Conservative government will make meaningful aid available so that the provinces will be able to accelerate the construction of senior citizens' housing.
We favour the expansion of the New Horizon program in order that the valuable resources resting in our old population may be drawn upon to their benefit and that of society as a whole.
I would like to give further support to this bill by reading from a speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in Gander, Newfoundland, on June 5, 1974. He stated:
Let's talk about the older folk; those who have been trying to get by these days on the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement. They know-and no one knows any better-what the cost of living has done to them. Every month-as prices go up for food, clothing, and shelter-the value of their pensions goes down.
Our party fought for a better deal for them in the last election and throughout the last parliament. And we still are. When we are elected, we will provide an immediate increase in the basic old age pension of $7 a month and for those in greatest need of assistance, we will provide an additional $15 a month.
That will bring the total of the basic pension and guaranteed income supplement up to $202 a month. I'm not saying that's the moon, but it's an attempt to provide a basic adjustment in pension income that relates to the rapid increase in the cost of living.
I will draw my remarks to a close by saying that I hope no more hon. members will rise to oppose this motion.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Cut off debate?
Old Age Security


A. Daniel McKenzie: Don't talk it out; just agree to this motion. You would really get a feather in your cap if you supported some private member's motion for a change. Maybe the hon. member has a surprise for us this afternoon. I hope he will support this motion to his fullest. I am quite sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Cullen) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) know of ways to find the money to support this motion today.


Albert Béchard: Would the hon. member permit a question?


A. Daniel McKenzie: Oh yes, first time.


Albert Béchard: I would like to ask the hon. member if he is aware that the Conservative Party in all its history since 1867 only gave $16 per month to the old people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: I remind the hon. member that his party was tagged with the name "six-buck boys", and the people of Canada have not forgotten.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The figure should be $19, not $16.


Albert Béchard: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. [Translation]
The ActingSpeaker (Mrs. Morin): The hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine on a point of order.


Albert Béchard: Madam Speaker, we have just been tagged "six-buck boys". I feel the hon. member is exaggerating. We gave around $209, that is $209 less $16.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member is starting a debate. This is not a point of order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on a most important motion introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The motion echoes similar motions unders Nos. 10, 26 and 23, including one by my colleague for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) to bring down pensionable age to 60.
It was my impression that during the last federal election a consensus was reached among the parties. It was my understanding it had been settled once and for all that if this government was re-elected, a bill would be passed to bring pensionable age down to 60.


An hon. Member:: There was no commitment about that.


André-Gilles Fortin: Madam Speaker, somebody from the other side says there was no commitment. I could table in this House an advertisement by the Liberal government, the Liberal party, that were distributed from door to door in my constituency. It was even dropped from an airplane

May 30, 1975
Old Age Security
flying over the city of Victoriaville, to announce that the Liberal party was now in favour of the 60 year pensionable age. Indeed, this motion is almost identical to what was then published in the advertisement. We are now told this would not do, this would be too expensive, this is unacceptable, that pensionable age cannot be brought down to 60, that those people have to work, and so on.
But nonetheless, Madam Speaker, knowing members of parliament as well as I do, knowing as well as I do the political game, you must realize that some time soon the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) will hopefully be introducing a bill that would probably bring pensionable age down to 60 in cases where the other spouse already receives a pension at age 65. How amusing it will then be to see all members opposite support the legislation. They will have adequate funds. They will see no monetary problem. In other words, anything coming from them is reasonable, and they have all the money needed for it. But coming from the opposition, it is unacceptable. These are the only remarks I wish to make.
Considering the social turmoil, the social tragedy we are now going through, the social stresses we are witnessing, it is high time that people in public life had the decency to be true to their word and fulfill their commitments.
And the second thing I would like to emphasize, Madam Speaker, is the obvious social drama, and I think everyone will agree on that-people who reach the age of 50, 55 and who are threatened by an industrial disease, a heart attack or anything else, or who see their performance decrease even if they are not sick and who are looking foward to 60 in the hope of getting their pension at 60, who are confident to reach 65 but give up hope of ever getting to retirement age.
Madam Speaker, let us think about it for a moment. All members of this House often accept invitations to 50th, 35th wedding anniversaries, and what not. In fact, nearly a whole week is squeezed into two days. When we leave at night after a reception, a great party, who stays behind to pick up everything, dismantle and clean the tables? It is interesting to observe people's behaviour. It is not young people, it is people of 55, 60, whose spouse generally draws the pension but who do not get it because they are not 65.
And because they have an inadequate income to live on, the wife must wash dishes at those receptions, dancing or other parties, anniversaries, weddings, to try and make a little more money to live on.
I say, Madam Speaker, that it is time for us Canadians to have not only enough heart, but enough openness of mind to recognize that people who have reached the age of 55 are economically speaking those most vulnerable in our economy; they are the first ones to be laid off, the ones most likely to fall sick and the ones most irregular in the working world.
That is, and I quite agree with the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine), experienced labour, valuable labour, labour that wants to work, and I hope that one day the young will try to imitate older workers-that would surely improve the current working environment. The fact still remains, Madam Speaker, that those 60 years of age are precisely the group of people who have reached a critical standard of living, and I think that the first duty

of this parliament, this majority government which has the capacity, the financial means and which undertook to accomplish it, since that is unanimously recognized in this House, is to grant the pension at 60 to anyone who has reached that age, so that we can not only help those people but also make sure that they have a decent old age with security.
In another connection, the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) calls for increased benefit payments. Of course, Madam Speaker, I did not calculate the effects of that, but it is obvious that in theory one can only be in favour of such an increase. When one fills out, as I often do at my office in Victoriaville, guaranteed income supplement applications, one realizes very often that because someone managed to get a little job to increase his pension it is reduced.
I will give you a typical example, and conclude on that. How many cases I got at my office every week the Lord brings! A man came to see me and told me that his old age pension is inadequate to live on. Then, in discussing with him in a friendly way, I learned that he found a temporary and part-time job with the school board to have the children cross the street and avoid unfortunate accidents. He thus earns an income during the week, the month or the year, but owing to a few other sources of income, his guaranteed income supplement is reduced.
I heard a while ago the argument raised by the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine) who stated that many individuals between 60 and 65 years of age still want to work. Well, Madam Speaker, I think that is true and if we agree with that objective, the old age pension should be granted at 60 years of age, the present rates should be raised to enable those who are still healthy and who wish to have additional work even if they are pensioned, to keep busy and do something they like.
It is a wonderful thing for a person of 60 or 67 years of age to help children across the streets, to work, and chat as friends do, on a daily basis, with children of kindergarten, primary and elementary age. That is absolutely extraordinary. It is the meeting of the elders of the country with those who will build tomorrow. But because a person does so, the guaranteed income supplement is reduced; and that because our scales work on a "cent" basis; truly, those who would help themselves are being punished.
Madam Speaker, I feel we should be moved by a positive spirit in dealing with that legislation, and that we should, as one man, ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to see to it that all those who reach the age of 60 are not only encouraged to continue working but are guaranteed financial security; then, instead of looking as if we want to get rid of them, we will show them that we want to keep them within the ranks of our society. After all, they are the ones who built our country. If today's youth did as much as our fathers to build that country of ours, we would not have to worry about its future.


Albert Béchard: I would like to correct a slight mistake I have just made, in all honesty towards the Progressive Conservative Party and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie). One of the most senior members in this House, the hon. member for Winnipeg
May 30, 1975

North Centre (Mr. Knowles), has just advised me of this mistake. It is not-

The figure I mentioned ought not to be $16, but $19. On the other hand, the Conservative party did not give one red cent in family allowances.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, I think all hon. members in this House would like to discuss this very important question. Unfortunately, we will not have enough time. However, it is a little unfortunate to note that important subjects such as pension and the lowering of pensionable age cannot be debated, which would enable all hon. members to give their opinions. This subject is both important and complicated. However, it is not as simple as some hon. members claim.
There are ramifications to the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre which need readjusting, I think.

When the Canada Pension Plan was introduced in 1965, age 70 was retained as the eligible age, but provision was made for a gradual reduction over a five-year period to 65. Entitlement to benefits before the age of 70 was made provisional on retirement from employment. This reduction was extended to the universal old age security pension without the retirement test.
I find the recommendation in this motion that those who would be entitled to the pension would have to be out of the work market hard to accept. It goes against my personal feelings with regard to the old age security pension. As far as I am concerned, it also goes against the grain with regard to the guaranteed income supplement.
In 1965 when the government announced its intention to proceed with the Canada Assistance Plan, whereby the federal and provincial governments would share the cost of the social assistance program, administered by the provinces, assistance was to be made available on the determination of need. At the same time the old age assistance provisions for persons between 65 and 70 were to be phased out with the gradual lowering of the eligible age for the universal pensions.
For old age security pensioners with little or no other income, it was proposed that a program of supplementary payments based on an income test should be adopted. Legislation was introduced to bring the guaranteed income supplement into effect in January, 1967.
Expenditures on public pensions increased rapidly over this period under the combined impact of the progressive reduction of the age of eligibility, the introduction of the guaranteed income supplement, and the increases resulting from the escalation of benefits annually on the basis of a pension index related to the cost of living.
The adoption in 1972 of escalation based on the full increase in the cost of living, and in 1973 a quarterly escalation of benefits, added considerably to the expansion
Old Age Security
of costs. Expenditures in old age security and the guaranteed income supplement increased from just over $1 billion in 1965-66 to more than $3 billion in 1973-74.
The present proposal is to reduce the eligible age of old age security to 60, subject to retirement from the labour market. This gives rise, as I said before, to several questions. I think the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine) referred to a few of them.
I think particularly of the fact that we would be giving an example to the private sector in establishing age 60 as the normal retirement age. I think of the pride in Canada and our economy, of experience, qualified expertise, and people who have contributed immensely to the economy of this country.
One argument that can be made in favour of early retirement is that it will open job opportunities for younger workers. However, this would not necessarily follow. Retired persons may simply move into other employment. Some jobs may disappear through attrition, and vacancies would be fewer than expected. The trend toward an earlier compulsory retirement date could affect productivity by removing skilled workers from the labour force at a time when they are most productive and most needed. The increased cost to employers in paying retirement pensions would have to be paid by the consumers through increased prices.
The additional expense of reducing the old age security age to 60 has been estimated at between $1.2 billion and $1.7 billion at current rates. Increased costs of this magnitude over and above the current expenditure of $3.5 billion would undoubtedly lead to an increase in taxation. The imposition of a greater burden on Canadians in general must be weighed against the merits of providing additional benefits from one particular segment of society to another.
In addition to lowering the age to 60, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggests that the Canada Pension Plan retirement benefit would once again be conditional on an earnings test or for all retired pensioners. Hon. members will recall that these tests were eliminated recently under the Canada Pension Plan amendments. I doubt whether retired pensioners would appreciate the resumption of such tests. In my constituency, according to correspondence I receive-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member not realize that it specifically says in my motion that this applies only between the ages of 60 and 65?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I realize that, but it also says "who are not in or are prepared to withdraw from the labour market". This is what I am trying to get at.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Go on to the
phrase "to everyone at age 65".
6316

May 30, 1975
Old Age Security


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The motion reads:
-withdraw front the labour market, and also to provide for the basic amount of the pension payable under the Old Age Security Act, at age 60 for those not in the labour market-
I do not read anything into that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Read the next four or five words.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It reads "and to everyone at age 65".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Precisely. "To everyone".


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I see, but this is debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. Before pointing out to the hon. member that it is now five o'clock, I take the liberty of reminding him that he must at all times address his remarks to the Chair and not to the members of the opposition.
The hour for the consideration of private members business has expired.
It being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, June 2, 1975