1975-12-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the impression given by the Prime Minister that the government was asking Members of Parliament to accept a freeze on their remuneration for 1976, whereas in fact the bill as introduced would permit an increase in members' tax-free expense allowances during 1976, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this House deplores the absence of consultation with opposition parties which has traditionally preceded changes in the remuneration of members of parliament, and that this House further regrets the duplicity and/or the stupidity of the government in embarrassing all members of parliament outside the Liberal caucus by pretending the members' remuneration was to be frozen for 1976.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the motion cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that that motion did not call for a change.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: What do you have in mind?


John Edward Broadbent: You will hear later in the question period.
Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 concerning the fact that there appear to be serious errors in the surtax table which was tabled in the House two days ago, errors which, if not corrected, would leave the public with a false impression.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I wish hon. members would listen. For example, using the 1976 tax calculation table, for a man earning $35,000 with normal tax deductions, the surtax would actually be 35 cents instead of the $10 as indicated in the table.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Minister of Finance be required to have the table in question recalculated on the basis of tax rates applicable in the 1976 taxation year, and that he be required to present these figures to the general public so that it will have an accurate idea of the burden which the government is asking upper income earners to bear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Hon. members will like this one. I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerning a reportedly disgraceful party given by the Ministry of Urban Affairs on Monday, December 15 for Mr. William Teron to commemorate his recent promotion and paid for by the taxpayers of Canada.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty):
That the Prime Minister order an immediate investigation into the expenditures of public funds on Monday, December 15, 1975 by the Department of Urban Affairs for a party held at the government owned Lasalle Academy Building, Sussex Drive, in or about the vicinity of the office of William Teron, commemorating Mr. Teron's recent promotion, and particularly that the investigation include all details of damage to the wall, damage to the furniture and the fact that the office staff walked off the job the following-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to read my motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member, as any hon. member, would want to respect those provisions of the rule which indicate that the motion ought to be sufficiently explained to understand its emergency nature,

December 20, 1975
House of Commons
but that it ought not to get into debate, and I wonder if the hon. member would conclude his motion.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I am on the final sentence of it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: If the trained seals opposite would shut up for once, I might be able to finish.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Finally, the investigation includes whether or not the office staff walked off the job the following day because of conditions requiring a cleaning staff to take 24 hours to remove such things as vomit from the floor and other evidence of a riotous nature-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Its that cheap whisky.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


PROPOSAL THAT MEMBERS' SALARIES AND TAX-FREE ALLOWANCES BE FROZEN-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave to present a motion under Standing Order 43 that will finish the job. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the government to substitute for Bill C-81 a bill to freeze the total income of members of parliament including both indemnities and the tax-free allowance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This motion cannot be put without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for either the Prime Minister or the government House leader. Has either one any explanation to give members of opposition parties in this House following the impression given to the public that our remuneration was to be frozen in 1976 and then introducing the bill which permits our taxfree allowances to be increased? This puts members of opposition parties at least in a false position as far as the public is concerned. Have they any explanation to offer with respect to this stupidity or duplicity?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my statement made very clear that it was the salaries which we were freezing. If hon. members want their remuneration or the expense allowance to be frozen they just have to make a motion.


An hon. Member:: They just did.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: You guys turned it down.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this synthetic indignation smacks of hypocrisy to me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the opposition parties, any of them, want to achieve this result, they just have to move an amendment when the bill gets into the House. We will then see if the really hypocritical type of question asked by the Leader of the Opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: The same old arrogant Pierre.


An hon. Member:: Merry Christmas!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. So far, for what is almost a once in a lifetime Saturday sitting, we are not off to a very good start. It would appear that we are getting into debate. I know this is a subject which all hon. members will look forward to debating when the bill is before the House. I do not want to restrict questioning on the subject as it is a very important one, but neither do I want to permit a debate to take place at this time. I wonder if we ought not to guard carefully the questions and answers and stay away from debate. The hon. Leader of the Opposition on a supplementary.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it is the hypocrisy of the Prime Minister to which I am objecting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 20, 1975


REASON FOR FAILURE TO CONSULT OPPOSITION BEFORE INTRODUCING BILL FREEZING MEMBERS' SALARIES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: supplementary question. Now, having at least an implicit assurance that an amendment to follow through on the impression the Prime Minister gave the public would be accepted by the government if it is put forward by the opposition, I should like to ask the government House leader why he saw fit to proceed with a bill like this completely ignoring the long standing tradition of consultation with opposition parties before any change is made which might have prevented such a piece of stupidity taking place?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the government did not feel it could discuss with the opposition parties this particular measure, as it would have been necessary to reveal the whole of the government's program of cuts-
An. hon. Member: Rubbish!


Mitchell William Sharp: -because this particular measure for restricting increases, or doing away with the increases of salaries, was related to other measures the government was proposing.


Walter David Baker: Not at all.


Mitchell William Sharp: It was not done for any reason to do with not wanting to consult members of the other parties. As the Prime Minister said, they are free to move amendments which can reduce expenditures, although they cannot move amendments to increase expenditures. The Prime Minister indicated that we would consider favourably recommendations of that kind.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE LIBERAL CAUCUS NOT GIVEN PRIOR NOTICE OF SURTAX OR EXPENDITURE CUTS
Walter David Baker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Considering what the government House leader said about the difficulties of revelation, will he assure the House that, contrary to reports in the media, the Liberal caucus last Wednesday was not given notice of ways and means motions and other documents relating to the surtax or other parts of the government plan prior to their introduction in the House?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can give that assurance. The government is careful, with ways and means motions of that kind, to see that its program is kept within the knowledge of the cabinet only. We observe that both in caucus and elsewhere. Indeed, special circumstances arose at the opening that day. We only made available the copy of the minister's notice after two o'clock, indeed, at 2.30. I assure the hon. gentleman that every precaution was taken. We asked the caucus for recommendations in the cutting of government expenditure but did not reveal our own program.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the faulty aspects of this phony program of cuts, would the minister chastise his caucus at the first available opportunity for its lack of imagination, and will the government
Oral Questions
House leader agree to table documents which will detail the complete package of loopholes and omissions relating to the salary cuts and surtax? Will he table the full package of all the omissions and other things the government neglected to tell the House?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


SOCIAL SECURITY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Is the government considering introducing the means test for family allowances?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: No, Mr. Speaker. I stated on television on several occasions that if some families with very low incomes suffered as a result of the freeze on family allowances, federal programs could provide some aid. Yesterday, in Quebec, Premier Bourassa announced that families with very low incomes may receive an additional amount, half of which would be paid by the federal government. Unfortunately, Mr. Bourassa forgot to mention it to the Quebecers.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will be generous and assume the minister did not hear the question. I shall repeat it. Is the government considering, in the new year, introducing an amendment to the family allowance legislation which will provide a means test for recipients?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE FAMILY ALLOWANCE SCHEME WILL REMAIN UNIVERSAL
John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister assure the House that the family allowance scheme in Canada will remain a universal scheme?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the government plans for the moment are only to suspend family allowance increases for a year as a result of the budget cuts, the reason being, as I explained to the House, that these allowances went up from $7 in 1973 to $22. Nobody, I think, can say that we did not make considerable progress in that respect during the past three years.


INQUIRY WHETHER ESTABLISHMENT OF GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME WILL BE DELAYED
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.

December 20, 1975
Oral Questions
In view of the austerity program announced by the right hon. Prime Minister, can the minister tell the House whether that program will delay the introduction of a bill to adopt a guaranteed annual income, as he led us to believe some time ago?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe so. A meeting of the welfare ministers will be held early in February as well as others, I hope, during the year. That project is still under discussion. Well before the austerity program was announced, I stated that we would have to wait for two to three years, because of economic circumstances, before implementing such a program. I hope that sometime next year we can reach an agreement with the provinces on the guaranteed income formula to be adopted across the country; subsequently, a bill will be introduced to Parliament, although I do not know exactly when; at this point, I can give no exact date, but I trust the government will be in a position to introduce a bill eventually, according to the schedule I announced some months ago.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: In view of the reply of the minister that negotiations are still going on, can the minister tell the House whether the Quebec government seems to be willing to go along with such an annual guaranteed income plan, and whether the Quebec authorities are willing to share its cost-as well as tell the population, as the President of the Treasury Board so aptly put it a while ago?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, all through these discussions the Quebec government has given evidence of a very great sense of co-operation, as did the governments of other provinces. I have no cause to believe that the discussions that have begun will be interrupted or prejudiced in any way. I even believe we will reach an agreement next year. Such agreement will contain a clause which has already been foreseen and accepted by all provinces to the effect that in the future they will have to recognize unequivocally the federal government's contribution to social programs.


REASON PRIME MINISTER SAID MEMBERS' PAY FREEZE SUPPORTED BY LIBERAL CAUCUS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the right hon. gentleman's admonition the other night for a collective effort by all of us, why did the Prime Minister think it necessary to say, in his television speech, that the parliamentarians' pay freeze was a decision of the government supported by the Liberal caucus when he knows very well that all MP's, whether they are in support of the government or not, must share the responsibility of this decision?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did have the privilege of consulting the Liberal caucus. I was not invited to the Conservative caucus, but I do not know what I would-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I might add that the question of a cut was in the wind. It had been leaked in some way that the government was considering it. I must say that the only advice I got from some members of the Tory party was not to proceed with it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give notice of a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members on both sides of the House will have to understand that I at least have to hear a preliminary indication of the question of privilege in order to decide whether I should take it now or at twelve o'clock.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question of privilege at twelve o'clock with respect to the statement just made by the Prime Minister as it relates to one made previously to me by the government House leader.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether he intends to repudiate the unprecedented and reprehensible attack on the Quebec Superior Court by his colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who referred to a decision of that court in a case involving an alleged monopoly by sugar companies as "disgraceful". Does the right hon. gentleman intend to repudiate that statement or does he hold the view that he and his colleagues are above the courts, thereby undermining the whole essence of the rule of law?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, following the hon. member's remarks, I want to say that I have full confidence in Canadian justice. It was an extremely important case. I think we had an excellent case. Perhaps we did not have a good judge, but that does not prevent me from having excellent reasons to see to justice.
Immediately after the judgment was rendered, I spoke with the Minister of Justice and asked him to see that officials consider the opportunity to file an appeal.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Does the Minister of Justice hold to the view just expressed in the House by his colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that this judge was

December 20, 1975

somewhat less than competent in rendering this decision and, if he does, what action does he intend to take? Or does he intend, as a responsible Minister of Justice, to repudiate the unprecedented and reprehensible slur on the courts of Quebec by his colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: The judge in question was obviously acting in accordance with his duties and authority as a judge, and in accordance with the law as he saw it. We are considering the judgment in the case very carefully to determine whether an appeal should be made or not, and a decision will be taken on the best advice we can receive.


James Aloysius McGrath: My final question is to the Minister of Justice who has the responsibility for upholding the dignity of the courts in addition to his other duties. The question is the same as the one I put to the Prime Minister. Does he intend to repudiate the statement made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, reported in the press today, in which he said with reference to the decision of the Quebec Superior Court on the sugar case: "It is a complete shock to me and I find it a complete disgrace." Does the minister intend to repudiate that statement?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have just said the judge was acting in accordance with what he perceived the law to be and I intend to go no further.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It arises from the fact that some 116 men employed as "spares" at the Bowater's Mersey Mill in Liverpool, Nova Scotia have been without income for 50 days, are without job security, do not belong to any union and are, unfortunately, unable to obtain any alternative form of employment, have been denied unemployment insurance benefits to date. Has the minister had time to look into this matter which I brought to his attention this week and will he arrange to provide unemployment benefits or jobs to these unfortunate Canadians who are desperately in need of assistance at this time?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I appreciate the action of the hon. member in drawing this matter to my attention yesterday or the day before. I have initiated a complete analysis and review of the decision made by the Commission but I am not yet in a position to know whether the decision was correct or not. However, I will undertake to telephone the hon. member just as soon as I have a report, possibly this afternoon.
Oral Questions COMBINES



ALLEGED SUGAR MONOPOLY-REASON MINISTER FINDS JUDGMENT OF COURT UNACCEPTABLE

Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to those asked by the hon. member for St. John's East and it is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Since the minister feels himself free to attack the unimpeded operation of the judicial system, will he explain to the House the basis of the government's case against the three sugar combines under the Combines Investigation Act and why, in his opinion, the judgment of the court is unacceptable to him?


André Ouellet: The conclusions drawn by the hon. member have nothing to do with my statement.



INQUIRY AS TO COST OF EXTRA SITTING DAYS

Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the President of the Privy Council.
Since employees of the House of Commons and particularly those of the Printing Bureau get double pay, could the President of the Privy Council say how much a supplementary sitting day as today costs?


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the matter up with the President of the Treasury Board, who will no doubt reply to the hon. member at a later date.



PROPOSED SUBSTITUTION OF MEASURE FOR BILL C-81 TO FREEZE TOTAL REMUNERATION OF MEMBERS

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Privy Council. In order to save time when we come back in January in seeking to amend a bill that is drawn in rather complicated terms, would the government consider in the recess producing a bill in substitution for Bill C-81 that will impose a freeze on our total income, bearing in mind that the minister knows that that was our position before the freeze was announced and that we would be willing to give unanimous consent to the procedural aspect of such a substitution?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, that would not be our intention. When there were rumours circulating that the government might bring in a measure of this kind, it was quite clear that it would not receive the unanimous support of all members. I had representations from the Conservative side and from our own side protesting against any curtailment of escalation. The government made its decision, as has been announced, to stop the escalation on salaries, not on
10224

December 20,1975
Oral Questions
expenses, which are in a different category. We will continue with that measure, Mr. Speaker, but if there are amendments proposed and they get majority support the government will accept that decision.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question either to the government House leader or the Prime Minister. In view of the assurance given to the Leader of the Opposition this morning that consideration would be given to an amendment covering the whole works, would it not be simpler for the government to put that into the bill, or is the Prime Minister's willingness to consider an amendment only a prelude to turning it down?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add much to what the House leader has said, I think in a very correct fashion. I am surprised that the hon. member who asked the question is proposing only a freeze. Why does he not consider a rollback?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I give notice of a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I pointed out at the beginning of the question period, difficulty always arises if we debate a subject that is already before the House in another form.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question really covers two departments, the Department of Finance and the Department of National Health and Welfare, so perhaps I should put it to the Prime Minister. In view of the expression of opinion by the Canadian Council on Social Development that the program announced the night before last is "a crass act of political expediency and a betrayal of government promises not to fight inflation on the backs of the poor", may I ask the Prime Minister whether or not the government has made any estimate of the increased cost to the federal and provincial governments under the Canada assistance plan of its failure to continue the indexing of family allowances and manpower training grants, which account for more than two-thirds of the proposed reductions in expenditure this year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we knew when we were bringing in this series of cuts that the cynics and small minds would always say "we wanted you to cut, but not so and so". Over the past two days we have been having from the opposition, and I must say from a lot of the media, the expression of exactly what I predicted would happen-"If only the government had cut other things elsewhere, we would have supported

them". I have very little respect, Mr. Speaker, for that kind of attitude.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious that the Prime Minister is unwilling to answer the question. I am trying to determine whether he is also unable to answer the question, which is as follows. Inasmuch as the substantial reduction of $250 million in payments to dependent children and families, which the government has cut from this year's estimates, will increase Canada assistance plan payments under social assistence programs in the various provinces as well as increase transfer payments, I ask the Prime Minister whether he can inform the House what amount of additional revenue will have to be expended through these two programs to compensate for this short fall.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member's question is proving what we established all along, that most of the federal government's expenditures are on services and goods to people. If we are asked to cut them back, it means there will be less goods and services for the people.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. My question is simply this. When will the government indicate to the House the amount of additional expenditure required under the Canada assistance plan and by way of transfer payments or adjustment grants involving more than half the provinces of this country in order to ensure the adequacy of social assistance to dependent families and children?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to give an answer to the hon. member; he should know for the simple reason that social security levels-


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Then if you do not know, you are irresponsible.


Marc Lalonde: You asked a question, so shut up and you will get an answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: -are determined by the provinces. The federal government shares 50 per cent of the cost and we shall assume 50 per cent of any increase the provinces will decide to grant needy Canadians, whether or not those people have dependent children.



TRANSPORT


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I want to address a question to the Minister of Transport and to ask for clarification of the statement made by the President of
December 20,1975

the Treasury Board regarding cuts in government expenditure. In regard to the reduction of $5 million expenditure on the operation of the east coast, gulf and coastal services announced, can the minister say how these savings are to be achieved; and in particular, can he say how the ferry services linking Prince Edward Island and the mainland will be affected?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the specific figures, which will be proposed in due course, but I can indicate that the saving will result from the reduction in the very large subsidy payments that would otherwise be incurred due to an increase in certain of the rates for ferry services. The exact increase will be indicated in due course.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I take it the reply given by the minister to a written question by me quite recently in which it is stated that at present there are no plans to alter this tariff structure, referring to ferry rates, is no longer valid?


Otto Emil Lang: That is right.



POST OFFICE


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises from a Canadian Press announcement yesterday by the Postmaster General. Would he explain to the House how he can raise postage rates on first-class letters from the present eight cents to ten cents or 11 cents, which amounts to an increase of 25 per cent or more, and still comply with the Anti-Inflation Board guidelines?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, it will be up to the Anti-Inflation Board to determine whether a 2-cent increase on an 8-cent stamp is inflationary. I would imagine it would also want to take into consideration the increased cost of operating the post office, other than wages, which fortunately is being offset by increased productivity, which is at an all-time high incidentally now in the post office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It will also want to take into consideration the fact that the rate for first-class mail in West Germany is 23 cents; in Holland it is 18 cents, and in Great Britain it is 16 cents.


An hon. Member:: We are not in West Germany.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If ours goes from eight cents to ten cents it will be in accordance with an announcement I made last July in the House of Commons.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, the press release quotes the Postmaster General as saying that rates should
Oral Questions
increase once the post office has recovered its efficiency. Should not the rates be reduced with increased efficiency?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: This one has got to be good.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, this was one of my favourite members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: His questions are usually quite
intelligent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That one is very intelligent.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: There are exceptions, periodically.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is perfectly right, in that the increased efficiency is making it possible for the post office to run at a lesser expense, taking into consideration the high rate of inflation in this country which we have been able to compensate for as well as the increased pay package.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: And if anyone can figure that out he is a better man than I.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You lost us about halfway through.



FISHERIES


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the announced cutbacks in fisheries expenditures, would the Minister of Fisheries advise the House what effect this will have on the salmon enhancement program in British Columbia, and whether that salmon enhancement program will in fact have to be curtailed because of the guidelines?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member sees the estimates following their publication he will realize that fisheries was still given high priority by my colleagues. As far as the enhancement program is concerned, we will continue it even if I have to sell the furniture in my office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: That's a start.
21130-26/4

December 20, 1975
Oral Questions NATIONAL PARKS



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-SUGGESTED MORATORIUM ON IMPOSITION OF FEE

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who is a bit peripatetic this morning. Has he received a deluge of representations from the people of Prince Edward Island, the government and legislature of that province protesting the imposition of a $2 fee for those seeking the beaches of Prince Edward Island through entry into the PEI National Park, and will he recognize the reasonableness of these representations by placing a moratorium on such fee imposition and costly expenditures on toll gates?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, this is a question that has arisen on many previous occasions. Basically, the position is that the national park in Prince Edward Island is one of our national parks and part of our national system. It is very difficult to say we are not going to charge a fee for Prince Edward Island but will for Fundy and Kejimkujik. It is part of our national system and we feel it is equitable that the users should be contributing a minimum of 18 per cent, which is what it amounts to, of the operating costs of our national parks.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, considering that in the week to come the people of British Columbia will be celebrating both Christmas and the transfer of power to the newly elected government, will the Minister of the Environment undertake to indicate to his British Columbia counterpart or the appropriate minister, as soon as he or she is appointed, his willingness to proceed with the signing of the implementation agreement affecting the Okanagan Basin water board study recommendations?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I will look at the hon. member's suggestion very carefully.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the decision of the Anti-Inflation Board in turning back the settlement by Irving Pulp and Paper in the Canadian Paperworkers' Union, and in view of the fact the Minister of Labour has stated in this House that he hoped the industry would settle along the lines of the

Irving settlement, is the minister planning to make representations to the Anti-Inflation Board on behalf of the Canadian Paperworkers' Union just as the Postmaster General said he was prepared to do for the inside postal workers?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the premise upon which the hon. member bases his question is not correct. I at no time recommended that the settlement be along the lines of the Irving settlement.


An hon. Member:: Oh, yes, you did.


John Carr Munro: I have checked everywhere in my remarks at all meetings and I believe the hon. member will find I have not done so at any time.


An hon. Member:: You gave the impression.


John Carr Munro: What I did say was that once the Anti-Inflation Board had ruled in respect of the Irving settlement I hoped this might be a further breakthrough in a conclusion of this strike that has affected so many people so harshly, particularly in view of those groups presently still out. That is still my hope.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister would answer the latter part of my question. Is he prepared to make representations to the Anti-Inflation Board on behalf of the Canadian Paperworkers' Union?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to do so. I would advise the House and the hon. member that the head of the union has contacted me by telegram and I will be meeting with him next week.



ANTI-INFLATION BOARD REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE STAFF WILL BE RECRUITED FROM WITHIN CIVIL SERVICE

Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the proposed increase in the size of the Anti-Inflation Board staff, and in view of the recent cutbacks in certain government programs, with the proposed reduction in the civil service, will the Minister of Finance reassure the House that as many as possible of those members will be recruited for this Anti-Inflation Board from within the present civil service?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly the case. Up to the present time the great majority of the staff of the Anti-Inflation Board has been seconded from other government of Canada positions.
December 20, 1975



ALLEGED ILLEGAL STORAGE OF BUCKWHEAT FROM UNITED


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, last week in the House the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby asked the Minister of Agriculture about reports that buckwheat is being stored illegally in Canada for the United States for export to Japan, I believe. On Tuesday of this week the Minister of Agriculture sent a letter to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby confirming that U.S. buckwheat was being stored illegally in elevators in Manitoba and had referred this information to the Minister of Transport and also the Canadian Grain Commission. I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he has had time to take action as a result of this information, and will he inform us what action he has taken, if any?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had a report from the Canadian Grain Commission.



ALLEGED ILLEGAL STORAGE OF BUCKWHEAT FROM UNITED STATES-ADEQUACY OF INSPECTION SERVICE

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Minister of Agriculture, in his letter to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has said that this type of activity had taken place in the past. I should like to ask the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board whether or not he is satisfied that the Canadian Grain Commission has adequate means at its disposal for policing the illegal importation and storage of grain in this country from the United States.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that any system can be perfect and detect every illegality. I have no reason to doubt that generally there is an adequate inspection system, but I will certainly look at it again in the context of the allegations that have been made.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. But before putting it, may I commend him for his visit to Cape Breton Island this week and for making himself aware of the uncertain future and uncertain conditions of the steel and coal industries. I should like to ask him if, on behalf of the government, he could advise the House whether any federal funding could be made available to the province of Nova Scotia with reference to establishing a new steel complex on Cape Breton Island.


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not in a position at the moment to give the hon. member a precise answer,
Oral Questions
since he knows that no concrete proposal has been presented either to the federal government or to my department regarding the establishment of a steel plant in the province of Nova Scotia. We must therefore wait for such a proposal before determining whether we shall have to participate financially or otherwise in that project and, if so, in what way.


Robert Muir: I must agree with the hon. gentleman when he says that Mr. Regan is not very concrete in anything. May I ask the minister if he would confer with the President of the Privy Council who, as Acting Prime Minister some months ago, advised me that there would be federal funding if a project of this nature were to be undertaken.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the first remark of my hon. colleague concerning the decisions which will be made by the premier of Nova Scotia. But I am willing to reiterate that I can in no way at this moment determine whether federal funds will be put into such a project, and to what extent. There probably will be, but I must stress that until now there is no concrete proposal for the establishment of such a steel plant. We certainly will have to wait for that proposal to be able to indicate the degree of participation by the federal government.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, because it was the government House leader who so ceremoniously introduced the now trouble-plagued election goody, the $30 million Harbour-front Park to the people of Toronto on the eve of the 1972 federal election, I would like to pose my question to him. In view of the past management failures, rising costs, and very little to show for it, and because we would all like the restraint program to improve by reducing wasteful expenditures, would the government consider taking steps to wind down this project completely, at least for a period of time, in order to reduce the continuing increase in government spending?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at economies in all directions. I would like to say, however, that I believe that the decision of the federal government to acquire the property along the harbour front, will, in times to come, be recognized as one of the most forward looking steps taken by the federal government.


Otto John Jelinek: In view of the minister's answer, could he advise the House when this so-called park is estimated to be completed? I believe that the people of Toronto are not quite ready to have this costly park at this time. What will the final cost of this project be to the unsuspecting taxpayer?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we have been effecting economies in a number of directions and this is

December 20, 1975
Oral Questions
one where immediate expenditures in this area have been effected. The point that I think that the hon. member is overlooking is that in time to come the people of Toronto will have access to their harbour front which is now destroyed by commercial development of a kind that is not suitable for a modern city.



PUBLISHING


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed either to the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State. I should like to ask either of these two gentleman whether or not the government intends any statement to be made to the two publishing companies which find themselves in limbo as do some others because of the fact that Bill C-58 is not before the House. There are a number of publishing companies which are about to lay-off their staff by January 1 if some assurance is not given by the government, will such a statement be made shortly?



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board who is not in the House this morning. Here he comes.
My question is related to the financing of the Olympic Games. We are at the end of the year and the 1976 Olympic Games are coming. Considering that the minister responsible told us not so long ago that Quebec made no request to try and find a solution to alleviate the deficit of the Olympic Games and considering that, not more than ten days ago, the Quebec premier confirmed to the press that there were still negotiations with Ottawa, I would like to ask the minister whether he is aware of the negotiations, whether Quebec requested some help to try to balance the deficit of the Olympic Games and whether the federal government made a new decision on this subject.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that I am much more often in the House than he is, that I look after the affairs of the nation rather than boost the election campaign of a candidate, and that I am not very good at "packing" conventions.
To answer the hon. member's question, I have not received any official request from anybody.


Roch La Salle: This is not a very satisfying answer to my question.
If I felt like giving the run around to someone, I would like to be able to do it as well as the minister now, and I

say it again. The minister is fooling a lot this morning, Mr. Speaker.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I should like to ask him if he could tell the House how the cuts in spending in the Indian affairs program announced by the government on Thursday can be absorbed by his department without affecting the most essential of social programs for the native people under his department?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, we have looked very carefully at the nature of the cuts and we have done our utmost to made certain that they will not have a sharp impact in the area referred to by the hon. member.


Frank Oberle: Since his department only maintains social programs for the native people, has the minister considered cuts in the staff of his department in addition to those already recommended by the Treasury Board and has he considered eliminating some of the already obsolete decisions in his department in order to absorb this cut?


J. Judd Buchanan: This is one area where we have had a diminution in staff over the years, and we expect we will continue to have it in Indian Affairs.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In light of the $10 million reduction in the federal share of crop insurance, will the farmers and the provinces be expected to cover this reduction?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in our cuts we are expecting everybody to bear some share of the sacrifice. I think the hon. member's question should certainly throw the light on the attitude taken by some of his colleagues that the government cuts are phony.


George H. Whittaker: Since this is a reduction by one third in the federal government's share, does the Prime Minister expect that crop insurance can survive this blow? Would it not have been better to first reduce the expenditures of the Department of Agriculture in the areas of professional and special services and utilities, and materials and supplies, which totalled $9.4 million and $12.8 million respectively in the 1975-76 estimates, since the former too often causes morale problems-
December 20, 1975


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George H. Whittaker: -and the latter too often proves to be unnecessary?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will realize that if he is asking a question, it is argumentative, and if it is not a question, it is a representation.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the question period I gave notice of a question of privilege with respect to a matter which had arisen. Quite frankly, I was surprised that I had to give notice; I thought the government House leader (Mr. Sharp) would want to give notice of the question of privilege to protect himself, in view of the conflict in his answer with the one given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The question arose from a media report in the Montreal Gazette in which it is stated:
The announcement of the 10 per cent surtax on taxable personal incomes in excess of $30,000 was to have been made at 8 p.m. last night-
That is, December 18.
-simultaneous with the release of anti-inflation regulations and government spending cuts.
The informants say, however, that the tax plan-discussed in advance at a meeting of Liberal caucus by members of the cabinet-spread at the Christmas party and the government became nervous about a possible charge of a budget leak.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: I asked the minister a very serious question which related not only to the surtax but to the other parts of the government's plan. The minister assured me-and, I suppose, every hon. member of the House-that every precaution was taken. He went on to say that the caucus was asked for recommendations with regard to the cutting of government expenditures. However, then he said that the program was not revealed. In answer to a question by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) the Prime Minister then said he had the privilege of consulting the Liberal caucus.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Moreover, on the program which has now become known in Canada as "As the Stomach Turns", the Prime Minister, when he appeared on television, said that the government, with the support of the Liberal caucus, will ask parliament with respect to the salary increases. I raise this question of privilege seriously. If the intention of the government was originally-and
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
these were stories which we heard in the halls of this place-to announce its total package by eight o'clock, it appears from what has been said in the media and elsewhere, and now by the Prime Minister, that there was some consultation with the Liberal caucus with respect to part of the program, even the matter of parliamentary salaries, and as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said, there was not even the courtesy of the usual consultations with the leaders of the other parties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: This becomes extremeT ly important not only to the merits of this matter but also to a document I have in my hand. This document is a list of unanswered questions from October to November, 1975, which have been evaded by the government. My question of privilege is this: if some members of parliament have been given advance notice of a government program which is akin to a taxation program in any part thereof, then the privileges of this House have been breached.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: In view of the conflicting answers, as I believe I heard those answers, I think it is important from the point of view of the operation of this house, the integrity of the government and, indeed, the integrity of the whole program that we have an explanation from one or other of those gentlemen who have apparently come into conflict with themselves as to exactly what happened at that Liberal caucus, an assurance that this program was not leaked, and an apology to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will not deal with the various points made by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) with regard to salaries and expenditure cuts. I will deal with what is my specific responsibility as Minister of Finance, the taxation measure. I did not see the report in the Gazette of, I take it, this morning that the taxation measure had been discussed with the Liberal caucus. I can say that this is a false report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: At no time was the surtax measure discussed either with the Liberal caucus or with any person outside the cabinet or outside my own department beyond the normal way in which a taxation measure is prepared within the government and submitted to cabinet. I think there is more than ample evidence of that fact in that there was not even a suggestion in all of the speculation leading up to the announcement on Thursday that that particular surtax measure was forthcoming. That is another false report in the Montreal Gazette, I think equivalent to the one to which my predecessor was submitted earlier this year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could deal with the other half of the question, since the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) indicated

December 20, 1975
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
that there has been no consultation on one aspect of our announcements. I repeat what I said earlier and what the hon. member quoted, that we did consult the Liberal caucus about the possibility of cutting expenditures in all areas; that a proposition was put to me-in writing, as a matter of fact-by some Liberals that we should consider cutting our own salaries; that the matter was raised by other Liberals in the caucus; and that it was discussed in various ways, as the House leader said, with varying degrees of opinion. That consultation did take place.
What I said in my announcement in the evening was correct, therefore, that it was our assessment that we had the support of the caucus. I think the overwhelming support the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) received from this side when he made the announcement that night indicated that the caucus was indeed with him. I see in this no question of privilege or no breach of trust. We on this side do believe in consulting the caucus.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But then, after having heard a very free and frank discussion in caucus, we returned to cabinet, assessed the mood of our caucus, learned from it ways of wisdom, and made our decisions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I might add one word, that I find it passing strange that on the one hand it seems to be an offence for us for having consulted caucus therefore and having broken some kind of secret whereas on the other hand the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was blaming us for not consulting them before. This is to me-


An hon. Member:: That is the point.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is the point, yes. We cannot be wrong in consulting our caucus, receiving opinion from all sides as I did, Mr. Speaker-as we did have representation from both sides on what should be done.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: What sophistry!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is no sophistry involved in this. Members of the Tory party came over and spoke to me and suggested various-


An hon. Member:: Cuts.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -cuts which should or should not be made. This contradictory approach on the other side proves my earlier assessment of them, that their whole attitude in this has been cynical, petty and false.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to dispute in any way the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). I accept it as a member of the House. I am happy to receive assurances in that regard. What I rise for, Mr. Speaker, follows from the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I asked the government House leader why they had not followed the usual tradition in this House of consulting opposition parties when making changes with

regard to salaries, emoluments or arrangements concerning members, and he said that this was impossible because it would have involved disclosure of the whole program. Now it appears that there has been disclosure of the whole program. I am not going back on what the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There has been consultation with the members of the Liberal caucus about-


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Why not?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Why not? I do not object-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This whole subject, of course, is one that is very emotionally charged. However, there seems to be no need to interfere with the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). I am very anxious to hear what he has to say.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. I have not the slightest objection to the Prime Minister consulting members of his caucus-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Baker does.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -on the matter of salaries of members-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But Baker does.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -but I have the greatest objection to the Prime Minister consulting the members of caucus, and then his House leader rising in this House and refusing to comply with the usual condition of consulting members of the opposition about the same matter. I say there is not the slightest shadow of excuse for the conduct of the government House Leader on this matter. I say his failure to consult, in the usual tradition, with regard to changes in members' salaries and emoluments has probably contributed to the mess in which he has placed his own members and all the rest of us. It is a gross breach of courtesy, without the slightest excuse at all.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege and the question of consultation with specific reference to the issue of salaries of members of parliament and the possibility of a cut or curtailment of future increases being taken on the part of the government, I can say on behalf of our party that there were such informal consultations with the chief government whip and the House leader acting on behalf of the New Democratic Party. At that time we made it clear that we would strongly favour the curtailment of the increase. If I may say so, we took no steps to say anything publicly at that time. It would have been, perhaps, an opportunity to indulge in some false bravado. We had no intention of raising the matter had it not been today in the House of Commons. We indicated to the government that we would fully support such a move, as is consistent with the position we took just about a year ago in this House.
I should like to conclude by saying that I personally resent the kind of shot taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. December 20, 1975

Trudeau) at our own House leader for not calling for a reduction. I find that offensive both in terms of its implication for that member to whom it was directed and, indeed, to members of my party which, as the Prime Minister knows, opposed the increase-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Some of them.


John Edward Broadbent: -when it was brought foward a year ago and indicated a few days ago in private consultations before the government's move-and we said nothing about it-that we would support the government in the action it was going to take on the anti-inflation measure with regard to the salaries of members of parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There has already been rather extensive discussion on this point. While I would never be in the position of refusing any member the right to make a contribution to a question of privilege, it would, however, appear to have been rather adequately discussed. I think all hon. members realize this is perhaps a very serious grievance and a complaint about lack of courtesy, as it were, as described by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). That is the complaint. It is not for me, or for the House at this time, to judge the merits on one side or other of that argument. The fact is that that is a very accurate description of the nature of the complaint.
There has been an assurance by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) vis-a-vis one portion of the program which related to a taxation measure. That would be the only area in which a potential question of privilege could have been involved by any disclosure. That assurance has been given and has been accepted. In any case, it is a long-standing tradition of this House that it would be accepted, having been given in such explicit terms.
Consultation as it relates to the balance of the program would not, in my opinion, constitute a question of privilege. It has been described in other terms, which is a matter for disagreement and discussion and debate, but it does not constitute a question of privilege. Perhaps we might get on to other points.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro).


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, this is a separate question of privilege. I had to wait until today because it refers to an exchange which took place between me and the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) yesterday as reported at page 10192 of Hansard. Mr. Speaker, while we may not be able to oblige ministers to reply to questions put to them-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member, if I am not mistaken, is referring to an exchange which took place
Privilege-Mr. D. MacDonald
yesterday. It was not at that time raised or referred to by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) nor, to my knowledge, do I have any notice of his intention to raise it today. In the circumstances, I do not see, procedurally, how we can receive a question of privilege at this time on an exchange which took place yesterday.
The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) on a question of privilege.
mr. Macdonald (egmont)-government announcement


OF SURTAX ON PERSONAL INCOMES
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this is a new question of privilege which has just arisen as a result of the remarks of the Leader of the New Democratic Party because it concerns a previous statement by the government House leader as well as a statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). In the considerable exchange that took place both in the question period and following the question of privilege raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), both the government House leader and the Prime Minister indicated the nature of the situation with respect to consultation with the government caucus and the revealing of that information prior to its announcement here on Thursday night.
It has now transpired that in fact there were consultations with other parties in this House, apart from the party represented by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I think this, in a sense, presents us with two reasons why the rights and privileges of members have been affronted. First, the government House leader and the Prime Minister spoke falsely when they stated that there was no consultation beyond their own caucus regardless of what the nature of the consultation might have been within their own caucus. I think that, at least, is deserving of an explanation and an apology to this House and particularly to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and all members of this party.
Second, inasmuch as there has been a long-standing tradition of this nature, it would seem that either the government House leader or the Prime Minister or the cabinet have altered the normal rules of consultation which have existed in this House since this House has been operating with political parties. I think there has been considerable departure, particularly with something so sensitive and basic as the indemnities of members, and this deserves a full, accurate and honest explanation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Do other hon. members wish to contribute to this question of privilege?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, it is now apparent that the Minister (Mr. Trudeau) needed to consult a number of members of the House of Commons on this serious question of the forgoing of increases in salaries. My question of privilege would give the Prime

December 20, 1975
Privilege-Mr. Danson
Minister an opportunity to apologize to the House for calling some members cynics and hypocrites. Throughout the question period the Prime Minister deliberately tried to discredit members of the opposition and led the House to believe that only the Liberal caucus-and then, apparently, the NDP caucus as well-were in favour of forgoing pay increases scheduled for January 1, 1976. The position of the official opposition is well known and was articulated on October 30 when my colleague from Biirnaby-Rich-mond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) raised the matter in this House under Standing Order 43.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) is adding further comments to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). Essentially, the question is very similar to the one which was previously discussed and decided. There is a new element, relating to remarks made by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), but the point is the same. A complaint about lack of consultation may be a matter of grievance or involve courtesy and tradition but it does not in any case constitute a question of privilege.
Further, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River says that his alleged question of privilege will provide the opportunity for an apology to be made, presumably for calling members of the opposition cynics and hypocrites. There is nothing unparliamentary about that language. It is a matter of disagreement. If I were to take steps to purge all the discussions in this House of language of that sort, it would become a dull place indeed. Perhaps, having heard enough on that non-question of privilege, we may consider the question of privilege to be raised by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) and, afterwards, other points of order.


MR. DANSON-REMARKS OF MR. COSSITT
Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege relates to the subject raised by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) under Standing Order 43, which reflects on my conduct relating to my responsibilities in my ministry. The hon. member made false, exaggerated and untrue accusations based on a newspaper report of a reception held in my ministry earlier this week. I hoped the hon. member would follow with a question on this matter later in the question period. To my surprise, he did not. I sent him a note, but no question was raised.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Because I did not get the chance.


Barnett Jerome Danson: I resent that very much. Further, I resent Standing Order 43 being used to make these accusations when the hon. member has not the courage to follow with a question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barnett Jerome Danson: I further resent implications and
innuendoes affecting dedicated, hard working public servants in this government who work for this country and held a reception for the acting secretary of the ministry, which I attended. Actually, when I saw the newspaper

report the next day I thought perhaps I had left a good party too early.
The suggestion the hon. member made was totally false. His suggestions are untrue. The reception was conducted in a part of the building still undergoing renovation. That is why people were not working there the next day. They were working elsewhere. The acting secretary of the ministry and President of CMHC had moved to less spacious quarters downstairs, which they are putting to effective use. Everyone was out of the building by 9.05. Most had left by 8.10. I checked the guard's records in this respect. The only vomit I am aware of was that which I felt in my own gut when I heard the hon. member's remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before calling, as is customary, on the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) to contribute to the question of privilege, I confirm that during the question period the hon. member for Leeds tried to seek the floor. Regrettably, other hon. members were also seeking the floor.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the matter raised by the minister, I received his note, as he said, which suggested that if I were to ask a question he would reply. As you said, sir, I attempted to seek the floor but, as you said also, many others also tried to seek the floor. If I had been successful in being recognized, I doubt if the minister would have been able to reply, as on a number of occasions during the question period he was absent from his seat.
When I raised this matter Your Honour suggested that perhaps it was not a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. But the minister indicated that he made some investigation, which shows that at least he thought it was a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I respectfully suggest I had every right to raise this matter, for the following reasons: first, as the minister suggested, there were reports in the local newspaper on this matter. Those, in themselves, would not be sufficient reason for raising the matter. I discussed the matter with several reputable members of the press gallery-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I resent, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Merry Christmas to you, too.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Evidently, there are other aspects of this procedural binge which must be dealt with before we finish. If hon. members would be quiet, perhaps we could come to the end of it.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I resent hon. members opposite indicating, apparently, that they consider the members of the press gallery to be disreputable.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: You said the words.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: considered to be pictures of a messy situation. It has been admitted by the minister that public funds were used to finance this party. It was done by his ministry. I do not by any means, as the minister suggests, accuse him personally or reflect in any way on him. I sympathize with the minister because I realize it is difficult for him to keep up with the wheeling and dealing of, Mr. Teron, who has far more connections at 24 Sussex Drive than he has.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You are sick.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I take the responsibility for judging that there have been sufficient contributions from both sides of the House on this essentially non-question of privilege.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, may I speak for a moment, as the hon. member referred to a senior official? I do not know exactly what the hon. member said, but I believe the hon. member referred several times to Mr. Teron. I suggest that accusations have been made which are absolutely false. I resent them, as they are totally unjustified.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I ask both hon. members to co-operate and bring this matter to a conclusion. There is simply no machinery whereby we can permit, under the guise of a so-called question of privilege, the kind of accusations and counter-accusations which have been made. This is a matter of debate and discussion at some other time.
The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It arises out of the reply to my question in the House today by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), which question in turn arose from what I consider to be the reprehensible conduct of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. My point of order is prompted by an unprecedented attack on the Quebec Superior Court and one of its judges by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs arising out of a judgment with which he does not agree.
I may say that I consider this to be a very important matter, one of considerable substance in terms of the rules and practices of this House. I intend to show Your Honour that there has, in fact, been a very serious breach of the rules of this House. My colleague, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), a distinguished member of the bar and a former attorney general of the province of New Brunswick, will be setting out to Your Honour the learned authorities on this question which I hope will assist the Chair in coming to a conclusion on this very serious matter.
I may say that when I was contacted by the same Canadian Press reporter yesterday to give my views on the decision of the court in acquitting the three sugar companies, my reply to the member of the press was, "Of course, I cannot reflect on a decision of the court. It would be most improper for me to do so."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Privilege-Mr. Danson


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister made his comments outside the House, and this led to my question. However, I intend to show that in reply to my question today he breached the rules inside the House by referring to the judge who made the decision as, "He may have been a very poor judge."


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Justice Kenneth MacKay of the Quebec Court of Queen's Bench is a federal judge appointed by the governor in council under the jurisdiction and responsibility of the Attorney General of Canada, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), who has to take the ultimate responsibility in this regard. My point of order is based on the well-known practice, tradition and, indeed, rule of this House that members of this place may not attack the integrity of the Queen, the Governor General or members of the judiciary of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: That well-known practice is based upon very sound principles. It is based upon the very foundation of our country, the British North America Act, which sets out the division of powers within the federal state that is Canada. It sets out the division of powers within the federal jurisdiction and the powers of the sovereign, their advisers, the Parliament of Canada and the courts of Canada. That is precisely why we may not criticize, in this House, any single part of that constitutional authority which, of course, is the Government of Canada.
I submit that if anybody should be criticized in this regard, the minister should have, more properly, directed his criticism at his own department for failing to prove its case in court. If there is anything disgraceful or reprehensible in this regard, I submit it is the conduct of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to make a ruling on this point of order. If you find that I do have a valid point of order, it would logically follow that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would be obliged to withdraw the slur he made on the Superior Court of Quebec and one of its judges.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, I can well understand the frustration of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). I differ in one respect from my hon. friend who has just spoken. I thought the decision was one that would indeed frustrate the minister. I have been following this case, which has been going on for four years. The problem is that part of the case was a part of public life in this country for many years before that. Therefore, the frustration of the minister is understandable. Perhaps if he had been able to refer to the decision and not to Mr. Justice MacKay himself, he would have been well within the rules.
I happen to believe that one of the healthier occurrences in Canada lately is that the present Chief Justice of Canada has opened the courts. Decisions are subject to a good deal of comment and debate. Previously, we used to bow before the sacred cow. I suppose I was as guilty of that as anyone else. However, the present Chief Justice has

December 20, 1975
Privilege-Mr. Danson
indeed favoured the opening up of comment and criticism on decisions. Beauchesne's fourth edition, at page 128, citation 152(4) is very, very clear. I quote:
All references to judges and courts of justice and to personages of high official station, of the nature of personal attack and censure, have always been considered unparliamentary-
Perhaps the minister will want to withdraw his comment about the person of Mister Justice MacKay and confine his frustration to the decision of that esteemed gentleman.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather). However, I wish to say that the comments of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) have failed to impress me. I think he would have had a brilliant career on the stage because he is perfect in the part of the offended virgin. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I did not mean to attack a Superior Court justice personally and that I did not do so. If I have given that impression, I am sorry and I apologize. I resent the fact that the hon. member for St. John's East is trying to give to my remarks an interpretation which was not intended. I did say and I repeat that the judgment which was passed yesterday in the case of sugar surprises me, disappoints me and even dismays me. I fully trust the judiciary, as I said in answer to the hon. member's question during the question period. He should have paid attention to my reply. At no time did I try to cast aspersion on the judiciary. It is precisely because I have confidence in it that I spoke to my colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). Therefore I hope that, following consultations with his officials, he will appeal the decision.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I want to intervene very briefly. I am delighted to note that the House is overwhelmed with the spirit of Christmas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: On the point of order raised by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), Beauchesne is quite clear in both citation 149(j) and 152(4) that the type of remarks that are deemed to be unparliamentary, as the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) has indicated, are those that cast reflections upon the conduct of judges, or a personal attack or censure. My colleague made it clear that that was not what he was engaged in. He indicated clearly that it was not the type of remark he was intending to make. I would, therefore, suggest that pursuant to citations 149(j) and 152(4) there is not, in view of the remarks of my colleague, any point of order. I indicated that I did not want to go any further, and I refused in the question period to go any further with the questions of the hon. member for St. John's East because, as I indicated, in my view the judge in this particular case was acting in the course of his duties. It is a matter which may or may not be appealed upon the advice and decision of myself and departmental officials, and I do not think it would be proper for me to go further.


James Aloysius McGrath: On the point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has raised a point of order. It has been supplemented by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). I could not be quite as generous as the Minister of Justice in interpreting the circumstances, namely, that there probably never was any disorder in the first place. Fortunately, perhaps, for the Chair that point now becomes academic. If, in fact, a disorder did occur in the remarks of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in giving an answer to the hon. member for St. John's East today, and it may have been very close to that, if it did not in fact constitute it-that is a matter for interpretation-that disorder can only be remedied in the way it has been, and that is by the minister doing what he did, which was to give a clear indication that if he had created that impression in the initial instance, it was not his intention to do so and he apologises for it.
The minister's intention was to express his displeasure or discomfort with the decision, not with the judge. I, certainly, am satisfied that this was the intent of the minister's explanation. His intention was to apologise if he had cast aspersions on the judge in any way, and to withdraw. I accept that, and draw the discussion on the point of order to a close.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, during the question period, because of an answer the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) gave to me, I indicated that I wished to raise a point of order. However, since the Prime Minister has left and since my hon. friend from Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) referred to the Prime Minister's answer in terms which were appropriate, I shall let it go and simply express the hope that perhaps before the day is out we shall all wish each other a Merry Christmas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Holt:: On a point of order, I would ask whether you, Mr. Speaker, could use some of your great wisdom and insight to tell us what happened to the much-vaunted Christmas spirit. I hope that somehow in this House today we can find peace and good will and prepare for a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I hope the new year will be happier. If you can find where that Christmas cheer went over there, I would appreciate it.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, mine is a slightly different point of order. It relates to the question I put in the House today dealing with the publishing industry and the fact that by January 1 some publishing industries will be closing, with a large number of jobs and $1.5 million lost. I simply want to put forward the point of order that because there is need for a statement-this being the last day, and that is why we asked for it, and the question period being the time we can ask questions-I ask the government House leader, do we have to put up, in the publishing industry, too, with both a stacked committee on broadcasting and non-answers in the House, because these industries must make decisions and the government must somehow give them some direction before January 1?


Miss Campbell:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to clear up this matter in the hon. member's mind. I think the business
December 20, 1975

of the House was brought out on Wednesday of this week, and Bill C-58, as the hon. member knows, states the date as to when it takes effect, as he sat in the committee. It will be coming up again after Christmas, so I think everyone is aware, as well as all the publishing companies, when it takes effect. Unfortunately, the minister was here until the last ten minutes of the question period and I had just happened to step out for a minute. It is very unfortunate that we didn't hear the question, but I think the information is already known.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I want to point out that the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), with his usual wisdom, raised a point of order in such a manner that it permitted the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), who feels very deeply about his responsibilities to the consumers of this country, to clarify his precise wording in order that his statements are quite acceptable. This, I think, is in the true spirit of the House, as it should be.
I would, therefore, suggest to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt)-I know I have the support of the House leader of the opposition who represents so many civil servants in this country-that there is another tradition. Civil servants are not in a position to protect themselves in the House of Commons, and maybe the hon. member for Leeds discussed a party which I did not attend and to which I was not invited-I do not usually remember, the day after, what happens at these parties; I would not be a very good witness-but I would suggest that in using the phrase "wheeling and dealing" he might possibly have been carried away a little bit.
In raising my point of order I am wondering whether the hon. member would not mind modifying that, unless he is prepared to make such a statement outside the House where both he and the public servants would have an equal opportunity to prove before the courts whether or not there is wheeling and dealing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am talking now on behalf of all public servants who, I think, provide the best public service in the world, in spite of criticism. I was wondering whether possibly the hon. member for Leeds might, in the same spirit, wish to take advantage of my point of order to soften or to clarify what he means by "wheeling and dealing".


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I had not expected that this matter would be raised again. However, there are just one or two comments I should make in reply to the minister. First of all, he has said that civil servants cannot defend themselves against statements made in this House. This would imply that a member ot the opposition has no right to question the actions of a public servant in the House. I would point out that the minister of the department is here and is quite capable of replying, as the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) did in this particular case. With regard to the expression "wheeling and dealing", the minister suggests that I make the statement outside the House. I just did.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Christmas Adjournment


Thomas Charles Cossitt: It is a matter of what one means by "wheeling and dealing". You could say, "a very fast moving individual". He certainly moved very fast up the ladder in the public service.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have reopened, under the guise of a point of order, what is essentially not a point of order. The matter seems to have been more than adequately dealt with and perhaps we ought now to get on.


CHRISTMAS ADJOURNMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the order:
That, when the House adjourns after Bill C-V5, an act to increase the rate of return on government annuity contracts, to increase their flexibility and to discontinue future sales thereof, has received the royal assent, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, January 26, 1976, provided always that, if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultations with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for the purposes of this order.
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this motion stand. I would also ask that it be made an order of the House that we call motions later this day after we have disposed of other business, so that I can move this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed, and so ordered.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions I have risen to ask about the delay in answering question 69. I hesitate to do so again, but it is now within 10 to 15 days of the approach of its third calendar year on the order paper, and I therefore feel I have a legitimate point of order in asking how a question can remain on the order paper for three calendar years. Indeed, by the time the House reconvenes in January it will be well into its third year.
The question asks for some simple, basic facts: firstly, the number of trips taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at public expense since the election of October 30, 1972; the number of these trips that involved personal holidays; the number of these trips that involved going to Liberal party gatherings. Every day we can look across the House and see in the gallery a host of people from the Prime Minister's office, so it is obvious he has a big staff. If some of them would go back to his office and do some work, then we might get an answer to some questions.


An hon. Member:: You are sick.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Every time I raise this point of order, Mr. Speaker, members opposite start yelling, "You are sick".

December 20, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
The trouble is that if they heard the answer they would be sick, and I suspect that the people of Canada would be sick, as well, at what is going on. I do not think it is proper, when a member rises on a legitimate point of order concerning a written question, that all he should get is this kind of garbage from the government side.
I suggest, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that there can only be three reasons why this question is not being answered. One is that the staff of the Prime Minister's office does not do any work. The second possibility is that the answer would be embarrassing. Perhaps the third reason is that the answer would be scandalous. Perhaps the reason the government is not answering this question comprises all three.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a similar point of order. May I say that I do not abuse, in the House, the privilege of asking the government questions. On July 17 of this year I placed on the order paper a very simple question asking what services of the Department of Public Works were applied to a minor contract in Ottawa, whether there were outside consultants employed, who they were and what was the cost. Would it be fair to ask the parliamentary secretary today whether he intends to answer this question or procure an answer, and then the answer will be forthcoming?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention to furnish replies to all questions standing on the order paper prior to adjournment or prorogation of this session.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Robert Knight Andras: that Bill C-69, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In calling motions I overlooked a motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), which will stand. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, might I suggest-


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to restore some element of amiability to these proceedings. Might I suggest that we could all do with an extra four rmnutes for lunch, and that we now call it one o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in initiating the third reading debate on this important if, in our view, bad bill in respect of changes to the unemployment insurance regulations, let me say at the outset that the first task of the government on unemployment insurance is to deal with the problem of unemployment in the country.
If we had a situation in which there was virtually full employment, to say the obvious we would be in need of almost no unemployment insurance. I cannot at this stage overlook what I feel is an obligation to say something briefly about the failure of the government on the general question of unemployment in the country and the problem which has led to the major change in the legislation on the government's part, to which I will come in a minute. It is this kind of change the government has brought in that we reject most categorically.
Since this act was previously amended in 1971 we have had persistently high and increasing levels of unemployment. In no year since 1971, in Canada, has unemployment fallen below 5 per cent, and in most years it has been well in excess of that figure. This year it is running at about 7.5 per cent, and according to the most recent OECD report and a report by the Conference Board, a group of independent economists in Canada, unemployment during next year is going to be well in excess of 7 per cent.
When we consider the net effect of the programs brought into the House on Thursday night by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), we can see they virtually guarantee we will have increasing unemployment in our country during the next 12 months. We have been told about cuts in the Department of Agriculture, in the Department of Fisheries, in Finance and our railway system. We have been told about cuts in virtually every department which has a direct or indirect effect on the employment prospects of the ordinary Canadian. What I should like to have seen was a refreshing bit of candour on the part of the government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Even if it is Christmas, that is too much to expect.


John Edward Broadbent: I believe the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) expresses some dismay at that prospect, but perhaps because it is the Christmas season I tend to be a little more optimistic than normal. I should like to see the government do what has been done in the United States, in the United Kingdom and in most democracies where those governments have come out with a basic financial structure; that is, they table their employment forecasts. This government refuses to do this. I have no doubt that the reason in the particular case the government refuses is that, in turn, it would have to show that
December 20, 1975

the kind of cuts it has brought to parliament will increase unemployment in every part of Canada-Atlantic Canada, the prairies, the west coast and in the central provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
In terms of employment, this government has one of the worst records in existence. I say with care-because I do not know for certain, but this can be checked-that if you took a period for the last half-dozen years and compared the record of industrialized countries not pre-industrial-ized countries, you would find that this government has the worst record in providing work opportunities for the population than any country in the industrialized western world.
Yes, as the former leader of our party has just said, this government is even going to cut back on Manpower retraining programs. This government has a thoroughly reprehensible record. There was not one item in the package the government brought in on Thursday to suggest a specific program to stimulate employment. The package contained some good and a lot of bad. Many of the good parts were accepted by this party and even suggested earlier. Others have been pointed out as being bad and should have been eliminated some time ago. However, the across-the-board cutback on expenditures, meaning good programs as well as bad, means we will have more unemployment in Canada in 1976 than would otherwise have been the case.
One of the reasons the government brought the present bill before parliament was that they had discovered there was a constant increase in the amount required by the public treasury to pay into the unemployment insurance scheme. The reason there has been a constant increase, to the extent of hundreds of millions of dollars, has been the persistent and increasing high levels of unemployment.
What did the government do? Faced with this serious problem of increasing pay-outs which were generated by their own mismanagement of the economy, what they did in the case of unemployment insurance is precisely what they did in their budget cuts of Thursday night-they put the burden of paying the increased cost on the average and low income Canadians. They said that the ordinary people are being unemployed more frequently in Canada, so let them pay for their own misery. That is the full effect of the major amendment that is introduced in this bill, and it is for that overriding reason, as well as a couple of others which I will mention in a minute, that the NDP is opposed to this bill.
As a number of members know, the present act requires that the general revenue funds be used to pay for all unemployment insurance payments beyond the 4 per cent level of unemployment. What the government has done is to amend that and say that instead of the 4 per cent benchmark serving as the point at which the public treasury picks up the cost, they will have a floating average based on the average unemployment for the previous eight years. What this will mean during the coming year is, for example, that instead of the payments being for unemployment beyond the 4 per cent level paid out of general revenue, which comes from corporation taxes and from the income of people who pay taxes into the general revenue
Unemployment Insurance Act
scheme, the excess beyond the new benchmark level, which will be in the neighbourhood of 5 per cent to 6 per cent, will be paid for out of the increased premiums paid by the people who contribute to the unemployment insurance scheme, namely, the ordinary workers, the very set of people on whom the government has also just imposed a set of wage controls.
What does this mean in dollars and cents? There are no precise estimates. We have had various ones. The minister responsible for the bill has given a figure of $500 million. The Financial Post has provided another estimate of some $800 million. I do not care which figure is the precise one. The case is that we are going to have additional revenue demands imposed on workers in Canada to the extent of $500 million to $800 million in 1976, demands on people whose incomes in the main are below $8,500 because the legislation provides a ceiling of $8,500 beyond which you do not contribute in proportion to your income. It means that ordinary workers, the majority of whom in below the $8,500 category live at or below the poverty level, will have to pay the cost increase brought in by the government which, I say, is in the range of $500 million to $800 million.
If the bill had not been amended, as it is now being amended, that additional load would be borne by corporation taxes and taxes from the income of Canadians at all levels. What this means, in straightforward economic terms, is that average and low income people are having a disguised tax put on them and the people who are above them in income position will get a reciprocal benefit. For that reason, we find that this piece of legislation is extremely regressive. It goes against the principle of sharing responsibility for financial costs in the community in an equitable fashion, and indeed goes against one of the other arguments introduced at the committee stage by the former minister responsible for this act, the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey), when he said that by having a 4 per cent ceiling or benchmark at which point Treasury Board would have to pick up the total cost of unemployment insurance, we would have a major incentive built into law which would cause the government to keep unemployment down below the 4 per cent level.
By removing that 4 per cent benchmark and substituting a floating average, we remove that incentive. Given the nature of the present government, it is probably of no great consequence because it did not act as a real incentive with them in the first place. Ever since the present UIC legislation was passed in 1971, as I indicated, unemployment had constantly gone up. At no period did it fall below the 5 per cent level. For those two reasons, both in terms of the fairness of burden in the financing of the unemployment insurance scheme, which my party believes in the main should be a public responsibility because the public policy in our country, as well as in other countries, is the main determinant of unemployment levels, and because the government is backtracking completely on this and putting the burden of financing unemployment insurance on the ordinary working people themselves, we reject this bill.
We reject it, also, because it removes whatever little incentive there was in the act by having a 4 per cent benchmark at which point the government would have had to pay all increased costs. The floating average means that there will be no real prospect of the government accepting

December 20, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
some level of unemployment in our society beyond which we should not permit conditions to get worse.
The other two aspects of this legislation to which we have objected, and on which our party as well as the official opposition have proposed amendments, is the removal of all persons, once they reach the age of 65, from the benefits of the unemployment insurance scheme. Quite apart from the fact that the savings to the scheme by this removal are minimal in dollars and cents, I think it is in principle a wrong and unacceptable idea. The fact is that the majority of people in our country, according to a study which was prepared a few weeks ago for the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), who are at the pensionable age live in poverty. That means the millions of senior citizens who live in poverty and who want to continue to work, not because they have a profound desire to continue doing the kind of work that they are doing, but they want to do so because they have to get the income in order to eke out an existence in Canada, will be deprived of unemployment insurance benefits.
We say it is wrong to say to a man or a woman in our country who is 65 years old and who is compelled to work because of the inadequacy of a private pension or the inadequacy of a public pension, "Thou shalt not work because, in effect, thou shalt not get unemployment insurance benefits if you do work". We in this party cannot understand why the government should have brought in such an amendment to the law. As I say, it saves a pittance in terms of the cost of the scheme, and in terms of what it is saying to our senior citizens with any sense of equity or fairness, it is totally unacceptable.
The third consideration which is of particular importance to members of our party is the removal of the special benefits which accrue to working Canadians who are at the lowest level of the income scale, benefits which enabled them to receive up to 75 per cent of their average income while unemployed. We think it is scandalous, at a time when we have high levels of inflation, to remove this benefit. What we had in the act before the government brought in this amendment was a provision which said that a small number of workers-let us remember that this is a very small category, the working poor-would receive up to 75 per cent of what they earned during periods of unemployment, which meant for most, I suspect, no more than $60 or so per week. They will no longer receive that. They must receive the same level of benefit as the rest of the work force in Canada which is better off. Any party which has any concern for the poor people of Canada, and in this instance the working poor, should not have brought in this kind of amendment. For this reason we cannot accept a bill which contains this kind of provision.
In concluding my comments, this bill symbolizes for us this government's attitude toward ordinary people since it formed its majority in July, 1974.1 am not going to trot out, again, all the promises upon which the government has reneged. That has been done in previous debates by the official opposition and by members of my party. All the things the government claimed it would do for ordinary Canadians in the July election of 1974 have totally gone out the window. The package of proposals which was brought in on Thursday night shows a heartless sense of

reality and a heartless sense of perspective on Canadian society. The government produced a restraint program which affected virtually every sector of our country and every type of occupation and brought in amendments to family allowances which removed the escalator clauses.
This will mean that the poverty of poor people will be worse in 1976. It means the burden will be transferred to the municipalities and the provinces, who will have to make this up in increased welfare payments because the federal government has neglected its responsibility. This unemployment insurance bill should not be seen as an isolated matter in a package of programs which was otherwise disposed to do something for the average and the poor in this country. Quite the contrary, it is fully consistent with the heartless, indifferent and callous attitude toward ordinary people that we have seen from this government and from this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) since July, 1974.
I hope after the new year, when hon. members on the government side go back to their constituencies and hear the responses from their communities to the cut-backs the government has announced, they will come back with a new attitude. However, I suspect their attitude will not change and that only through the efforts of the opposition in this House in the weeks and months ahead might we be able down the road to have a change in attitude on the part of the government.
When the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues, who were basically the same ones we have now, received their majority in 1968, we saw how indifferent the Liberal party could be when it had a substantial majority. It behaved somewhat differently during the minority government. But it is now back to its lofty and arrogant self and the problems of ordinary people are going out the window. Unfortunately, that is likely to remain the situation until the next election, and when the next election comes I will remind the government of what happened in 1972. My hunch is that the change in 1978, or whenever the election comes, will be more substantial than it was in 1972.


Mr. Gillies:: There will be no NDP members left.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: In connection with the Unemployment Insurance Act, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Manpower and Immigration published in 1973 a booklet dealing with the new approach of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and its aim which, as summarized in the first pages, was to provide an income on a temporary basis to every insured person who is unemployed and to help him or her to rejoin the labour market. It was a summary of good intentions. And further, it even added: ... its awareness of the problems resulting from emergency payments. It referred to possible emergency payments. If all normal corrective measures proved worthless, a cheque could be issued within 24 hours. It could even be issued within 8 hours through manual processing, and within 4 hours by the head of the district office who is empowered to sign cheques on an emergency basis. Such cheques were not issued very often. The fact that the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act is lacking in many respects was fully demonstrated in a press release dated October 27, 1975 on Bill C-69, which has been
December 20, 1975

introduced for second reading in the House. In the first area which will be amended, reference is made to the elimination of iniquities and complexities in the current legislation. The definition of the word iniquity in the dictionary is somewhat short, but quite clear:
INIQUITY: Lack of justice.
So, the government was aware at that time of the many cases of injustice in the administration of the act and regulations.
I am surprised to note that the minister who realizes the cases of extreme injustice resulting from such a complicated legislation has provided as only improvement some amendments on a few important matters, I agree, but which are far from enough. It must be kept in mind that there are still in Bill C-69 provisions which can be considered as cases of extreme injustice. For example, the abolition of benefits, that is making persons of 65 ineligible is an extreme injustice.
The procedures to be followed by individuals who have to quiet their job because of illness have not been amended so as to prevent the petty annoyances of officials about medical certificates. Nevertheless, it is while ill that a person without income needs attention and understanding. Medical certificates will still have to go from the local to the main offices for control purposes, while the person who is ill and without income will have to wait weeks and months before receiving benefits delayed by red tape. These, Mr. Speaker, are cases of extreme injustice that would not occur if this legislation is not amended.
I could give many examples to prove inconsistencies in the administration of the act and regulations concerning the delays of benefit payments in case of illness. One person had to go to a hospital 100 miles away from home; the family physician's certificate is not enough, the specialist who treated the patient must submit a certificate or still the patient has to be examined by an independent doctor chosen by the Commission. Very often, the latter does not want to give such a certificate; he waits for the specialist's file. Add to that the delays caused by the postal strike and other strikes in the public service, and we have an idea of the situation of a sick person without income who has to wait for benefits that do not come.
Bill C-69 provides that in case of illness, a person who has paid enough contributions may renew an application for claim. However, these amendments will again involve a great deal of red tape.
The moment an act states that benefits become payable when someone has to quit work because of illness, if we really want to do away with the flagrant injustices which have already been noted, the act must be ridden of red tape formalities which prevent payment in most cases, the few needless calculations of ten weeks' insurable employemnt during the twenty weeks immediately preceding the thirtieth week. All such formalities should be dropped when it comes to maternity benefits; we ought to remember that the date of birth is never definite and that IUC officials should never render decisions resting on probabilities.
As for ineligibility after four consecutive weeks during which benefits are not payable for every insignificant
Unemployment Insurance Act
reason imaginable-I have in mind sections 33(3) and 36(3) of the act-I stress that such excessive injustice penalizes even the applicant who has managed to find temporary work. But that is nonsense. The fact is that we did not refer to that and Bill C-69 does not account for that complexity, that excessive injustice. As I said, for all sorts of reasons, including the four weeks' ineligibility, the claim year is back to square one and the claimant cannot apply for benefits. Nothing has been corrected in Bill C-69. Here is a relevant example which highlights the stupidities inherent in the system.
The commission advises a claimant on January 14, 1974 that a disentitlement period set from November 18, 1973 to January 5, 1974 is terminated. However, by another letter dated February 7, 1974, he is again advised that since his disentitlement period was in effect during the re-established benefit and extended benefit periods, his benefit period is terminated. Even if the commission recognizes that benefits are now available, there is no benefit payable since January 6, 1974. It is easy to see the trick. The disentitlement period is made to last till the re-established benefit period, and then the claimant is advised that he is not entitled to payments according to sections 33(3) and 36(3) of the act.
This is an example of sadism, and there are many like that, whose authors are the technocrats who have elaborated the act in complicity with the public servants who seem to enjoy enforcing it.
Last spring, a group of 123 workers from the Moto-Ski plant, today transformed and headed by Bombardier Transport Ltd, who had been laid off temporarily, were called back to work by plant management. They worked for four or five weeks, then, having been laid off again, made new claims for unemployment insurance. Not one of them was considered eligible. The workers were punished for having agreed to work four weeks for their former employer. Still, nothing had been changed in the act in that regard.
The same thing applies in the case of farmers who are paid a subsidy for keeping their animals. That makes no sense: subsidies are no income. The farmers have animals they cannot sell, the government subsidizes them for the winter. The employees of the commission then say the farmer gets an income, saying the subsidies represent 50 per cent of their income, and reduce the unemployment insurance proportionately or pay no insurance at all. But no changes are made in Bill C-69 in this regard. Yet, we are asked to pass it gaily, happy about it. That is impossible. If the bill is passed by the majority, aware of that or not, it is not fault of mine. But as far as I am concerned, I say Bill C-69 does not include the changes or improvements required by the act of 1971. That is why I am opposed to passing this bill which is not acceptable in its present form.
In this regard, I have another example of stupidity in the application of the act and its rules. A claimant submits his request at the end of November 1972. After four weeks, he gets insurance with the usual delay. In July 1973, he is advised that he is not longer eligible. In August, he is offered a job at Cowansville, but he lives at Notre-Dame, in Temiscouata, some distance away from Cowansville. On

December 20, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
September 17, an inspector has him sign a statement, as always to the advantage of the commission.
During this time, the'daimant goes out of his way to find a job. Finally, he gets a job in a sawmill in Notre-Dame. He lived in a community located seven or eight miles farther. He moves his family from St-Elzear to Notre-Dame since at long last he has a permanent job. The UIC, through the inquirer and other administrative complexities, insists that the amounts deemed to be overpaid be reimbursed.
Finally, a hearing is arranged before the umpire for December 31, 1973. The five issues are considered and have to do with availability at certain periods, job refusal, false declarations, which was defined in the issues involved. The five decisions were rescinded to the advantage of the claimant.
On February 7, the Commission is in contact with the officials who supervise the computer, in order to determine when this period of misery will end for the worker, who has been compelled to request welfare assistance when the officials of the commission devise every possible way to end his payments.
Fortunately that worker is no longer unemployed. He found a job himself after personally looking for one, without the help of the officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission or the Manpower Centre. They complicated things for him as much as they could. That guy has a family, with all the troubles, and of course he does not have much money, but he managed to find a job which allows him to survive for the moment.
The sections I would like to deal with and about which I still had phone calls this morning, are sections 172 and 173 of the regulations concerning holiday credits. For many years, labour representatives have been making representations to the departments to remove those sections which cause prejudice to those who are unemployed because their work is finished. It is obvious that the technocrats who drafted the bill took the cessation of remuneration rather than the cessation of employment as the basis for the claimant's right. This proves once again that most regulations are based on monetary restrictions. These regulations include all the amounts that can be remitted to an employee on severance.
In 1974, after the administrative reorganization of a snowmobile plant in our area, the firm I alluded to a few moments ago, the 11 foremen who had been employed in this plant from five to ten years received severance pay in addition to their holiday credits. It is obvious that the commission employees who go strictly by regulations extended the waiting period as long as the amounts received at the cessation of employment were not spent.
Some people in the group could become eligible only three months after the termination of their working period. Nevertheless their severance pay was based on the services previously rendered during a period from five to ten years.
This is the type of excessive inequity which is not corrected at all by Bill C-69. Another amendment that could have bad if not revolting effects: the three weeks extension of qualifying period for resignation or refusal of

employment. It is proposed to establish the six weeks qualifying period. Obviously it is mentioned in the bill that it is applicable to those who leave their employment without valid reason.
If the implementation procedure were restricted to that group of unstable workers, I should not be against it. However, as I know the usual procedure, I can foresee that things will not happen this way. If a certificate of termination of employment bears the mention "resignation or misconduct", I am sure that a number of civil servants will be pleased to put the file aside for more than two months without pay, two weeks of qualifying period, six weeks of inadmissibility and then, if the claimant is still unemployed, he may have to wait another month or five weeks before receiving any benefits.
I have in hand a copy of a decision made by an umpire following many instances of unemployed workers and their union agent. I think I should quote the ruling of the umpire. Misconduct cannot be presumed, it must be proven and the burden of the proof falls on the board. The sole mention by the employer that there was a violation of some rules or order, like many late arrivals, is not enough. The violation must be substantiated. The sole mention by the employer that the claimant encouraged other employees to go on strike is not enough without any proof of what the employee said or did. Also, we could certainly say that the sole statement by the employer that the claimant is part of a group of employees that caused some damage is not enough without any proof of the extent of the damages.
As the umpire does not have to know whether the strike was legal or illegal, the fact reported above is a normal incident in a labour dispute and does not imply any form of misconduct on the claimant's part. Misconduct has to be personal and there must be conclusive evidence of it. It cannot be inferred from any association with a group.
The board of referees had no valid reason to infer that a regulation had been violated without being aware of the contents or the mere existence of such regulation, and much less to conclude that there had been misconduct without any proof of personal misconduct.
Of course, the appeal was upheld on April 9, 1974.
Here is another case of voluntary termination considered without any justification by the officers of the UIC as a refusal of employment. Here is what the umpire mentioned in his ruling:
First, in my opinion, the claimant did not leave work without justification since the file states that working conditions did not meet the requirements of provincial legislation. If the fact that the employer did not meet the requirements of the legislation is no justification to leave one's employment, I wonder what a justification should be. In my opinion, it is the most valid justification possible since it is none of the claimant's doing, and it only relates to the employer.
The one week gap between refusal and acceptance of employment should not be sustained as a reason to disqualify the claimant. Employment was accepted before the notice of disqualification was sent out. A citizen has a right to change his mind. To think differently in this case would be displaying legalism, which runs contrary to the spirit of a social legislation.
The appeal is obviously upheld on April 9, 1974.
I quoted two instances which show that the umpire does not necessarily share the opinions of the officers of the commission and the members of the board of referees. But
December 20, 1975

the serious problem meanwhile in that respect is that the unemployed worker at the end of the line or in some centre, the poor worker has no income. He waits until all formalities have been complied with and his claim reaches the umpire. He sometimes manages to get some social assistance benefits, but it is quite difficult.
I showed in both instances that the umpire does not always share the opinions of the commission's officers and the members of the board of referees, following the decisions of the umpire in Quebec on November 8, 1973 and in Chandler on July 25, 1973. That did not happen in Kamou-raska but it happened in other areas of the province.
I would also like to refer to what happened following a decision made by members of the board of referees in Winnipeg, Manitoba, on May 20, 1975, concerning the availability of a claimant from Kamouraska who now works in the Northwest Territories. Following a claim for benefit in due form, the employees of the commission and the members of the board of referees seemed to agree that that person was disintitled because she was previously working in an area that had great possibilities of employment and she had moved in an area where job opportunities were nearly inexistant.
Following various communications and irrefutable proof of the availability of the claimant the commission amended the decisions made previously and benefit payments were authorized for 10 weeks. However, that claimant had filled weekly reports for 22 weeks of unemployment. Something rather funny happened-but to the advantage of the claimant

the computer made payments for 22 weeks, which was followed by a claim by the commission, and in the meantime after looking that claimant found a job. As a result the commission dropped the claim.
This shows the complications of the act and the regulations that are a cause of lengthy delays when it comes to solving a benefit payment problem.
In this case, one must conclude that the rationale of the computer was more logical than that of the officials since the payment was made according to the unemployment reports submitted by the claimant. It will be noticed that I pointed out a lot of difficulties in various sectors in Canada to show the bad results of a far too complicated legislation whose purpose should be to help Canadians in general facing unemployment.
This does not mean that in Kamouraska we are immune from complications generated by a legislation which needs to be revised, and Bill C-69 is far from containing adequate improvements. That is why I am against it. Adoption of this legislation should be postponed and we should take time to study it along with all the difficulties contained in the act of 1971. If there are no sufficient improvements, once again the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) will be obliged to write in his releases that the loopholes and the complexities of the act have not been eliminated. Bill C-69 involves amendments to the period of disqualification up to six weeks for claimants who leave their jobs voluntarily. I have referred to that point previously. I know what is going to happen because generally the commission officials listen mostly to the employer's story. If we are not there to help the applicant either go to
Unemployment Insurance Act
the board of referees or seek another solution, they make their decision according to the employer's statement. There are many reasons to fire an employee: when the employer wishes to cut back on his staff, he finds several reasons. He may wish to dismiss workers who are expecting a reasonable salary and hire new ones whom he can pay less. This practice is frequent in businesses which have trouble meeting their obligations under the present economic conditions.
Let us pause and reflect: unemployment is not only a word; for tens of thousands of families it is a daily reality; for them unemployment means: no holidays, no leisure, no new clothes, eating the same thing all week, bills piling up. That is what unemployment means. Now, I find it strange that a good many people do not seem to stop and look into the resulting difficulties.
To the government, and the newspapers, the unemployed person is a statistical datum, a percentage, an administrative problem. They talk about unemployment the same way they do about weather. It must be true, because we are about to pass a bill which has not been adequately amended. Today, many workers are in danger of becoming unemployed. The worker who had been employed for 20 or 25 years by Canadian Vickers Ltd. was not spared when that firm shut down. Like the worker who had been employed for 15 years in the shipbuilding yards in Lauzon or the worker who had been employed on the work sites of the Alcan company, he has been the victim of automation. Unemployment affects a very high percentage of Canadians. Students need work in summer time because they must help their families; in the same situation are those who have just graduated from school and who join the labour foce, and do not find any job in their specialties; the worker laid off as a result of the closing of his plant; the skilled worker replaced by a machine as a result of automation; the head of the family who works 4 or 5 months out of 12 in construction; the man from 45 to 55 years of age who cannot find a job because he is too old, etc. The list would be quite long. We are told that we have a responsible government but for us under the circumstances, a responsible government is the one which is free to intervene effectively in the development and management of the economy for the common good. This cannot be unless the party in power is free from any financial limitation of private interests under the system of a truly responsible government. Political parties must at all times be completely subject to the rule of democratic control. What government can state that it is as sensitive to the appeals of the anonymous unemployed as to those of the president of such or such an industrial group?
It is not much fun to be unemployed! The unemployed often wonders who is responsible for unemployment. He knows that his former employer, the government and the politicians have something to do with it, but for the worker aged 35 or 40 who completed only Grade 7, economics and politics remain two great mysteries. He is aware of their outward manifestations, that is price increases, housing, food, taxes, finance bills to be paid, elections, the old parties, projects never completed, patronage. All that makes him sick because no one really cares about him or his problems. He sees that we live in a society where only money, profits and dollars count. However, every citizen, whoever he may be, has an absolute and basic right to

December 20, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
work and his earnings allow man to acquire his independence, which is essential to the status of free man and to the very existence of a democratic system.
Every citizen, whoever he may be, has a right to a guaranteed annual minimum income, whether he gets it through his work or through the state, if he does not work because of a surplus of manpower or because he suffers from a social, mental or physical handicap. He needs this income and, under present circumstances, with the complications that arise because the act has not been sufficiently modified, the victims of unemployment will continue to meet the constant difficulties caused by this overly complex legislation.
In our superstructured societies, economists are given virtually absolute infallibility. To some extent, they are considered the popes of capitalism. They dominate government services. They serve on boards, commissions or agencies. Since the beginning of the industrial era in North America and since the beginning of the quiet revolution in Quebec, they have gained favour with the governments: they are listened to. They enunciate dogmas which greatly influence our social environment, but only a few people take the trouble to closely examine these dogmas and even fewer people dare question them.
However, in the face of the enormous problems created recently by inflation and unemployment, experts begin to wonder. Do economists deserve their reputation of infallibility? Are their dogmas consistent with the facts? It would be in order to discuss some of their theories.
According to one of their dogmas, there would be a relationship between wages and unemployment. Economists with a reputation of soundness suggest that if unemployment rises, pay increase claims will come down. This is contradicted by the facts. Labour unions are not blind. They ask for pay increases as prices rise, and that unending price-wage spiral is hindering productivity increases. Therefore, profits decrease, business declines, some industries close down, and others speedily convert to automation, increasing unemployment.
Unemployment is a good example. Quebec and Ottawa naturally want to fight unemployment, but they have to use public works as expressways, subways, airports and other projects.
But to really fight inflation, governments should forget for a while the rather questionable dogmas of their appointed economists, and in all humility consider steps to develop new infrastructures, to give full employment to the greatest possible number of Canadians. Clearly, economic theories prevalent in the heroic times of frontier development are outdated in our highly urbanized society. We must now reason within the context of an entirely new social structure. On the whole, present dogmas are false. We must therefore consider the situation anew, look at the actual facts and change the act, so that a real incentive is given to Canadians, the greater number of whom are very well inclined.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I think the House owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) for the very

constructive way he has dealt with the problems that are imperative in this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: As we proceed toward a Christmas adjournment, we ought not to forget that this bill puts a heavier burden on many people in the community, such as the elderly and those who would otherwise benefit by the extended benefits, and the change in the benchmark that has occurred by this piece of legislation. These people who are afflicted by this legislation are also the beneficiaries of what can only be termed a breach of trust by this government in terms of providing employment opportunities for Canadians.
Neither should we forget that the program which was announced the other day, ineffective as it is, will do nothing in terms of the psychology which would permit the government, if it chose to exert any leadership, to show leadership to investors in the business community and to others, and give them some hope.
We have before us a piece of legislation which has been debated fully in the House. Parts of it are acceptable to the party to which I belong. Other parts are not. In order to facilitate progress with this matter I would comment to the House the excellent contribution made by my hon. friend from Hamilton West, and ask the government if it is now ready to bring this matter on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the House that we have been able to curtail the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: I shall not try to make the remarks he had intended to make but I will say it was very odd to listen to the last speaker. He damns the government and then, I presume, intends to vote for the bill before us.


Walter David Baker: Wait and see.


William Arnold Peters: I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) who this afternoon made the case I might have wanted to make in terms of the effects of the bill upon the poorer people of the country. As one who comes from a rural area he is well aware that the abuses which are alleged by members of the Conservative party and members of the Liberal party do not exist, in our experience. The penalties now proposed will hurt the unemployed, those who are seeking work and are unable to find it. Almost all the changes which are to come into effect when this measure is proclaimed will affect such individuals adversely. On the other hand, the sections which might give them some advantage are not being proclaimed at this time.
The adverse effects of this legislation will be added to those of the government's anti-inflation program, the burden of which falls largely on the backs of the poor. We are asking them to carry such a heavy share of the restrictions called for in these programs that it is a disgrace to
December 20, 1975

the country. If we do not provide employment for many of those who are presently unemployed, we shall be placing a very heavy weight on the municipalities and on the provinces which will become responsible for their welfare. It is true, as the minister says, that the government will pay 50 per cent of that bill. Big deal! What he does not say is that rather than provide employment he is now asking the provinces and municipalities to pay 50 per cent in order that assistance to these people might be forthcoming. The changes now proposed will bring no comfort to many who will find themselves unemployed as a result of government action. It will be a black Christmas for them.
I hope the cabinet will give serious consideration to the whole question of unemployment in the new year, rather than taking the line that, as unemployment becomes worse, the workers should be allowed to carry more and more of the burden. Unless it does, the government will find it has established a class of people who will be united very strongly against it and also, probably, against parliament. These people may, in effect, do something about the situation, and it might not be to the advantage of the country in general. We are certainly creating an atmosphere for that type of action, and from my knowledge of the working people of this country they will only take it for so long.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is that the bill be now read the third time and do pass. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: 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.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


STATUTE LAW (SUPERANNUATION) AMENDMENT ACT MEASURE TO AMEND VARIOUS STATUTES TO PROVIDE FOR CHANGES IN PENSION, CONTRIBUTIONS, BENEFITS, ETC.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, December 19, consideration of Bill C-52, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, the Governor General's Retiring Annuity Act, the Judges Act, the Tax Review Board Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, as reported (with amendments) from the
[Stage Direction]
December 20, 1975
State Pensions
Special Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service, and of Motion No. 1 (Mr. Chretien).
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, I feel there is a point of order that should be raised in respect of several, indeed almost all, of the nine report stage amendments that have been put down with respect to Bill C-52. Lest my friends around the House get the notion that, because I refer to nine report stage amendments, I am going to make nine speeches on procedure, let me assure them that I am going to condense them all into one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is wonderful what the Christmas spirit will do. One does hesitate at this stage of a session to raise a procedural argument, but rules are rules and it seems to me they should be observed.
I have in mind a rule that is frequently quoted and applied when members of the opposition seek to do what these amendments aim to do today. I hope, therefore, that the same strict application of the rule that is applied to opposition members of the House will be applied today to the government. The rule I have in mind stems from the rule of relevancy and, in particular, it gets down to this, that when there is before the House a bill that amends an act, it is clearly established that amendments to that amending bill must be relevant to the bill, must deal with matters that are in the bill. In other words, if one tries to put into an amending bill a clause that will have the effect of going behind the bill to the act itself, a clause that in effect tries to amend the act in particulars that are not before us, such amendments are out of order.
If I may go through the nine motions at one time, may I point out that motion No. 1 in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) seeks to amend section 2 of the Public Service Superannuation Act.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but may I save him and the House some time by indicating that on examination of the nine motions which propose to amend the amending bill at this stage, only motion No. 3 would appear to have some claim to validity. It would appear that the remaining motions are directed to the statute. That is subject to arguments in their defence, but I only want to caution the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that he should not spend a great deal of time developing that argument. That is the initial reaction of the Chair. I may be persuaded otherwise by representatives of those who put forward the amendments, but basically we must start from the premise that eight out of the nine amendments appear to go beyond the amending bill and directly to the statute, which would offend a principle that is well established and that has been alluded to by the hon. member. The question is, where do we go from here?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I believe I still have the floor. I welcome the comment that you have just made. It will greatly shorten my remarks

because I have come to precisely the same conclusion, namely, that possibly a case can be made for motion No. 3, but I see no possibility of a case being made for the other eight motions.
It did strike me that it would be useful to put on the record very quickly what they do. As I say, motion No. 1 seems to amend section 2 of the Public Service Superannuation Act which is not before us. Motion No. 2 is consequential upon motion No. 1, and if motion No. 1 falls, so would motion No. 2.
Motion No. 3 seeks to add something to an amending clause which is in the amending bill, which calls for a Governor General's recommendation, and we now have that, so it would seem to be all right.
Motion No. 4 seeks to amend section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, whereas that subsection of section 31 is not before us.
Motion No. 5 likewise seeks to amend section 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, but only section 36 is before us at that point.
Motions Nos. 6, 7 and 8 all attempt to amend the Members of Parliament Retirement Allowances Act, and I suggest that these motions are doubly offensive to the rules in that they go beyond what is before us in the amending bill, and they would also involve an expenditure of money, and I see no Governor General's recommendation attached to these motions.
Motion No. 9 seeks to amend section 4 of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, but only section 6 of that act is before us.
May I emphasize that in all these cases it is not just that an attempt is being made to amend a section of the act that is not before us, it is not just a numbers game, but rather that in all cases the motions introduce something that is new in susbstance to what is before us in the amending bill. Therefore it seems to me that if the rules are to be observed, the initial comment that you have made should stand, that although a case could be made for motion No. 3, a case cannot be made for the other eight. With respect to some of them-and at this point I am refraining from any points of substance-it seems to me they are desirable amendments and the House might be willing to give consent to waive the rule about notice. But of course when we come to those that involve an extra expenditure of money, without there being a Governor General's recommendation, I do not see how the House could waive that rule, not even by leave.
May I point out that in the special joint committee to which Bill C-52 was referred all of these amendments were proposed by the parliamentary secretary. I am sorry, those which are now proposed by the President of the Treasury Board were proposed by his parliamentary secretary, and on some points he argued that they did not involve the expenditure of money. At any rate, now that they are recommendations of the Governor General, my concern is to have it established that it is not possible to correct one abuse by another.
If these amendments offend against the ruling that we cannot go behind the bill to the act, surely it is not
December 20, 1975

possible, just because hon. members are on the government side, to get around that by putting down the recommendation of the Governor General. This, it seems to me, is an important rule. It was applied to at least one of the report stage amendments in the bill we have just been considering with respect to unemployment insurence. I think it should apply here. The House may find some way to get around these things, but surely the case is clear. I support the view Your Honour has taken that all but No. 3 should be ruled out of order, it being up to the House to decide where we go from here.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government is not disposed to quarrel particularly with the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) or to question the judgment Your Honour has tentatively put forward, namely, that all except the third one of these motions would be out of order on one ground or another- those proposed by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) on the ground of irrelevancy, and those proposed by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) on other grounds. I do hope, however, that it would be possible that an explanation be given to the House of the purpose of these amendments so that we could seek leave of the House to proceed with those motions, which otherwise would be out of order on the ground of irrelevancy, by unanimous consent.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) with respect to the relevancy of these particular amendments. I agree with his argument and that of Your Honour. I wish to indicate to the government House leader that the suggestion the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made with respect to the ability of this House to deal with these matters is acceptable to us.
I am not sure what Your Honour will have to say with respect to an explanation of some motions and some clauses about to be ruled out of order. I am not sure of that, but in order to expedite the matter, we do support the argument which the hon. gentleman from Winnipeg North Centre made. It was made clearly in committee and the precedents for it are well established. If we can find a way to accommodate the government House leader's desire to have an explanation of the clauses about to be ruled out of order, I welcome that, but it is not necessary.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to offer some explanations with respect to the motions before us in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien).
The first motion is required to clarify the definition of "salary", as a result of questions raised in a recent case in the Federal Court. The new definition does not affect the special types of payment to which the court decision applied, as such payments are no longer being made. The new definition and the related regulation making power are proposed simply for clarification purposes to confirm its present application in other regards.
State Pensions
As has been indicated, motion No. 2 is required as a result of the amendment proposed in the new clause 2(1). It is consequential.
Motion No. 3 inserts a new subclause (3), which will extend benefit coverage under the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Government Employees Compensation Act, and the Aeronautics Act to the members of the staff of the Parliamentary Centre for Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade. The former subclause (3) is re-numbered (4), and a consequential amendment is made to include reference to the centre.
With regard to motion No. 4, the new subclauses (1) and (2) are proposed in order to extend coverage under the Supplementary Death Benefit Plan to certain members of the reserve force of the armed forces of Canada in the category described, a number of whom are serving in the Middle East. Under that plan life insurance coverage equal to the salary of the participant is provided.
Motion No. 5 again is consequential to the previous amendment, an extension of supplementary death benefit coverage to members of the reserve force proposed in clause 45. These members currently are protected by a death benefit of two months' pay under regulations made under the National Defence Act. This amendment will not increase the cost to the government in that respect.
The last motion I should like to comment on is motion No. 9. This motion inserts a new clause 104 and re-numbers the present clauses 104, 105, and 106 as 105, 106, and 107.
The new clause 104 is proposed to permit the Governor in Council or the Treasury Board, as the clause provides, to resolve the anomalous situation whereby many longservice employees whom the government wishes to retain can lose prospective pension benefits if they remain employed after years such as 1975. This loss occurs because the level of such employees' basic pensions on retirement in 1976 or later will not be enough to bring them up to the level of the indexed pensions which they would have been receiving following retirement in December, 1975, with basic pensions which would be increased by 11.3 per cent in January of 1976.
The joint parliamentary committee reviewed this problem, and while it was not empowered to make a specific recommendation, it discussed at some length an approach whereby any such employee would be given a guarantee against a lower ultimate pension level if he or she remained in employment one year or less after he or she passed the peak of the pension build-up. Treasury Board approval for extension of the guarantee into the second and later years was contemplated under that approach.
While the government initially was inclined to favour that approach, it was decided to require approval of the guarantee by the Governor in Council or Treasury Board, as appropriate for the first as well as for the second and subsequent years. The retention of the present inducement to retire in the majority of cases will facilitate the government's objective in restricting the growth of the Public Service and reduce the number of cases in which employees might otherwise have had to be laid off.
With these explanations, I hope that the purpose of the motions in the name of the President of the Treasury Board will be clear to the House.

December 20, 1975
State Pensions


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I understand very well the explanations given a moment ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and it is not the first time since I came to this House that we are faced with such a problem.
I also understood that the President of the Privy Council had considered suggestions made to find a way to amend the rules to allow some amendments to bills, provided the House agrees.
We have been asked, Mr. Speaker, to give a few explanations about the motions. As far as Motion No. 6 is concerned, as all hon. members know, there are two retirement pension plans for Members of Parliament and senators.
In 1970, hon. members had been given a time limit to decide which plan to adhere to, either the established one or the new one. Since a number of members have not chosen yet, this amendment proposes to extend in a way the permission given in 1970 to allow a member to choose the new plan while he is still a member of this House.
The other amendments are added to that one to allow officials to administer the program as suggested in motion No. 7.
Those are the only explanations I can give on the matter because, after all, reading the act governing members of Parliament pension plan is all one needs to understand. No special provisions are added. It is simply recognition of a legislation for all members of Parliament who wish to benefit from it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The situation seems to be rather clear, and motion No. 3 is not in any procedural difficulty.
In respect of motions Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 9, notwithstanding that they are accompanied by a Royal recommendation these motions appear to go beyond the amending bill and attempt to get at the statute which the present bill seeks to amend. Clearly, they could not be dealt with at this time, or for that matter at any time, I suggest, without the consent of the House.
Finally, motions Nos. 6, 7 and 8 in the name of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert)-

-motions Nos. 6, 7 and 8 in the name of the hon. member for Bellechasse cause some problems. First, they propose the spending of money and the unanimous consent of the House is not enough to overcome the difficulty. Moreover, those motions seek to amend the act itself and not Bill C-52.
Yet there is no such recommendation from His Excellency, and motions Nos. 6, 7 and 8 involve an expense of money. Then, they require not only the unanimous consent of this House but also the recommendation from His Excellency.
In the absence of this recommendation, it is therefore impossible to put those motions now.


First of all, motion No. 3 does not require the consent of the House, and motions Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 9 can only be dealt with at this time with the consent of the House. I might ask now, does the House consent to deal with those motions which are before it in those numbers at the present time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I do not withhold consent, but I should like to enter a caveat with the House leader that this has happened four or five times during this parliament. The other day a bill was brought in that was out of order; now with the government's knowledge these items are out of order. It seems to me that if it were not for the foresight the other day of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre again today, this House would have had a situation perpetrated upon it that many of us are not capable of discerning ourselves.


An hon. Member:: Particularly the cabinet.


William Arnold Peters: My colleague says even the cabinet. I presume there are members of cabinet who do know this today, but did not know it the other day.
I suggest that the day may come when no one can bring these circumstances to Your Honour's attention. It seems to me we have members of a very sloppy civil service addressing themselves to this problem, or else they are trying to take advantage of or abuse their responsibility to parliament.
While I am prepared to give consent, I certainly hope that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) will see that this does not happen again. It happened with supply, and it happened with this bill with the knowledge of some of the privy councillors. As a member of parliament I expect our civil servants to be more responsible and know what they are doing. If they do know what they are doing then it looks as if they are trying to put something over on somebody. That is not their role and not their responsibility.
Your Honour should not be put in the position of having to make decisions which affect the government and the operation of parliament very seriously and of having to rule on these matters which should not arise at all. That they have arisen in the last several weeks on a number of occasions indicates neglect at some level. We have appreciated Your Honour's indulgence and decisions in these matters, but I think the President of the Privy Council should have his fingers rapped for not having made sure that the civil service did not present things that were not covered by the Royal recommendation, and that other matters are not in order. I will give consent this time, but I think everybody is being put upon by the civil servants when they prepare this kind of legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say again that motions Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 9 can only be dealt with upon the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent that those motions be put forward at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 20, 1975


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt motion No. 1 moved by Mr. Chretien?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another point of order-it is not the pleasantest point of order to raise and I raise it with the greatest respect for the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. This bill is a very important, heavy in some aspects, and a very contentious matter. The bill is in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) but he did not speak on it at second reading, he did not appear once before the special joint committee, and he is not here today.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I say, I have great respect for the job that the hon. member for Ottawa West did, but surely the President of the Treasury Board ought to be here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: In any case, the question before the House at this time is on motion No. 1 standing in the name of the President of the Treasury Board. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Chretien) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is therefore on motion No. 2.


Mitchell William Sharp: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-52, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, the Governor General's Retiring Annuity Act, the Judges Act, the Tax Review Board Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, be amended in Clause 21 by striking out line 31 at page 17 and substituting the following therefor: "have received during that absence;
(b.2) deeming, for the purposes of the definition "salary" in subsection 2(1), the amount in respect of allowances, special remuneration, payment for overtime or other compensation or annual gratuity, if any, that is to be or to have been included in the basic rate of pay of a person;".


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Chretien) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion No. 3 is also in the name of Mr. Chretien. May I presume that hon. members have before them the text of the motion and that they are familiar with it because it is rather lengthy and complicated. Is it necessary to read the details of the motion or shall I dispense?
State Pensions


J. Michael Forrestall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief observation. Perhaps Your Honour had better put motion No. 3. I wanted to speak briefly on motion No. 3 and I do not know whether you have put it or not.


Mitchell William Sharp: Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-52, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, the Governor General's Retiring Annuity Act, the Judges Act, the Tax Review Board Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, be amended in Clause 28 by striking out lines 43 to 50 at page 22 and lines 1 to 4 at page 23 and substituting the following therefor:
"service of Canada.
(3)	the Governor in Council may add to Part II of Schedule A to the Public Service Superannuation Act the members of the staff of the Parliamentary Centre for Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade-Le Centre Parlementaire pour les Affaires estrangeres et le Commerce exterieur (hereinafter called "the Centre") and forthwith upon the addition thereof
(a)	the Centre shall be deemed to be a Public Service Corporation for the purposes of section 25 of the Public Service Superannuation Act;
(b)	the Government Employees Compensation Act shall apply to the members of the staff of the Centre and, for the purposes of that Act, such persons shall be deemed to be employees in the service of Her Majesty; and
(c)	for the purposes of any regulation made pursuant to section 7 of the Aeronautics Act, the members of the staff of the Centre shall be deemed to be employees in the public service of Canada.
(4)	The Governor in Council may, by regulation, provide that the service of an employee of the Institute, the Society or the Centre in respect of which contributions have been made in anticipation of the addition to Part II of Schedule A to the Public Service Superannuation Act of the Institute, the Society or the Centre may, to such extent, at such level of remuneration and subject to such conditions as the regulations may prescribe, be counted by that employee as pensionable service for the purposes of Part I of that Act. " .


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, may I speak briefly on motion No. 3? It incorporates the parliamentary centre as a public service corporation. Members of this House and of the other place have used the services of the centre for the last eight or ten years. I want to pay tribute to the centre, and motion No. 3 recognizes the wonderful service it has rendered to members of both Houses.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Chretien) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is now on motion No. 4. May I again be assured that hon. members have before them the text of the motion and are familiar with its terms.


Mitchell William Sharp: 10248

December 20,1975
State Pensions
Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-52, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the RoyalCanadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, the Governor General's Retiring Annuity Act, the Judges Act, the Tax Review Board Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, be amended in Clause 45 by striking out line 43 at page 38 and substituting the following therefor: "45. (1) The definition "participant" in subsection 31(1) of the said Act is amended by adding thereto, immediately after paragraph (a) thereof, the following paragraph:
"(a.l) a member of the reserve force who is on full time service, with the approval of the Chief of the Defence Staff, in a position in a regular force establishment or as supernumerary to a regular force establishment;"
(2)	All that portion of paragraph (a) of the definition "salary" in subsection 31(1) of the said Act preceding subparagraph (i) thereof is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(a) in the case of a participant who is a member of the regular force or a member of the reserve force described in paragraph (a.l) of the definition "participant" contained in this subsection, the greater of"
(3)	Subsection 31(3) of the said act is"


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Chretien) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 5. May I ask if all members have the text of the motion available to them and are familiar with its terms?


Mitchell William Sharp: Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-52, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, the Governor General's Retiring Annuity Act, the Judges Act, the Tax Review Board Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, be amended by striking out line 44 at page 39 and substituting the following therefor:
"42(1)(d. 1) and (d.2)."
46.1 Paragraph 37(1)(b) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(b) one-sixth of the benefit paid in respect of each participant who, at the time of death, was a member of the regular force or of the reserve force, for which benefit contributions under this Part were payable by him at that time;" ".


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 5 (Mr. Chretien) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: The question now is on motion No. 9. May I ask if all hon. members have a copy of the text before them and are familiar with its terms?


Mitchell William Sharp: Motion No. 9.

That Bill C-52, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, the Governor General's Retiring Annuity Act, the Judges Act, the Tax Review Board Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, be amended by
(a)	by striking out lines 12 to 14 at page 76 and substituting the following therefor:
"104. Section 4 of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(5) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (4), but subject to section 5, the amount of the supplementary retirement benefit that may be paid for a month in any year to a recipient in respect of whom the retirement year determined pursuant to subsection (3) is 1976 or a later year shall be not less than the difference obtained by subtracting the amount of the pension that may be paid to him for that month in that year from the aggregate of the supplementary retirement benefit and maximum pension that would have been payable to that recipient for that month in that year, other than pursuant to this subsection, if the retirement year of the recipient had been such earlier year, being a year after 1974, as is determined to be his retirement year by
(a)	the Governor in Council, in the case of a person to or in respect of whom the pension is payable on ceasing to hold an office to which he was appointed by the Governor in Council; and
(b)	the Treasury Board, in the case of a person other than a person described in paragraph (a).
105. Section 6 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:"
(b)	renumbering present Clauses 105 and 106 at page 78 as Clauses 106 and 107, respectively.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I say a few words on motion No. 9? I realize that there has been no response to my point of order of a few minutes ago. Although the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) is still absent, I hope he will be available before this debate is over.
This proposed amendment, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Francis) suggested, seeks to resolve an anomaly which has developed recently. I agree that it needs to be resolved. This motion does it, but in a way extremely beneficial to retiring public servants at the top of the salary ladder.
This situation has arisen because some public servants near the top of the salary scale realized one year ago, last December in fact, that if they retired in December and took their pension, their pension would be escalated in January by more than 10 per cent and, in this way, they would begin drawing a higher pension than would have been available to them if they had worked until January or February. Some of those public servants not only retired in December in order to obtain higher pensions than would have been available if they had retired in January or February, but they obtained contracts to work for the government while on pension. That seems to me to be an abuse, but it happened in a number of cases.
The proposal being made in motion No. 9-and it is up to the Governor in Council to determine whether this practice is to be carried through-is this: if a person in his retiring year could have obtained a higher pension by retiring the previous December, he is to get the higher pension. In other words, the person retiring in March or April, 1976, will get a higher pension than he otherwise could obtain in March or April, 1976; he will get it by virtue
December 20, 1975

of the application of this rule. As I say, this came about because of the things I described, which happened about one year ago.
I hear a comment which is probably not on Hansard. I do not intend to put names on the record.
Word of what happened has got around and there is now a great deal of interest in it, not only on the part of senior public servants, the $50,000 or $60,000 a year fellows, the nabobs we heard mentioned in the last few days, but on the part of those at the lower levels. I have received communications from letter carriers and employees at that level, who realize that if this provision goes through they can get, in February or March, 1976, a pension 11.3 per cent greater than they would otherwise get. But for this bill, the pension they would get in the spring would be just a few cents higher than the one they could get by retiring in December; but, because they could get the 11.3 escalation if they had retired in December, they are to get that escalation. Therefore they hope that this measure will go through. In some cases the amount of money is not large, but it means something to them. I am sure this is not being done for them. It is being done for those at the top, who I think have abused the situation.
I notice that the government is somewhat aware of this, because in another bill which I will not mention since it caused some trouble this morning, there is a clause to put a ceiling, in 1976, of $2,400 on the increase in any pension that a person may receive. Imagine that! Lots of people in this country will never see a $2,400 pension, but we are saying that no pension of any retired civil servant shall increase in 1976 more than $2,400. I mention this to suggest that if we are to put this principle into effect in this bill, there ought to be a ceiling.
There is another defence for it which I am prepared to advance, and my defence will let me accept it. It is this: in recent years the escalation of salaries has been so great that the use of the six-year average for calculating public service pensions has become out of date. I tried, in committee, to argue in support of the three-year average; the President of the Treasury Board was not there to argue the point, but my argument was not adopted. This measure will make it up for the little people. It provides that in the next year or two they will be paid better pensions than would be available to them under the six-year average rule.
It seems to me that we should have attempted to block what some highly paid public servants did last December. Instead, we are regularizing it, and producing conditions which will be particularly beneficial for those in upper income levels.
In my view, rather than adopting the present device, we ought to have examined more thoroughly the entire question of the six-year average relating to pensions. As the parliamentary secretary suggested, whether or not this device will apply in certain years will depend on the Governor in Council. When we add this provision to some of the other things contained in Bill C-52, perhaps hon. members will understand the views which my party and I hold on the bill as a whole. When we come to a problem like this, instead of dealing with its root and providing a solution which is best for everybody, this government solves it mainly for the benefit of those at the top.
State Pensions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I noted that the parliamentary secretary was about to rise, and I wanted to make sure he did not close the debate, as he seems to be representing the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien). When he speaks I hope he can clarify something. I understand from what the parliamentary secretary said that in no case will passage of this measure result in a public servant's receiving a higher pension than he would have received if he had retired before the end of the fiscal year and obtained an escalation. That was not clear when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) spoke. Perhaps, unintentionally, he left the impression that this measure would confer some favour on public servants. It is my impression that the favour has already been conferred on them. As a result they have a substantial inducement to retire in order to protect the benefit that has been conferred on them. The purpose of this amendment will not be to confer a greater benefit but to ensure they do not lose this benefit by continuing to work. I would just like that assurance.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) has been in and out of the House for most of the day. I know he regrets he is not here at this time. He asked me to take responsibility for this bill at the second reading and committee stage.
I am happy to make some comments which I hope will answer the points that have been made. First, with regard to the point made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), he is quite right in his interpretation. The bill would not permit any pension to be escalated beyond the maximum of two calculations.
A person on whose behalf the government chose to exercise discretion would be allowed to continue into the new year, retire on the normal retirement date, and then calculate two sums. One is the amount which would be his or hers in the normal course of events and, two, the amount he or she would have received had he or she retired on December 31 and taken the 11.3 per cent escalation. In no case could he receive more than the greater of those two. I think that answers the point of the Leader of the Opposition.
I wish now to deal with the points raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The hon. member has been interested in pensions for some time in this House. He has been among those who pressed most vigorously for full escalation according to the cost of living.
One of the anomalies that has developed in the course of the period of time we have been facing inflation is a very serious discrepancy in the December 31 retirement date as against those who could work up to 11 months later and receive less. If the inflation continues long enough it will wreck any pension plan that has been devised. If the inflation continues and we have something like 11.3 per cent escalation every year, the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act will be under a very serious strain in terms of the money at its disposal and the obligations on the fund that has been created.
21130-27)4

December 20, 1975
State Pensions
The review of the pension legislation by the committee was very extensive. We had technical witnesses and representations from outside organizations. There was no attempt to curtail discussion. Members present may not have liked the answers they received, but I believe they will concede we at least tried to answer their points.
In looking at the operation of the pension fund, two points must be considered. The first is a very much enlarged liability as a result of the escalation provisions; second, an increase in income as a result of the greater amount of interest which is credited each year with the average yields which have risen under the formula applied by the government. It is impossible to predict what the ultimate outcome will be. The increase in yields started at 4 per cent and is currently in the area of 7 per cent. This has provided a measure of protection within the financial arrangements that exist.
There is no question that this House and subsequent governments will have to look at the very serious problem of what happens to the operation of an unlimited escalation formula without any cap on it whatsoever. It is my hope and belief that, with the adoption of this amendment, the government will develop a policy for subsequent years which would be able to indicate who can expect, on request, to continue beyond the normal date of escalation.
No civil servant is losing anything by the adoption of this formula. The rights which they have now for December 31 retirement are still there. Those who have planned their retirement will no doubt make the plans they have anticipated over a period of time. The operation of this amendment attempts to bring some degree of rationality in a number of cases in respect of the very anomalous situations that have developed whereby a civil servant will get a greater pension by retiring prematurely on December 31.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask one facetious question with regard to the retirement of members of parliament. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Francis) assure us that from now on elections will be held in December, as the retirement fund of some members may not be as high in January, February, or later? The terms the parliamentary secretary has outlined will not likely apply to the members of parliament pension retirement fund, but the effect would be the same as for the escalator clause which, in effect would be applicable.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, no doubt minority governments will take heed of the advice offered by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make one comment. The Royal recommendation suggests that this act is intended to provide equality of status for males and females under the Public Service Superannuation Act. I suggest that this takes one step in the direction of providing equality. I would not like the moment to go by unrecorded that this was a full equalization between the males and females.
The step it does take is worth remarking. It makes equality of the contributions to the superannuation fund by male and female employees of the public service. The one area where it does not provide equality for males and

females is the survivor aspect. If, for example, the survivor who is not the contributor should be drawing 50 per cent remarries, she loses her superannuation. This does not provide full equality. The fact should be recorded in Hansard.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 9 (Mr. Chretien) agreed to.


Mitchell William Sharp: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


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


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I simply would like to take this opportunity to draw the attention of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) on the requests contained in the amendments I have proposed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has simply to wait till the motion on third reading of the bill is put.

When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Mitchell William Sharp: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, I simply want to draw the attention of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) on the nature of the amendments I moved. Since there are two points subject to revision and that cannot be done by a member of the House, it must absolutely come from the government's side. I would like to request from the President of the Privy Council that he bring these questions to the attention of his colleagues in the cabinet, when amendments to the acts we have discussed in the light of Bill C-52 will be presented again, and that the considerations I offered to the House be taken into account.


J. Michael Forrestall: I wish to make a few brief comments, Mr. Speaker, on Bill C-52 at third reading. I must say I thought the observation by the parliamentary secretary, that this matter had been before the House and before the appropriate committee for a sufficient length of time to warrant an assumption that the appropriate attention had been given to it, was scarcely
December 20, 1975

well founded. This bill could very well have been before us for the last eight to ten months. Indeed it should have been in front of us so that the attention that the complexity of the clauses demands could have been given to it.
As we have made clear, both in committee and on second reading, the bill is deficient in a wide number of areas. I do not want hon. members to leave this Chamber believing we have done wonders for those who fall within the ambit of the act. We have not. The act is still full of anomalies and examples of discrimination; the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) has just called attention to one of them.
While we welcome the move on the part of the government to clear up some of the anomalies, particularly those as between the sexes, we feel constrained to point out that all the anomalies have not been cleared up by a long shot. I might mention the concern felt by my hon. friend from Edmonton West with respect to the so-called gold-digger clause. A woman spends 20 years living with a man, leaves him because she finds he is with someone else-it may be for only three years-and then discovers she has lost benefits to which she had been entitled. This is only one of 23 areas which have been identified by members of the New Democratic Party and by members of the Official Opposition on second reading and, particularly, in committee. They require the attention of the government in the immediate future.


Walter David Baker: Ongoing consideration.


J. Michael Forrestall: That is the phrase. They require ongoing consideration. Time and time again we put forward serious amendments in areas where action should have been taken a long time ago. But we were under the hammer, subject to the firm direction of the parliamentary secretary that there would be no amendments imported into the bill which did not fall within the narrow recommendation which accompanied it.
I suggest the recommendation was deliberately made narrow in order to preclude an attempt by members to secure necessary changes in a number of areas. For example, there is the question of the benefits which accrue to widows and so forth. Then again, there is the so-called 85 rule with respect to members of the Canadian Armed Forces. This is an anomaly which should not be permitted to continue. Yet it does. We discussed some 30 amendments. The government put forward 21 or 22 amendments. They have gone a long way toward clearing up some of the anomalies with respect to pensions.
I do not intend to discuss in detail the areas which need further examination, or to identify them. I will simply say to the parliamentary secretary that we compliment him on the way in which he has handled this bill, and we recognize that the restrictions imposed on members of this chamber in terms of their ability to correct some of the ongoing hardships affecting the people concerned are not his doing but that of his minister.
I echo the comments made with respect to the absence of the minister, and close by indicating that passage of this bill does not mean that members of this House are in any way satisfied that we have done an honourable or a good thing for our superannuates in the Public Service of Canada, because we have not. I trust this feeling is shared
State Pensions
by members on both sides of the Chamber. The least which would be acceptable to us this afternoon would be an indication from the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) that he intends to look into the anomalies and conflicts which continue to exist, causing downright hardship in some cases. We welcome the amendments to the degree that they do effect certain changes in the act, but we would have welcomed an indication from the minister himself as to the government's intentions, particularly in the light of the restraint program and the attitude taken by himself and his colleagues toward spending programs over the next two or three years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill which has presented my colleagues and me with a certain amount of difficulty, and I trust this will be understood by those who are familiar with what is in it. There are some things in it which are not only good but have a quality of urgency about them.
Perhaps the most urgent item is the provision under the heading "Equality of Status" which appears several times in the bill. I think it is a misnomer; it is almost a joke, because all it provides is equality at death. The so-called equality between male and female contributors is just that. The bill provides that a female public servant at death will leave the same survivor benefits as a male public servant. That is hardly the kind of equality International Women's Year is all about.


Mrs. Campagnolo:: Better than nothing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) says it is better than nothing and she is perfectly right. But I hope that for some of us death is still so far off that we shall see equality of status in life, not just equality at the point of death.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: This bill gives a female public servant the right to leave survivor benefits equal to those a male public servant can leave. From here on, female public servants will be paying for that right by contributing the same rate of premiums into the fund as a male public servant does. I said there was some urgency about this provision. This is because only those public servants who are in the public service, on strength, when this bill becomes law will be covered by it.
In other words, if a female public servant retired in Ottawa yesterday before the bill becomes law, she would not be covered. It would therefore be unfortunate if this bill were delayed in a way that would interfere with the rights of some who might be contemplating retirement, or who might be in a position where they have to retire very soon. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, that could have been avoided. All that was needed was to put in a bill a clause providing that, with respect to this so-called equality of status, there would be retroactivity to a certain date. This can still be done. The bill can still be rewritten and corrected in many ways to cover this point. As I say, that is one provision of the bill that has a certain element of urgency as well as being right, and we strongly support that part of the bill.

December 20, 1975
State Pensions
There are a number of provisions in the bill that have the effect of straightening out certain anomalies. These apply not only to the Public Service Superannuation Act but also to the acts affecting members of the Canadian armed forces, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and all the other branches and agencies with pensions under the aegis of the federal government. We welcome them, Mr. Speaker. There are not many of them that have a sense of urgency that might apply to the instance of equality of status at death, but at any rate they are welcome improvements.
The bill contains as well some matters that my colleagues and I do not like. As other speakers have said, the bill is also grossly deficient in some of the provisions it should contain. We therefore feel that, as a total package, the bill is unacceptable. It has been before us since February 17 of this year, which is the day it had first reading. There have been many weeks and months in which to deal with it, but no, it was not given second reading until a few weeks ago. We then had to deal with it in the Special Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations under pressure, because of the time element in regard to the one point I made, and perhaps in regard to one or two others.
In view of the request that has been made so often for other much needed improvements in public service superannuation, I think this has been a shabby way to treat us. I still think, with all the respect I have for the job done by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Francis), that the issues that were raised in committee were of such substance that we had the right to have the attendance of the President of the Treasury Board.
I want to say a few words about some of the points that are not dealt with in the bill that I think should be, the absence of which makes the bill unacceptable to us. I shall then speak about some of the matters in the bill which also make the bill unacceptable to us.
Allusions have been made to some of the matters I have in mind. I have already referred to the so-called equality of status in the bill, which is only equality to death. We feel that if there is going to be equality between men and women, their pensions ought to be equal. If a husband and wife live and work together and between them build up a certain pension right, what is there that is just about a law that provides a full pension so long as the man lives, but if he dies his widow gets only 50 per cent? If the woman dies first, the man who survives gets the full 100 per cent pension.
If the government is going to mouth this phrase about equality of status, we think it should go all the way and provide for equal pensions to the partners of a marriage where either one of them is employed in the public service. We raised this matter in the special joint committee, but of course we got the answer that it was beyond the terms of the Governor General's recommendation and could not be proceeded with for that reason. We were also told that it would be very costly. I recognize that, Mr. Speaker, but there are lots of things that are very costly which we can do in this place because we think they are right. I suggest that the phrase "equality of status" is a good phrase but that we really should put it into effect.

I do not accuse the government of any misleading language in the actual clauses of the bill. The title "equality of status" is there, but when it comes to the terms of the bill, what is meant is equality between male and female contributors, not equality between man and wife, between men and women in general terms. We regret very much that the government has not seen fit to move in the direction of equality of status in real terms so far as men and women are concerned, and this failure makes the bill very unacceptable to us. It may be that the contribution rate would have had to go up, and that instead of a 100 per cent pension in either case the pension would have had to be 90 per cent if either husband or wife survived. But why not have the same percentage-whatever it is-whichever partner survives?
When we lost out on that point or got nowhere with it, and when we received no answers other than the three I have already mentioned-that it exceeded the governor general's recommendation, that it was very costly, and that the government just was not prepared to do this at this time-we then tried to argue that if we could not get a 100 per cent pension or the same pension for man and wife, at least the survivor's pension ought to be something better than 50 per cent. After all, survivors of members of parliament who qualify for a pension get a pension equal to 60 per cent of members pensions. Why do we hold it at 50 per cent for the widows of public servants? This again was said to be beyond the terms of the Governor General's recommendation, and beyond the capacity of the fund at its present level, so therefore we got nowhere with that either. I do not fault the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board for not being able to deal with this in full. After all, it is a matter of government policy. But it was this sort of thing that I feel should have resulted in the presence of the President of the Treasury Board, and he should be here today to speak for the government on the matter.
Since I am talking of equality of status, and about widows in one capacity or another, may I move on to the point already mentioned by the hon. members for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) and Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), a point that has frequently been raised in the House and in committee by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I refer to widows of public servants, or others that come under this bill, who married a public servant or pensioner after he had retired. Back in the old days when retirement was much later there may have been something to this prohibition, but it does not seem sensible today that a woman who can be the widow of a man after a marriage of 20 or 25 years-there are such cases-gets no pension because she married him after he left the public service, or the RCMP or armed forces. We think that is out of date and that this should be corrected.
I may tell the House that one of the delegations which appeared before us was the Federal Superannuates National Association, represented by Mr. Fred Whitehouse of Victoria, who is its national secretary treasurer. He told us in plain language in the committee that he and those who were with him at an interview with the President of the
December 20, 1975

Treasury Board were quite hopeful that there was going to be an amendment on this score.
I had other reasons for thinking it was going to happen and that we were going to get an amendment to provide for pensions to widows in such cases with some reasonable restriction. I do not ask that, if such a marriage lasted only six months or a year; a lot depends on the ages of the respective spouses, but certainly, and I am sure my friends who are on the committee will confirm this, the view of Mr. Whitehouse was specifically, from his talk with the President of the Treasury Board, that there would be an amendment on this score. Perhaps others have had the same letter that I had from Mr. Whitehouse asking how we made out on that. Unfortunately I have had to write him a disappointing letter. That was only one of so many disappointing letters I have had to write during my years of experience here, to the effect that the government had said no.


An hon. Member:: You belong to the wrong party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure that my friend and members of his party have to write many letters of the same sort.
In any event, it was unfair that Mr. Whitehouse was treated in this way, as well as the committee, by being given the impression that something was going to happen and then it not happening.
I get the impression that whatever items there may have been along this line, the restraint program got in their way. It got in the way of the prisoner of war legislation we hoped to get from the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), and it has got in the way of those provisions which we asked for in the joint committee on this bill. I still think it is most unfair. As I say, there are instances in which the first marriage lasted only a few years, but where the second marriage lasted many years, during which the second wife raised the children or carried out responsibilities that were greater than those of the first marriage, yet no pension is allowed under that rule. I think this bill is unacceptable in that it does not provide for a change in that respect.
There are those three things regarding wives, widows, or women that we think should have been acted on but were not, and to us this makes it an unacceptable piece of legislation to amend superannuation acts that we are being asked to push through, particularly without touching on these matters.
One of the reasons I say it is so unsatisfactory is that these things take a long time in coming. We will not get another such bill six months or a year from now. It will be way down the road, and the next time there will be some other anomalies that have to be straightened out, so we will not get action on these points then.
Another issue we raised in the committee, and again got the answer that it was too costly, could not be done and was not in the Governor General's recommendation, is the base that is used for calculating pensions under the Public Service Superannuation Act, or the pensions of other superannuation acts, namely, that the pension is calculated on the basis of 2 per cent per year of service times the average salary in the six best years.
State Pensions
Back in the so-called normal times, if ever there were normal times, the last six years of a public servant's employment could be at a level of salary that did not change greatly, but in the past six years we have had public servants whose salaries have doubled in that period. So when you ask these public servants to take a pension based on 30 or 35 years; in other words, 60 per cent or 70 per cent of their six best years, you are asking them to take a considerable cut from what they have been receiving recently because of the escalation in salaries in the last six years.
We felt, therefore, that the time had come to cut down that six-year period. Some of us in the committee proposed it be cut to four years or three years or two years, or even to one year; various shorter periods. We proposed that, but we could not even get the matter discussed.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board took the proper position for him to take as a parliamentary secretary, namely, it was not in the act and it would cost so much that it could not be done. That is why the minister should have been there. I think there will be many public servants, members of the armed forces, the RCMP and others who will find it very disappointing that this parliament has again dealt with a bill to amend superannuation acts but has not dealt with this issue.
I move on, Sir, to the issue of the time at which pensions can escalate. We are talking now of an annual escalation which, for example, in January, 1976, will be 11.3 per cent based on the rise in the cost of living over one 12-month period as against another. The fact is that this is attainable only for retired persons who are 60 years of age or over.
That is all right for the public servant whose age for normal retirement is that or older, but we have employees of the RCMP and the Canadian Armed Forces who are not permitted to work until age 60. They work on contracts under which they are required at age 48 or 50-in there somewhere-to go out on pension, and there is no escalation to deal with the increase in the cost of living until they reach age 60.
Some of us have been arguing for a long time that this should be changed. I have raised it with the President of the Treasury Board, with the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand), and with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson), each of whom has referred it to the other. It is still an issue that ought to be dealt with but is not dealt with in this bill.
Again we had before us at the joint committee a delegation of the Canadian Armed Forces Long-Service Pensioners Association. The representatives presented their case and certainly left with the same impression that Mr. Whitehouse left with concerning the other issue, namely, that something was going to be done. I certainly got the impression that something was going to be done. It might not be an escalation available at the point of retirement at 48 or 50 years of age, but it might be at age 55 or somewhere in there. However, when the parliamentary secretary came back from such discussions as he had, there was no change.
There is another issue we have been kicking around in this House ever since 1969, ever since escalation came in; once again it is not there. I was extremely disappointed. I

December 20,1975
State Pensions
have mentioned the fact that we had these two delegations before us, the Federal Superannuates National Association and the Canadian Forces Long-Service Pensioners Association.
We also received a letter from the dominion secretary of the Royal Canadian Legion pressing the three points about which I have been speaking. The first is the one I just mentioned, namely, that escalation should start the first year after retirement; the second, that pensions payable to widows ought to be higher than the present 50 per cent; and third, that the denial of a pension to a widow if she married a serviceman or employee after he went on pension is most unfair.
What is the point of this committee work? Do we just go there and get the message from on high that this is the bill and nothing is to be changed except what the government wants to change? We have committees, and we have delegations appearing before the committees and the cases are made. Members go along with them. I could not even get a motion passed that the steering committee meet to consider some way to bring our recommendations back to the House. It was argued that we could not do it, that all we could do was to report the bill. But I pleaded that at least we meet to try to find some ways to let the House know of the various things that we in the committee wanted to do. We could not even get a motion like that passed.
I could add other things. I will mention just one of them quickly in passing, the problem that faces public servants who were in the armed forces and who want to buy back for pension purposes their service in the armed forces. That is available to them, but in most cases it is so costly that it might as well not be there.
So here is a bill that fails on many points to meet the needs of persons who are working for the public service or persons who are on pension, and I think it is a most disappointing business. In effect it is shabby treatment for us to be told that we have to rush this bill through because of one or two elements of time urgency, but we cannot do such things as to meet the problems of widows and meet the need of retired service persons and retired Royal Canadian Mounted Police for escalation of their pensions in accordance with the cost of living.
On top of all the things that are in the bill that are wrong, and on top of the things that are not in the bill that should be there, there are things that some of us, especially in my party, do not like. This is a bill of 106 clauses, which means there are a lot of things in it-in fact not only is the bill so long but the title is so long that Your Honour finds it difficult to read every time you put the motion-but tucked in there, as has happened on a number of occasions, is a substantial improvement in the pensions of members of parliament. I say that on other occasions this has happened, this tucking our pensions into an omnibus bill, and I regret it very much. Frequently we have been in the spot where we were presented with a bill that was good but which contained something that we did not like, and we were faced with the problem of whether we should vote for the bill because of some good things in it or whether we should vote against the bill because we did not like the wrong things that were in it.
We think that in these times of restraint, after we have had a terrific increase in our indemnities and in our tax-

free allowances, to be making provision now for an increase in our pensions down the road of 33 Vi per cent is a little too much. I know the plausible argument that all this bill is doing is relating our pensions to our present pay scale of $24,000 instead of the $18,000 that is specified in the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. But one has to couple with that the fact that there is already in our pension plan a formula that is tremendously beneficial which provides for 3 lA per cent per year for the first ten years, 3 per cent per year for the next ten years, and 2 per cent for the next five years, in other words, in 25 years, 75 per cent of our six best years average. In the public service it is only 2 per cent per year. It takes 35 years to reach 70 per cent; a public servant can never reach 75 per cent. As a formula it is far too generous and I suggest we are going too far to add to the generous formula by relating that formula to a higher salary so that we will get higher pensions down the road.
May I point out that the last time we dealt with the members of parliament pension bill, we put a figure in there. The $18,000 was the maximum salary to which our pensions could be related. But now we are taking out that figure and we are saying that our pension is related to whatever our salary is. So if the freeze for 1976 comes to an end, and in 1977 and 1978 our pay starts going up again, our potential pensions will keep on going up.
I submit that at this time when restraint is the motto, when we are supposed to be giving some leadership, we should not be doing this, and in my party we are opposed to taking this step and we shall be saying so by our vote on this bill.


An hon. Member:: But you will take the money.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not planning to take any pension money. I am not planning to retire. I am sure that will please the hon. member.
This morning during the question period I refrained from pressing a point of order of which I had given notice. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was surprised that I asked only for a freeze on the total amount of members of parliament pay, that I had not asked for a roll back. He knows very well that last December, January, February, March and April I did my best to prevent that increase from coming into effect, and if he is not aware of it let him ask his friend, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), who is aware of where I stood on it. I say to him now that I think that that act of members of parliament in raising their own salaries to the extent that this was done has had a tremendous effect on the inflationary psychology in this country. I am not arguing that it is the only element, but I am arguing that part of the problem the government is having to cope with today is created because of that, and because of the tremendously higher salaries that were provided for public servants.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in the middle of his speech. He still has some time left. However, we face a technical problem in that earlier this day the House made an order that later this day it would revert to motions for the purpose of dealing with the motion standing in the name of the President of the Privy
December 20, 1975

Council (Mr. Sharp). At that time it was not simply the consent of the House that later in the day consent would be sought to revert to motions, but it was an actual order that we would revert to motions later this day. Technically later this day stops in two minutes. Therefore, if we are to obey our own order we must either interrupt the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and revert to motions, or fail to see the clock. I did not want to be in the position to do either one, but I did want to say to hon. members that either we revert to motions at this time or we understand that, in failing to see the clock in a moment or two, we are not in any way prejudicing the previous order. Is that understood and agreed?


Walter David Baker: I think there is general understanding that we keep our eyes away from the clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Stop the clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am glad you heard those of us who said "stop the clock" and that you did not hear my friend who said "stop Stanley".


An hon. Member:: You made your point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall only be a few minutes longer. I am answering the point the Prime Minister made this morning. I think that what we did with respect to indemnities, what has been done with respect to top civil service salaries, $50,000 and $60,000 salaries and big pensions for them, has all contributed to the inflationary psychology which has created or aggravated the problem which we have today. I do not think we should add to it by the action of improving our pensions further at this time. Therefore, because we do not like what is being done with respect to members' pensions, because we want to protest against that as strongly as we can, because we do not like the failure of the bill that is now before us to deal with the issues that a number of us have raised, because we feel this whole operation has been a shabby one and is very disappointing, we shall vote against the third reading of this bill.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: want to say just a word, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) has already expressed the disappointment of my party that a good many things were not dealt with in this bill. However, let me just say a word about the retirement features, without provoking a debate, I hope, at this stage.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) opposes the escalation figure, and I cannot agree with him in this respect. For one thing, the continued escalation based upon actual salaries and emoluments is realistic. I think a freezing at $18,000 per year is not right. I think, too, that if this freezing at $18,000 were to continue, we would very soon get into an anomalous situation parallel to the situation of the public servants, with whom the bill has dealt in part. We would very quickly get into a situation where it would become financially disadvanta-
State Pensions
geous for a member of parliament to continue to serve as a member of parliament, rather than to retire and receive the benefit of the cost of living escalation which is built into the retirement pension. I think this is indisputable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There may very well be faults in the pension which exists for members of parliament. It may be too generous in a number of respects, but I suggest if it is too generous this relates to the period after which one could qualify or the age at which one can qualify, and if there is going to be a re-examination of the pension those are two areas which should be examined rather than trying to freeze the rate of emolument upon which the pension is calculated for those, perhaps, of long service.
I suggest to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that two wrongs do not make a right. I suggest to him that he is tackling reform of members' pensions at the wrong time. The escalation of the salary range upon which the pension is calculated is right. But I would be all in favour of another look at the period of qualification and the age of qualification because it seems to me that if there are faults in our pension system-and there may be-it is in those areas. I suggest that if the House were to adopt the position taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre today, we would quickly get into, among other things, injustices and anomalies with regard to members of parliament who retire, and we are going to build into our parliamentary retirement system an inducement and an encouragement for members of parliament to retire rather than serve their country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling in the members, which I am required to do by the Standing Orders, I again want to reiterate that we do have a matter of business to deal with for which there is some compulsion, and perhaps it might be more orderly first to deal with the adjournment motion which is here now and then call in the members for the recorded division on the measure before us.
10256

December 20, 1975
State Pensions
I am perfectly prepared to call in the members and proceed with the recorded division first, and then deal with the other matter. However, we are extending somewhat beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment doing it that way. I am in the hands of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, could we not now have an understanding or a House order that the hours of sitting today be extended until we have concluded the motion which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) will present and until we have made the trip to the other place? It seems to me that the time to take this vote is now. Then, after hon. members are here, we can have the other motion.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am agreeable to that. There is, however, one difficulty, and that is while we have every reason to believe that the Senate will deal expeditiously with the bills which have been approved by the House today, it is possible that that will not be the case. In that case, perhaps after we have reached our decision on the adjournment motion, it might be more appropriate for me to move that we re-assemble for Royal Assent at the call of the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: That, however, has to do with the terms of the adjournment motion. The only question now is whether we take the recorded vote and then deal with the terms of the adjournment motion, or do it the other way around.


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: May I take it that the consensus of the House is to deal with the adjournment motion first?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, when I shouted "now", I meant that we should take the vote now and then deal with the adjournment motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Could we have a five-minute bell only?


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried. Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to the order made earlier this day, the House will now revert to motions.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mitchell William Sharp: That, when the House adjourns after Bill C-75, an act to increase the rate of return on government annuity contracts, to increase their flexibility and to discontinue future sales thereof, has received the Royal Assent, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, January 26, 1976, provided always that, if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultations with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
December 20,1975

That, in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for the purposes of this order.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: It should be noted that, pursuant to the terms of the motion, we must deal with the adjournment of the House for this day. Perhaps honourable members might be prepared to agree that, since it is possible that Royal Assent may occur later this day, or, if not, because of unexpected circumstances, on Monday or Tuesday, the sitting of the House shall now be suspended until the call of the bells, which shall call the House for the specific purpose only of receiving Royal Assent and that, thereafter, the adjournment motion, the terms of which have been pronounced and passed by the House, will be operative. Is that understood and agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, the sitting of the House stands suspended until the call of the bells.
May I now deal with the second most important matter. It will be my pleasure to receive honourable members, staff, and members of the press gallery for a small libation, to send them on their way with the proper Christmas spirit, which has never been absent from this Chamber for very long.
At 5.28 p.m. the sitting was suspended.
The House resumed at 8.18 p.m.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed the following bills without amendment:
Bill C-69, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.
Bill C-52, an act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, the Governor General's Retiring Annuity Act, the Judges Act, the Tax Review Board Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act.
Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act.
Royal Assent



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the following communication has been received:
Government House Ottawa, December 20, 1975
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Wishart F. Spence, O.B.E., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 20th day of December, at 8 o'clock for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General.
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Honourable Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-80, An Act to provide supplementary borrowing authority for public works and general purposes.-Chapter No. 79.
Bill C-69, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.- Chapter No. 80.
Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, the Governor General's Retiring Annuity Act, the Judges Act. the Tax Review Board Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act.-Chapter No. 81.
Bill C-77, An Act to amend the National Housing Act and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act.-Chapter No. 82.
Bill C-75, An Act to increase the rate of return on Government Annuity contracts, to increase their flexibility and to discontinue future sales thereof.-Chapter No 83.
Bill C-74, An Act to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act.-Chapter No. 84.
Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act,-Chapter No. 85.
Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.- Chapter No. 86.
Bill S-29, An Act to enable The Eastern Canada Savings and Loan Company and Central & Nova Scotia Trust Company to amalgamate. Bill C-1002, An Act to incorporate the Northland Bank.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to order made this day, this House stands adjourned until Monday, January 26, 1976, at 2 o'clock p.m.
At 8.34 p.m. the House adjourned until 2 p.m., January 26, 1976, pursuant to special order made this day.
21130-28^2

Monday, January 26, 1976