1977-05-09

OFFICIAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
SECOND SESSION-THIRTIETH PARLIAMENT 26 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Atomic Energy Control Board

[Stage Direction]
Commission de controls de I'energie atomique
Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada Available from Printing and Publishing, Supply and Services, Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 0S9
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 9, 1977


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 and concerning the right of the Parliament of Canada to participate in decisions relating to a northern pipeline. If there is unanimous consent 1 would move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That a special committee of the House of Commons be appointed to consider and report upon proposals for the construction of a northern pipeline; that 15 members, to be named at a later date, be selected to serve on the committee; that the committee be authorized to conduct its discussions in such a way as to maximize public participation and understanding of the issues at stake; that the Berger commission report be referred immediately to the committee and that all subsequent reports on pipeline construction shall stand referred immediately to the committee upon tabling in the House; and that the said committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records and to examine witnesses; to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House; to report from time to time and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation for debate of any motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to request the unanimous consent of the House to my motion. Given the view expressed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) in a letter dated as long ago as November, 1976 that the problem of tax deductions at source for public servants based on their place of work, rather than on their place of residence, rested on the income tax regulations, and given the increasingly heavy burden that the levying of this tax is placing on public
servants living in Ontario but finding Quebec to be their place of work, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this government be instructed by this House to amend the income tax regulations in such a way as to permit public servants to express an option with respect to the way income tax deductions may be made at source.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate pursuant to Standing Order 43 must be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST FOR INDEPENDENT STUDY OF MERCURY POLLUTION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I move under the provisions of Standing Order 43 a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the recent book by Warner Troyer entitled "No Safe Place" confirms the seriousness of mercury poisoning in Canada, in view of the fact the House has been repeatedly misled about the number of cases of Minamata disease, and in view of the fact there are allegations that the federal health department has suppressed information regarding the seriousness of mercury health hazards, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the federal government immediately commission an independent comprehensive epidemiological study on mercury pollution, and the entire matter be referred to the appropriate standing committee of the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, presentation of such a motion for debate can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

May 9, 1977
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Last week I asked the Prime Minister whether he was prepared to refer the report of Mr. Justice Berger to the appropriate standing committee of the House. I did not receive a reply to that question. Today, the government will be tabling that report, and there is still no indication as to whether the government of Canada is prepared to let this parliament consider that report or wants to make that and other decisions in secret by executive fiat. May we have, from the Acting Prime Minister now, a clear undertaking that when the Berger commission report is tabled this afternoon it will be immediately referred to the appropriate standing committee of parliament?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give that undertaking at the present time. I have already expressed my doubt as to whether it will be useful to conduct another inquiry in light of the inquiry that has been conducted by Mr. Justice Berger. However, I am ready to tell the Leader of the Opposition that it will be possible for parliament to deal with this report, at least to debate it. I have commenced, in a tentative way, discussions with my counterparts in the other parties seeking a way by which we may be able to debate, under a general motion, the Berger report and other developments that may affect a pipeline decision. It seems to me that putting the question before parliament or giving parliament, as a whole, an opportunity to comment on the report might be more meaningful than at this stage to establish another inquiry. It would be better for us, as early as possible, to have a debate on the subject and then take it from there.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister and his colleagues have had three weeks to consider what they were going to do about this matter, at least three weeks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Acting Prime Minister now tells us that he does not think it would be useful, to use his words, for the parliament of Canada to play a role in looking into the recommendations which have been made by the Berger inquiry. He has suggested that instead there might be a debate of some duration, at this point unknown. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister if he intends to delay that debate in the House of Commons until after the National Energy Board has made a recommendation on matters relating to a northern pipeline?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe it would be very important, as early as possible, to have parliamentary spokesmen from various parties comment in the way they wish on the very important conclusions that will be contained in the Berger

report. It is not my intention to delay any such debate until after the National Energy Board reports. It may be that it will be useful to have a further debate after additional reports are received; but my intention would be to provide an opportunity for debate in the House of Commons which would give the parties and the individuals an opportunity to comment upon the conclusions that have been made by Mr. Justice Berger.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the parliament of Canada is not interested in a role that reduces it simply to a commentator. The parliament of Canada wants the opportunity which lies at the root of the parliamentary process whereby members of this assembly representing the whole of the country might have an opportunity to discuss, in the detail necessary, the very important report that is going to be tabled this afternoon by Mr. Justice Berger. It is not adequate to have one day of debate as a replacement for committee study.
I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister two things now. First, will he give us a commitment that there will be an opportunity for a committee of this parliament to consider the Berger report in the way it would consider other important reports? Second, will he give us a guarantee now that there will be an opportunity for the parliament of Canada, either in committee or preferably in a long debate in the whole House, to discuss this whole question after the National Energy Board has made its recommendation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, briefly the answer to the first part of the question is no. I am not prepared to give a firm undertaking. The answer to the second part of the question is a qualified yes.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we are now moving from the government saying nothing at all to giving us a qualified yes, which leaves the Parliament of Canada nowhere at all. We do not know what that means. Can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House of Commons how long a debate he is anticipating on the Berger commission report.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I hope to work out some arrangements with my counterparts on the other side of the House. It may be that we may all want to contribute some of the time available to us to deal with this important matter. On the part of the government, I am quite prepared to undertake that there will be a debate. I have not decided the length of the debate. I invite other parties perhaps to contribute some of their allotted days so that the debate can be useful and broad enough to provide input from all hon. members in the House.


Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Apparently the minister prepared a memorandum and sent it to Canadian Press with regard to certain energy matters. In that memorandum, the minister stated that he had informed the United States energy chief, James Schlesinger, in March 1977 and I quote:
Under certain circumstances we might be prepared to continue our exports at a rate of 250,000 barrels a day-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understood the hon. member was asking a supplementary to his leader's question. We will get to that later.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-ACTION TO ENSURE CANADA RECEIVES FAIR SHARE OF GROWTH IN INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Clause 1 of the Canada-United States automotive agreement asserts that both countries must share equitably in future growth of the industry. The minister in a recent statement at long last indicated that Canada has not been getting its fair share of new jobs in this industry in light of the fact that the Canadian market has grown more rapidly than that of the United States. What precisely is the minister or the government, through some other department, doing to ensure that we get our fair share of growth in this industry?
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think this problem is extremely complex. The hon. member has used our normal employment ratio. However, I would like to remind him that while the North American automobile market represents 9 per cent in Canada, we have in this field 11 per cent of the jobs. The problem is the balance of payments level where we had a deficit of about $1.1 billion last year. I believe we have greatly improved the situation, but negotiations will be needed in some areas to come to agreement on adjustment matters. But I must say that, generally speaking, the automobile pact has been extremely favourable for Canada.


ALLEGATION CANADA NOT RECEIVING FAIR SHARE OF AUTOMOTIVE PARTS INDUSTRY-GOVERNMENT ACTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister should know, as his two predecessors indeed knew, that in terms of our share of jobs in the crucially important automotive parts sector, we have not been doing very well. As the minister knows, Canada currently consumes some 12 per cent of the automotive parts but only has 6 per cent of the jobs with a net loss of employment to Canadians in this high technology, highly paid sector, of some 20,000 jobs according to the president of the Canadian Automotive Parts Association. Is the minister concerned that the very guts of the automotive industry is being transferred from Canada to the United States? If so, what specifically does he plan to do about it?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is very good at choosing only certain parts. He is now talking about the parts
Oral Questions
sector. I am aware of that. However, he did not refer to the fact that we have been doing very well on the assembly line and have a huge surplus with the United States on that. When we signed the agreement in 1964 or 1965, we were only producing 3 per cent of the North American production. We now produce 7.5 per cent. Therefore, the agreement has been very good. In terms of net jobs, we have 11 per cent of the jobs. Some adjustment has to be made, but up until now the auto pact has been extremely useful for the Canadian economy.


John Edward Broadbent: As a preface to my final question I wish to remind the minister that his two predecessors sat idly by during the past six years while our parts industry was transferred to the United States. That process is still continuing. If it continues for a few more years and the U. S. pulls out, we will have nothing to maintain the industry in this country. Therefore, I would like to ask the minister whether the government has any specific proposals to make to ensure that the essence of the whole industry, which is the parts industry, the skilled trade sector, will remain in Canada.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am aware of the problems, Mr. Speaker, and I raised this issue with the American officials I met when I went to Washington a few weeks ago. We had our officials prepare a report on the over-all situation, following the conversations between President Ford and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), a report which I hope to table shortly. There are problems today, and there will be problems tomorrow. What I mean to say is that our position is quite favourable with respect to assembly lines, but unfavourable when it comes to auto parts. All in all, however, I feel that we have made considerable progress. I am keeping a very close eye on the situation. I hope it will improve in the future, but I resent the hon. member's suggestion that no progress has been made and that we shall have to return to the pre-auto-pact era.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Ren6 Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Considering the alarming statements by the minister concerning the supposed exodus of company head offices from Quebec to other provinces and since he has refused to comment publicly on those statements, could he tell the House whether his department has undertaken any serious inquiry on that matter and can he report to the House to what extent company head offices are now leaving Quebec for other provinces?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the department is not making any

May 9, 1977
Oral Questions
extensive study on the phenomenon, but you will understand perfectly well that we are not indifferent to what is going on not only in Quebec but also in other provinces. During the last six months, and particularly lately, we have noted an increasing movement of transfer, and I thought it was my duty to mention it so that the authorities responsible, at both federal and provincial levels, might be aware of it and make the necessary corrections. It is not only important, Mr. Speaker, to note the transfer of head offices from one province to another, but also to note that within the head offices that are not moving, other transfers occur which are equally important and bad for the economy of a province, although in many instances the head offices themselves remain.


INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER KNOWS OF STUDIES CONDUCTED IN QUEBEC
Charles Edward Rea: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
Is the minister acquainted with the studies made in this connection by the Quebec government and is he aware that by far the majority of those so-called head offices were merely of fictitious companies which in fact had no facilities whatsoever in Quebec?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I merely want to point out one thing to the hon. member who seems to take lightly the fact that head offices are being moved out of Quebec. Why, if my allegation had not been serious, had been without any basis, would six Quebec ministers have seen fit to deny it so vehemently?


MEASURES TAKEN BY MINISTER TO STOP DEPARTURE OF HEAD OFFICES FROM QUEBEC
Mr. Rent Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I have another supplementary.
In view of the minister's interest in this matter which he seems to regret, can he tell us what steps he intends to take to counter those famous transfers?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the hon. member that if he had, as I hope he did, studied some of the statements I made publicly at seven or eight conferences where I was invited to speak, he would know that I insisted strongly on the situation. In particular, I urged English Canadian firms now in Quebec not to abandon it, and not only that, but to continue investing there if they feel that Quebec should remain within Confederation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Knowing him to be a loyal and devoted subject of the Queen of Canada I wonder if he has any observations to make in connection with an exhibition put on by the Prime Minister, shown on CBC television, at Buckingham Palace when the Prime Minister did a caricature pirouette behind the Queen accompanied by, to say the least, unseemly gestures. Has he any observation to make on the propriety of that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No,
Mr. Speaker.


OIL-GOVERNMENT POLICY ON EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As far as we know, it has been the government's policy up until now to cut off oil exports to the United States in 1981 and to reduce them up until that year. The minister has apparently proposed to Dr. Schlesinger that Canada might guarantee exports of oil to the United States for five years subject to certain conditions. Has the Canadian policy now changed, and what are the circumstances or conditions to which the minister was referring in his offer to Dr. Schlesinger?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite true that Dr. Schlesinger and I talked about the question of supplying the northern tier refineries through a continuation of Canadian oil or possibly through other methods, including "yo-yoing" the Trans-Mountain Pipeline, the Kitimat application and another application, which may appear before the United States regulatory authorities, for a pipeline from Cherry Point paralleling the Canadian border. We explored Canadian policy on the basis of being able to make Canadian supplies available to the Americans on a secure oil basis; let us say swapping secure oil for secure oil. We also examined the possibility of using the potential of the Wabana iron ore mines and the franchise arrangement granted by the Newfoundland government to Wabanex for an oil storage facility which would be used perhaps to provide that kind of security for Canadian users.


MINISTER'S ASSESSMENT OF FOOTHILLS' PIPELINE PROPOSAL
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in the minister's same memorandum he refers to the Foothills Pipeline Limited proposal for a pipeline to bring gas from the Mackenzie Delta, and before receiving the Berger Report or any other report the minister has apparently concluded that
May 9, 1977

that is not a serious option at the present time because of low volume gas discoveries. Would the minister confirm that that is his opinion, and if it is, is the minister not pre-judging both the Berger Report and the NEB report, which he has criticized other hon. members for doing?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think many Canadians have observed that the threshold volumes in the Mackenzie Delta are not sufficient to justify an all-Canadian pipeline at the present time. Indeed, I have had discussions with various members of the industry, including proponents of the Maple Leaf of the Foothill line from the Mackenzie south, and they have indicated to me that they have not seen those threshold volumes either. I do not want to speculate further as to whether they have completely abandoned that particular proposal; that is for them to say before the NEB. I have noted, however, that they have been placing increasing stress on the other proposal they put before the NEB, the Alcan proposal.


ALLEGED LACK OF GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT TO SOLAR ENERGY
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and it concerns the government's failure to bring forward a comprehensive energy policy. I refer specifically to a report released last week which was financed by the Department of Supply and Services and which stated that there has been no clear, unequivocal commitment by the government to solar energy. I wonder if the minister will tell the House whether he agrees with the recommendation in the report for a vastly increased solar energy effort, and if so, what concrete steps is the minister planning in the near future?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the particular report to which the hon. member is referring but I take issue with him when he says we have no comprehensive energy policy. I will send him a copy and perhaps he will read it and give us the benefit of his conclusions. As to the question of solar energy and its place in Canada, I agree that it is a very important source of energy. We are significantly funding demonstration projects all across the country. We have increased very materially our support for energy research and development and the demonstration of solar energy in Canada.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. If there is a comprehensive policy on energy I am sure hon. members on this side of the House would like to see it. Last week the minister told the House that the United States energy policy was merely a copy of his own. I might say it is a measure of the achievement of the Carter administration to adopt a policy which does not really exist. With regard to the U.S. federal public building program that includes a clear commitment to make use of solar energy in the heating of public buildings, I
Oral Questions
wonder if the minister will advise whether we have a similar policy for our government buildings and if not, why not?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, at the present time we are looking at two specific proposals which would involve federal government buildings.


POSSIBILITY OF DELAYING NEGOTIATIONS ON SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTORS IN VIEW OF DECISION AT SUMMIT CONFERENCE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister and relates to the actions of the government in relation to the decisions and conclusions which came from the Economic Summit Conference in London at the weekend. One of the decisions in which Canada took part and obviously wholeheartedly agreed with was for a two-month "urgent study" to determine how best to prevent the proliferation of weapons and materials for nuclear weapons and indeed the whole question of nuclear power reactors throughout the world. As a result of that, has the government issued a directive to all government departments and agencies to immediately cease and desist any further negotiations or dealings in regard to fissionable materials, nuclear reactors or similar equipment and if not, why not?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will realize that the Downing Street summit not only referred to the risks of nuclear proliferation and undertook a commitment to study on an urgent basis the question of safeguards but it also underlined the need to use nuclear energy to meet the world's energy requirements. There are those two aspects to the London conclusion. The direct answer to the hon. gentleman's question is no.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Allan Frederick Lawrence: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I must say it seems strange if our policy would contravene any result of that study, especially when it is coming out within two months. My second question concerns the summit conference press release which indicated that a compromise decision of the conference called for a ban against irregular business practices and improper conduct in international trade. I wonder if the government has done anything about this. In particular, has it banned any departmental agency or department of government from paying commissions or secret commissions or agency fees to any
5398

Oral Questions
numbered Swiss bank account as an example of this type of ban or prohibition they are seeking?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen any reference in the declaration which emerged from the summit dealing with this particular point raised by the hon. member. In any event, it was dealt with last December by the President of the Treasury Board in the guidelines.

[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr.   Albert@: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
To prevent residents of the Lower St. Lawrence, Gaspe and Magdalen Islands regions from moving to Ontario or other parts of Canada, could the minister tell the House whether he has recently boxed his Quebec counterpart's ears with a view to speeding up the conclusion of the agreement on economic development in that region, which was about to be concluded on November 15, 1976, that tragic date for the province?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that we had a meeting a few days ago, as he himself is aware, and during this meeting we discussed how important it was to conclude those negotiations. But unfortunately I must tell the hon. member that the Quebec government is persisting in its position that it is better to agree on changes to the existing agreements rather than to enter into a new auxiliary agreement which we had referred to as resource-region and which I continue to prefer by far to what is now being proposed. Of course the final decision will rest with the provincial government, at least with regard to the content of those agreements. 1 hope we will be able to find a reasonable common ground to satisfy the largest number possible of people concerned.


SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO SOUTH KOREA-CONFLICTING STATEMENTS ON USE OF AGENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. An article in yesterday's Toronto Sun substantiates an earlier report in the Toronto Star that no agent was involved in the sale of a CANDU reactor to South Korea. In view of the fact that four top-ranking officials of Korean

Electric Company have stated publicly that Shaul Eisenberg was not involved in the sale of the reactor and that AECL was notified by the Korean Electric Company that the sale would be negotiated only if no intermediary agent was appointed while at the same time the Canadian Crown corporation was paying $15 million in fees and expenses to Mr. Eisenberg, will the minister explain to the House the discrepancy between these two positions, recognizing that the payment of some $15 million in public moneys is involved?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think the report the hon. member has alluded to is largely false. I would suggest to her that she might like to confer with her colleague the chairman of the public accounts committee. I believe that within the last few days the Secretary of State for External Affairs has conveyed to him a full report on the discussions that took place with respect to the Korean Electric Company officials and their knowledge of Mr. Eisenberg's part in the agency arrangements. If she would confer with him I think she would find it all laid out in the record.


Miss MacDonald:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. minister that I have been sitting on the public accounts committee for some four months now awaiting vouchers and documentation in support of the $15 million expenditure but we are not getting it. Is the minister in his response dismissing out of hand the statements attributed to officials of the Korean Electric Company? Will the minister also inform the House of the progress made with regard to the statement by the Prime Minister on March 3 when he said:
Mr. Speaker, we-
Meaning, I presume, the government.
-will try to ascertain whether the quotes were accurate and what exactly was said by the gentlemen, and if there is indeed a contradiction between the two positions, I will see what further action can be taken in order to comply with the lady's concern.
Has the minister found out if the statements were accurate and what action has he taken to try to clear up what is becoming an increasingly suspicious matter?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated what action has been taken. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has conveyed a letter to the chairman of the public accounts committee. Perhaps it has not reached his desk yet but I saw it at the end of last week.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: You saw it before I did.


Alastair William Gillespie: It goes into considerable detail.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: You saw it before Mr. Eisenberg, I bet.


Alastair William Gillespie: It deals with the questions the hon. member has raised of statements from the officials of the Korean Electric Company. If the report in the Toronto Sun indicates that a senior operating officer of the Korean Electric Company was unaware of Mr. Eisenberg's position as agent, it is false.
May 9, 1977


SUGGESTION PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE INVESTIGATE USE OF AGENTS IN SALE OF CANDU REACTORS
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. I will not pursue the question of asking for a Royal commission inquiry because this government has shown its sensitivity about Royal commission inquiries into its alleged misdeeds. Is the government prepared to ask this House to give the public accounts committee full authority to pursue an investigation with unrestricted powers to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents if necessary by warrant, without any interference by use of the Crown executive privilege and to engage investigators and to have this investigation carried on outside Canada if necessary so that the unfortunate taxpayers of this country may get some protection?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment in detail on each of the apparently unprecedented powers sought by the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: The situation is without precedent.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: However, when the public accounts committee was established, the government undertook to facilitate its work in every possible way. If the public accounts committee itself decides it needs further powers, identifies what they are and how they are to be exercised, of course the government would consider the matter, but the public accounts committee itself knows what action to take if it has reached that conclusion.


RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT TO SEEK INFORMATION ON PAYMENT OF AGENTS' FEES IN SALE OF CANDU REACTORS
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister if he does not believe that the government has some responsibility to satisfy itself where all this money went and what practices were involved? Does it feel it can slough off this responsibility simply by making a reference to the public accounts committee, or does the Acting Prime Minister believe that we think he and his colleagues are so stupid that they could not get this information if they wanted to get it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the reference to the public accounts committee arose from a demand in the House of Commons, since it was suggested that this would be the appropriate way to establish the facts. In response to an opposition demand, and not in an effort to slough off its own responsibilities, the government agreed to make this particular reference. That is the history of the matter.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the government is ultimately responsible not to parliament but to the people of Canada, does the Acting Prime
Oral Questions
Minister believe the government has no responsibility to find out and satisfy itself where this money went? Does the government believe it has discharged its responsibility and expect anybody to believe it has so discharged its responsibility to date?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the government, obviously, has attempted to discharge its responsibilities. Ministers have appeared before the committee in order to give full information. We are still ready to consider how to facilitate the work of the committee. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have both been extremely forthcoming in providing information on these matters.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and concerns mercury pollution in the English-Wabigoon river system which is threatening the health of the native people in the area. In view of an Ontario government task force report in 1973 which recommended that the river system should be closed to all fishing, and in view of the federal government's power to close the river system at the request of the province, has the Ontario government at any time asked the federal government to close this river system to all fishing?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


MERCURY POLLUTION OF ENGLISH-WABIGOON RIVER SYSTEM-FEDERAL REQUEST THAT ONTARIO CLOSE TO FISHING
Reginald Cyril Symes: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the federal government, in its consultations with the Ontario government, urged Ontario to take the necessary steps to ban sports fishing in the English-Wabigoon river systems so that the people in the area will be protected from mercury poisoning? Also, what reasons has the Ontario government given for not complying with the federal government's request?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I personally met with three Ontario ministers and urged on them the closing of the river. I also proposed a meeting with them in order to develop an economic development package for the people of the area. So far, Ontario has not made a positive response.


John Edward Broadbent: When was the meeting?


William Warren Allmand: The meeting was prior to the new year, either in November or December.
80016-2%

May 9, 1977
Oral Questions URBAN AFFAIRS


GRANVILLE ISLAND, VANCOUVER-FUTURE OF PROPERTY AND PURPOSE OF EXPENDITURE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of activities and reports concerning Granville Island in the city of Vancouver, and the expenditure there of some $25 million by the trustees of CMHC which, even though no housing or mortgages are involved, owns the property, what is the federal government's policy concerning the future of this property and what is the purpose of the proposed expenditure?


An hon. Member:: 
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment, may I direct my question to the acting minister or the parliamentary secretary? In view of the urgency of the matter and since federal officials have been engaged in discussing this question, could the acting minister advise whether a final decision has been made regarding the use of pesticide sprays in the control of the serious budworm infestation in the forests of the Fraser Canyon area of British Columbia?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: No, Mr. Speaker, I understand that a final decision has not been made, although the government of British Columbia is expected to make such a decision this week. The view of the federal Department of Fisheries and the Environment is that, if it is properly handled, there are no serious dangers connected with the use of the pesticide needed to fight the spruce budworm.


Alexander Bell Patterson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the wide divergence of opinion on that particular question, can the parliamentary secretary advise whether, as has been alleged by some, the pesticide Orthene is still in the experimental stage, or has it been fully tested and approved for use in such circumstances?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, Orthene has undergone extensive tests, as is necessary before its approval for use.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of National Defence. [English]
Could the minister confirm-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Continue in French.


Walter David Baker: You are a phony, Anderson.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, could the minister confirm that two Yankee class Union of Soviet Socialist Republic nuclear submarines are on station off the west coast of Canada and the northwest coast of the United States on a 365-day a year basis, and say whether the submarines carry tactical nuclear weapons and, if so their numbers?


Walter David Baker: How can the minister know that?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I prefer not to comment in any detail but confirm that there are such submarines operating off the Pacific coast of Canada and the United States.


Mr. Nowlan:: What about the Atlantic coast?


AVAILABILITY OF MIDDLETON REPORT ON RENEWABLE ENERGY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the report on the potential and costing of renewable energy in Canada, by Middleton Associates, reached the minister's attention yet?


Alastair William Gillespie: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to the report prepared and submitted some time last fall.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, actually, the report was submitted last April. If the minister has read it, would he make the report available to the public, particularly to municipalities and provincial governments?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to consider that suggestion.
May 9, 1977



INCOME TAX


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
In view of the problems caused by the current system of deducting federal and provincial tax before issuing pay checks to civil servants residing in one province but working in another, is the minister prepared to tell us whether the regulations in this regard will be amended so that each civil servant can express his own preference.


Hon.   Monique@: I am
not sure, Mr. Speaker, I understood quite well the sense of this question. I would like the hon. member to give me details.


Donald W. Munro: It is about regulations governing income tax deductions. Could the minister tell us if they are going to be amended so that civil servants might express their own preference?


Miss B6gin:: Unless I am mistaken, it is about the problem of federal civil servants working in Hull. To my knowledge, this problem does not exist. Pensions are not a real problem since benefits are the same for people living in Quebec or in Ontario.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: A question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. In view of the diverging courses of the United States and the Canadian economy-in the United States unemployment is dropping while in Canada it is rising-and since business indicators in the two countries also show considerable divergence-indicators in the United States are rising while in Canada they are falling-and since historically Canada follows the U.S. pattern, when does the minister consider we can expect an upturn in our own economy compared with that of the United States?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, so much the better if the American economy is improving. I do not agree with the hon. member that we are necessarily lagging behind the United States. On the contrary, during the past three years, our economic performance was better than the Americans' and if the situation is improving there at the present time, it is certainly going to stabilize our situation in Canada and we can only benefit from any improvement occurring there. In my opinion, the
Oral Questions
hon. member knows full well that for the first time in the past three winters Canada had less unemployment than the United States.


William Gordon Ritchie: In view of the depressing effect of controls, when will the government announce clearly that controls are to end?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as far as controls are concerned, we have passed a law and it is clear that the law stipulates that we cannot continue to have them after December 1978.



DRILLING IN BEAUFORT SEA-CONSULTATIONS WITH NORWAY ON BLOW-OUT IN NORTH SEA

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It relates to a recent decision by the government of Norway to postpone indefinitely test drilling of oil and gas deposits off its northern coast bearing in mind last month's blow-out in the North Sea. In view of proposals to drill in the Beaufort Sea this summer, could the minister tell us what steps have been taken to consult with the government of Norway with respect to this decision and is it being taken into account when considering possible locations for future drilling in the north?


Alastair William Gillespie: I shall be pleased to give the hon. member a more complete report but I can tell him that a member of my department was in Norway recently during those sad events and has come back to make a report. I have not received his full report yet.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the fact that the government of Norway has invited the countries bordering the North Sea to attend a conference next month to consider the implications of the accident and the experience gained from it, together with proposals for co-operation in the future, may I ask whether Canada has been invited to take part, perhaps as an observer? Will the minister take steps, if this is not the case, to gain the information which will be disseminated at that meeting?


Alastair William Gillespie: We shall certainly expect to gain access to the information. Whether we have been invited to the conference or not I do not know, but I shall be pleased to find out.

May 9, 1977
Oral Questions



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the continuing serious drought in southern Alberta and southwest Saskatchewan, areas which saw no relief from last week's rain, will the minister tell us when he will announce the opening of the Suffield PFRA pasture as he clearly indicated he would at a recent meeting of the standing committee?


Marcel Lessard: We have been working on two plans; first, to set up the permanent pasture on that Suffield land and then to try to use it on a temporary basis. As for the permanent pasture, arrangements will likely be concluded early in June. I hope that by mid-June we shall be in a position to end our discussions with the Department of the Environment and the Department of National Defence. Things are going very well, now. As for the emergency pasture, we hope arrangements will be completed soon. We are still working to find appropriate water locations which will service the cattle to be moved there. I would say that these arrangements will be completed in a matter of days, or weeks at the most.



MULTICULTURALISM


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the minister responsible for multiculturalism. It is related to a statement made by the former minister in a speech at Edmonton on January 29 of this year. At that time, the hon. member for Hamilton East stated that by April the government would be prepared to provide assistance in connection with projects to improve teaching skills of teachers involved in third language training in Canada's supplementary schools. As we are now into the month of May, I should like to know whether the hon. gentleman is now prepared to introduce such a program and, if not, when he will be prepared to do so.


Hon. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Minister without Portfolio):: am not aware of the details of what was said by the minister previously responsible for multicultural affairs. I have not given the matter any consideration, nor do I anticipate doing so at the moment.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: In the same speech, the hon. member for Hamilton East announced the government's intention to provide support for the operation of supplementary schools in recognition of the important role played by those schools in language retention. Could the minister inform us whether he is developing guidelines for such a program and, if so, when we can expect this program to be introduced?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I have not considered any of the speeches made by the previous minister, neither can I speak on that particular subject at the moment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs? It relates to a resolution submitted by the War Amputations of Canada urging that where a war disability pension is paid to a married couple and one spouse dies, the pension be continued in full for one year. In view of the fact that this resolution has been presented on other occasions, and repeated recently, can the minister tell us whether his department is considering the proposal?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: This resolution, like others, is under consideration in the department.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State.
Since the finals of the World Hockey Association will get under way this Wednesday between two Canadian teams, the Winnipeg Jets and the Quebec Nordiques, would the minister tell the House if he has made or will make representations to CBC to have this sport event aired over both networks so as to continue to promote national unity?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that the hon. member is interested in this event since we often watch the hockey series on television in the lobby together.


An hon. Member:: Is that why you are never in the House?


John (Moody) Roberts: After the House is over; the games go on after ten o'clock. I shall be happy to refer the hon. member's representation to the appropriate bodies to ascertain what answer they can give.
May 9, 1977



REASON FOR IMPORTS OF BROILERS FROM UNITED STATES

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Last week, more precisely May 4, I was asking the minister whether he could tell the House if massive imports of broilers were authorized after consultation with the Minister of Agriculture responsible for the nutrition of Canadians. At that time, he said he would answer the day after. Is the minister prepared today to give us an answer on that subject?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I looked into that question and there has been indeed an increase of about 5 to 7 per cent in broiler imports in Canada since the beginning of the year, which is about normal according to the expansion of the market. Of course we are concerned about that situation. The Minister of Agriculture and my department are reviewing that problem and I do not know whether we will be able to provide an answer to the House in the near future. So far no action has been nor can be taken in the current circumstances, but maybe we will take some in the weeks to come.



INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTRY ISSUES PERMITS FOR IMPORTATION OF BROILERS

Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious question and the producers have been insistently asking us whether the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has been issuing import permits or whether there is any control by the department. I would like to get an answer.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I will be able to give a technical answer to the question of the hon. member, but as far as I know import permits are not required. We make a continual survey of import levels. This week the Minister of Agriculture is going to have discussions on this matter with his provincial counterparts and afterwards we will of course take the advice of his department to see whether the situation calls for any urgent action.
* *



INCOME TAX


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue supplementary to that posed by my colleague for Esquimalt-Saanich having to do with the deduction of income
Energy
tax from the salaries of public servants living in Ontario and employed in the Public Service of Canada in the province of Quebec. Given the fact that the Minister of Finance, in November 1976, indicated that it was, in his judgment, a matter of regulation-and therefore a change of regulations could cure the situation-is the government of Canada contemplating a change in the regulations? If so, when? If not, why not; and when will the minister be prepared to make a statement with respect to this matter, which has been the subject of public discussion for almost a month now in this House?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, for the last two weeks in particular I have been answering questions in the House on the matter from members on this side and the other side. Representations have been made to me by my own colleagues for morp than a month. I have explained to the House in detail the various steps that we are taking and the two solutions I am contemplating with the Minister of Finance. Unless I recommend Final approval of the second solution which I said was not an ideal one, I should like the House to give me a few more days to see whether we will receive the positive answer expected from the government of Quebec.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On Friday I gave Your Honour notice of a question of privilege which I wanted to pursue in a very serious way with the Minister of Labour concerning the Finn commission established two years ago following the death of five people in a fire at Burrard terminal, Vancouver. However, since the Minister of Labour is not here today, I think out of courtesy I should wait until he returns and pursue it tomorrow.


Mr. Leggatt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which arises from my understanding of today's business. I understood that the government would be calling Bill C-51.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would raise his point of order on orders of the day.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, under Standing Order 41(2), copies, in both official languages, of the report of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline inquiry prepared by Mr. Justice Berger.

May 9, 1977
Order Paper Questions


MISCELLANEOUS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1977 MEASURE TO CORRECT ANOMALIES IN REVISED STATUTES OF CANADA, 1970
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-53, to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms, errors and other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, and other acts subsequent to 1970.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,424 to 1,449, inclusive, 2,056 and 2,078.


Mr. Herbert: Since April 1, 1968, what are the names of all persons who have occupied the position of Deputy Minister of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and, in each case, what was the date of appointment?


Ralph Goodale: Grandy, J. F., December 21, 1967; Osbaldeston, Gordon F., March 1, 1972; Pitfield, P. M., March 1, 1973;Ostry, Sylvia (Dr.), February 19, 1975.


Mr. Herbert: Since April 1, 1968, what are the names of all persons who have occupied the position of Deputy Minister of the Treasury Board and, in each case, what was the date of appointment?


Ralph Goodale: Reisman, S. S., April 1, 1968; Johnson, A. W., April 1, 1970; Osbaldeston, Gordon F., February 1, 1973; Leclair, J. M. (Dr.), December 15, 1976.


Mr. Herbert: Since April 1, 1968, what are the names of all persons who have occupied the position of Deputy Minister of the Department of Justice and, in each case, what was the date of appointment?


Ralph Goodale: Maxwell, D. S., March 1, 1967; Thorson, D. S., March 1, 1973.


Mr. Herbert: Since April 1, 1968, what are the names of all persons who have occupied the position of Deputy Minister of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and, in each case, what was the date of appointment?


Ralph Goodale: MacDonald, J. A., March 1, 1968; Robinson, H. B., March 1, 1970; Kroeger, Arthur, December 20, 1974.


Mr. Herbert: Since April 1, 1968, what are the names of all persons who have occupied the position of Deputy Minister of the Post Office Department and, in each case, what was the date of appointment?


Ralph Goodale: Wilson, W. H., 1961; Faguy, P. A., October 3, 1968; MacKay, J. A. H., August 12, 1970; Cork-ery, J., February 3, 1977.


Mr. Herbert: Since April 1, 1968, what are the names of all persons who have occupied the position of Deputy Minister of the Department of Public Works and, in each case, what was the date of appointment?


Ralph Goodale: MacDonald, J. A., March 1, 1968; Boucher, Jean, May 1, 1975; Williams, G. B., January 22, 1976; MacKay, J. A. H., January 24, 1977.


Mr. Herbert: Since April 1, 1968, what are the names of all persons who have occupied the position of Deputy Minister of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and, in each case, what was the date of appointment?


Ralph Goodale: 
Mr. Herbert: Since April 1, 1968, what are the names of all persons who have occupied the position of Deputy Minister of the Department of Manpower and Immigration and, in each case, what was the date of appointment?
May 9, 1977


Ralph Goodale: Couillard, J. L. E., July 15, 1968; Desroches, J. M., April 7, 1972; Gotlieb, A. E., May 15, 1973.


Mr. Herbert: Since April 1, 1968, what are the names of all persons who have occupied the position of Deputy Minister of the Department of National Defence and, in each case, what was the date of appointment?


Ralph Goodale: Armstrong, E. B., September 1, 1960; Cloutier, S., September 1, 1971; Nixon, C. R., May 15, 1975.


Mr. Herbert: Since June 1971, what are the names of all persons who have occupied the position of Deputy Minister of the Ministry of State for Science and Technology and, in each case, what was the date of appointment?


Ralph Goodale: Beaulnes, A. (Dr.), September 1, 1971; Leclair, J. M. (Dr.), September 9, 1974; Hudon, Denis, January 1, 1977.


Mr. Herbert: Since April 1, 1968, what are the names of all persons who have occupied the position of Deputy Minister of the Department of the Solicitor General and, in each case, what was the date of appointment?


Ralph Goodale: MacDonald, T. D., October 1, 1966; Cote, E. A., December 14, 1968; Tasse, Roger, August 1, 1972.


Mr. Herbert: Since April 1, 1968, what are the names of all persons who have occupied the position of Deputy Minister of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and, in each case, what was the date of appointment?


Ralph Goodale: Isbister, C. M., October 1, 1966; Austin, Jacob, May 18, 1970; Shoyama, T. K., September 1, 1974; MacNabb, Gordon, April 1, 1975.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Herbert: Since April 1, 1968, what are the names of all persons who have occupied the position of Deputy Minister of the Department of Supply and Services and, in each case, what was the date of appointment?


Ralph Goodale: 
DEPUTY MINISTERS OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS SINCE APRIL I, 1968
Mr. Herbert: Since April 1, 1968, what are the names of all persons who have occupied the position of Deputy Minister of the Department of External Affairs and, in each case, what was the date of appointment?


Ralph Goodale: Cadieux, M., May 7, 1964; Ritchie, A. E., January 31, 1970; Robinson, H. B., December 9, 1974.


DEPUTY MINISTERS OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE SINCE APRIL 1, 1968
Mr. Herbert: Since April 1, 1968, what are the names of all persons who have occupied the position of Deputy Minister of the Department of National Health and Welfare and, in each case, what was the date of appointment?


Ralph Goodale: 
DEPUTY MINISTERS OF TRANSPORT SINCE APRIL 1, 1968
Mr. Herbert: Since April 1, 1968, what are the names of all persons who have occupied the position of Deputy Minister of the Department of Transport and, in each case, what was the date of appointment?


Ralph Goodale: Baldwin, J. R., 1954; Stoner, O. G., February 1, 1969; Cloutier, S., May 1, 1975.


DEPUTY MINISTERS OF FISHERIES AND OF THE ENVIRONMENT SINCE APRIL 1, 1968
Mr. Herbert: Since April 1, 1968, what are the names of all persons who have occupied the position of Deputy Minister of the Department of Fisheries and of the Environment and, in each case, what was the date of appointment?

May 9, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Ralph Goodale: Needier, A. W. H., February 26, 1963 (Deputy Minister of Fisheries); Needier, A. W. H., April 1, 1969 (Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Forestry); Shaw, Robert F., March 1, 1971 (Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Forestry); Shaw, Robert F., June 11, 1971 (Deputy Minister of Environment); Seaborn, J. Blair, December 31, 1974.


DEPUTY MINISTERS OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION SINCE APRIL 1, 1968
Mr. Herbert: Since April 1, 1968, what are the names of all persons who have occupied the position of Deputy Minister of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and, in each case, what was the date of appointment?


Ralph Goodale: Couillard, J. L. E., September 1, 1967 (Deputy Minister of Forestry and Rural Development); Kent, T., July 15, 1968 (Deputy Minister of Forestry and Rural Development); Kent, T., April 1, 1969 (Deputy Minister of Regional Economic Expansion); Love, J. D., September 1, 1971.


DEPUTY MINISTERS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS SINCE APRIL 1, 1968
Mr. Herbert: Since April 1, 1968, what are the names of all persons who have occupied the position of Deputy Minister of the Department of Veterans Affairs and, in each case, what was the date of appointment?


Ralph Goodale: Cote, E. A., January 31, 1968; Hodgson, J. S., December 14, 1968; Brittain, B., April 22, 1975.


DEPUTY MINISTERS OF FINANCE SINCE APRIL 1, 1968
Mr. Herbert: Since April 1, 1968, what are the names of all persons who have occupied the position of Deputy Minister of the Department of Finance and, in each case, what was the date of appointment?


Ralph Goodale: Bryce, R. B., July 1, 1963; Reisman, S. S., April 1, 1968; Shoyama, T. K., April 1, 1975.


DEPUTY MINISTERS OF LABOUR SINCE APRIL 1, 1968
Mr. Herbert: Since April 1, 1968, what are the names of all persons who have occupied the position of Deputy Minister of the Department of Labour and, in each case, what was the date of appointment?


Ralph Goodale: 
DEPUTY MINISTERS OF URBAN AFFAIRS SINCE JUNE, 1971
Mr. Herbert: Since June 1971, what are the names of all persons who have occupied the position of Deputy Minister of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs and, in each case, what was the date of appointment?


Ralph Goodale: Oberlander, H. P. (Dr.), June 30, 1971; MacNeill, James W., January 24, 1974; Teron, William, June 15, 1976.


DEPUTY MINISTERS OF SECRETARY OF STATE DEPARTMENT SINCE APRIL 1, 1968
Mr. Herbert: Since April 1, 1968, what are the names of all persons who have occupied the position of Deputy Minister of the Department of the Secretary of State and, in each case, what was the date of appointment?


Ralph Goodale: Steele, G. G. E., 1964; Leger, Jules, November 15, 1968; Boucher, Jean, March 1, 1973; Fortier, Andre, November 24, 1975.


DEPUTY MINISTERS OF COMMUNICATIONS SINCE APRIL 1, 1968
Mr. Herbert: Since April 1, 1968, what are the names of all persons who have occupied the position of Deputy Minister of the Department of Communications and, in each case, what was the date of appointment?


Ralph Goodale: 
DEPUTY MINISTERS OF AGRICULTURE SINCE APRIL 1, 1968
Mr. Herbert: Since April 1, 1968, what are the names of all persons who have occupied the position of Deputy Minister of the Department of Agriculture and, in each case, what was the date of appointment?


Ralph Goodale: Williams, S. B., January 12, 1967; Hudon, L. D., April 1, 1975; Lussier, Gaetan, April 18, 1977.


DEPUTY MINISTERS OF NATIONAL REVENUE SINCE APRIL 1, 1968
Mr. Herbert: Since April 1, 1968, what are the names of all persons who have occupied the position of Deputy Minister of the Department of National Revenue and, in each case, what was the date of appointment?


Ralph Goodale: Labarge, R. C., January 5, 1965; Bennett, G. L., June 8, 1972; Connell, Peter, October 21, 1975.
May 9, 1977


AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH GRANTS
Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	How much money in the form of agricultural research grants were made in the past year by the government?
2.	In what particular fields of the industry did the grants cover?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as Agriculture Canada is concerned: 1. $1,326,250.
2.
Fields	Amount
Animal Science	$ 277,150
Food Science	121,984
Plant Science	333,266
Soil Science	114,700
Entomology	134,600
Agricultural Engineering	80,350
Agricultural Economics	94,100
Veterinary Medicine	145,900
Environmental Quality	24,200
Total All Areas	$1,326,250
In so far as the National Research Council of Canada is concerned: 1. $2,220,000.
2.	These grants were to university researchers doing agricultural research including animal, plant, soil, crop, horticulture and veterinary research and does not include research grants in biology indirectly related to agriculture.


ADVERTISING OF ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS
Mr. Howie: Does (a) CBC follow (b) CRTC have guidelines with regard to the advertising of alcoholic products and, if so, what are they?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission as follows: (a) Yes. (b) Yes. CRTC guidelines concerning the advertising of alcoholic products may be found in the following documents. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission: To all radio and television stations, breweries, wineries and cider-houses and their advertising agencies: The following Wednesdays have been set for the meetings of the Beer, Wine and Cider Clearance Committee for 1977: January 5, 19; February 2, 16; March 2, 16; April 6, 20; May 11, 25; June 8, 22; July 6, 20; August 10, 24; September 7, 21; October 5, 19; November 2, 16, 30; December 14. Advertisers are asked to abide by the following rules: (1) copy of the commercial messages must be received in quadruplicate at the countinuity clearance office at least 24 hours before each committee meeting, (2) the name of the province where the commercial is to be broadcast shall be mentioned, (3) any modification to a script previously approved shall be indicated, (4) complete storyboards must be included with all television commercials. Guy Lefebvre, Secre-
Order Paper Questions
tary General to the Commission, Ottawa, December 1, 1976. 100 Metcalfe Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2.
CRTC Announcement, July 19, 1971, Beer, Wine and Cider Advertising. The following supersedes all previous outlines on advertising copy submitted in accordance with section 10 of the Radio and Television Broadcasting Regulations. 1. The main criterion in the approval of scripts is adherance to standards of good taste. 2. Advertising shall not (a) encourage the general consumption of the product, nor should it attempt to influence non-drinkers to drink; (b) be associated with youth or youth symbols; (c) attempt to establish a certain product as a status symbol, a necessity for the enjoyment of life, or an escape from life's problems; (d) show persons engaged in any activity in which the consumption of alcohol is prohibited. 3. Copy, submitted in quadruplicate, must be received in the Commission twenty-four hours prior to the meeting. Television scripts should be submitted in storyboard form. 4. Scripts will be examined at scheduled dates, published from time to time. 5. The advertisers or their agents who so desire, may make personal representations concerning their copy when their commercials are examined.
Section 10 of the AM, FM and TV Regulations, Spirituous Liquors, Beer, Wine and Cider. 10. (1) Subject to subsection (2), no station or network operator shall broadcast any commercial message (a) advertising, directly or indirectly, any spirituous liquor or any beer, wine or cider; or (b) sponsored by or on behalf of any person whose principal business is the manufacture or sale of spirituous liquor, beer, wine or cider. (2) Where in any province the advertising of beer, wine or cider is permitted, a commercial message sponsored by a brewery, winery or cider-house may be broadcast in that province subject to the following conditions: (a) the advertising shall not be designed to promote the general use of beer, wine or cider, but this prohibition shall not be construed so as to prevent industry institutional public service or brand preference advertising; (b) no commercial message shall exceed sixty seconds in duration; (c) no device and no commercial message, other than a commercial message allowed under this subsection, shall be used to advertise, directly or indirectly, the sponsor or his product; and (d) no commercial message shall be broadcast unless it is approved by a representative of the Commission prior to broadcast. (3) For the purpose of determining whether a commercial message may be broadcast in a province pursuant to subsection (2), "cider" means cider that is considered to be an alcoholic beverage by the law of the province relating to the advertising of cider.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 1,065 and 1,487 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

May 9, 1977
Orders for Returns


PROGRAMMES AVAILABLE FOR UNIVERSITIES
Mr. Howie: 1.	What programmes are available to assist in the construction of university buildings or for the provision of equipment, teaching aids or other such facilities?
2.	What programmes are available to assist university teaching staff members to further their knowledge and teaching careers?
3.	Is there any such assistance for teachers at the primary and secondary level?
Return tabled.


JOB CREATION PROJECTS
Mr. Kempling: 1.	How much money is being spent by the government on job-creation projects this winter?
2.	How many (a) jobs (b) man-days of employment will be created?
3.	What direct return of revenue will such jobs provide for the government?
4.	What direct benefit to the economy will the job-creation projects provide?
5.	What is the number of Canadians employed in establishments of (a) less than 10 (b) less than 25 (c) less than 50 (d) less than 100 (e) less than 200 (0 greater than 500 individuals?
6.	What is the total number of persons employed in Canada?
7.	What is the number of companies with annual sales (a) less than $250,000 (b) between $250,000 and $500,000 (c) between $500,000 and $1,000,000 (d) between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000 (e) between $2,000,000 and $5,000,000 (f) greater then $5,000,000?
8.	What percentage of the capital borrowed by the establishments mentioned in Part 7 is used in (a) inventory (b) mortgages (c) other ways?
Return tabled.


STARRED QUESTION
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 2,206?


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Jones: 1.	Are any Canadian Armed Forces units located in the Province of Newfoundland and, if so, how many?
2.	Has the government and/or the military given any consideration to Newfoundland's strategic location for defence purposes and for enforcement and surveillance of Canadian sovereignty and, if so (a) in what manner (b) what consideration has been given to establishing substantial military (air, army and navy) establishments in the Province?
3.	Is the government and/or the military aware of announcements by the Government of France that it intends to increase air and harbour facilities on the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon and, if so (a) what view does the government take (b) what effect will this have on Canadian defence and fishing industry?
4.	Has the government recently considered the acquisition of the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon from France and (a) if so, on what date was such acquisition considered (b) if not, what plans does the government have in this regard?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of National Defence and External Affairs as follows: 1. Yes, 25.
2.	(a) The strategic importance of the whole of Canada's Atlantic coast including, of course, the coast of Newfoundland for defence operations in the North Atlantic and for the protection of Canada's national maritime interests is fully recognized in Canadian and allied defence planning. The strategic value of Newfoundland, in particular, for air defence and maritime surveillance activities finds tangible expression in the regular operational use of facilities in that province for these purposes, (b) No consideration is being given at present to creating substantial new military establishments in Newfoundland since our present base facilities in the Maritimes amply meet current military requirements.
3.	Yes. (a) The improvements to airport and harbour facilities in St-Pierre are matters entirely within the hands of the French authorities. In so far as access to the islands by small Canadian passenger jets would be made possible, the government welcomes the development of the airport, (b) This will have no effect on Canadian defence. In view of the interim fisheries arrangements between Canada and France which are now in place, there will be no effect on the Canadian fishing industry.
4.	No. These islands are an overseas department of the Republic of France and are not for sale.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: ways and means proceedings:
May 6, 1977-Consideration of a motion to concur in a ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act-The Minister of Finance.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) on a point of order.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I had understood that Bill C-51 would be called today, but I understand there has been a change of plan on the part of the government House leader. I wanted to advise your Honour that I intend to argue the substance of Bill C-51 in regard to different subject matters in
May 9, 1977

the same bill and I shall be seeking a ruling from Your Honour in regard to severing portions of the bill. It may not be appropriate to commence the argument today, but if Your Honour wishes, I would be happy to do so. I just want to give Your Honour some warning that we intend to argue that the bill is not in appropriate form as introduced for first reading.
Before commencing second reading debate of the bill we wish to present an argument which favours dividing portions of the bill into separate pieces of legislation which will be dealt with by the House. I am particularly concerned about the firearms and wiretapping sections. 1 am in Your Honour's hands. If you feel it appropriate that we commence the argument today, we will; or we will be happy to do so when the bill is called.


Mr. Speaker:: The difficulty about waiting until the bill is called although-had the bill been called today, naturally the matter would have had to be raised today-is that the Chair really does not have much time after the presentation of such a point of order. Or, to put it another way, if the Chair were to take the time necessary properly to study arguments raised on such a point of order on the day that the bill is presented to the House for discussion, it would certainly cause difficulties in scheduling. On the other hand, if it was not the government's intention to proceed with this matter today, perhaps it is not prepared to meet and to answer arguments in respect of such a point of order. If it is, in fact, the case that the government is prepared to meet those arguments today, or at some time before the matter is called, I certainly would prefer to hear those arguments at some time prior to the calling of the bill, in order to give the Chair some time to decide without causing the House undue inconvenience in the scheduling of business.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your remarks. I am taken a little by surprise that the government is not ready to argue that point today. We could, of course, hear from the hon. member, but we would not be ready to respond.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, because of the business of the house that could be called, it is clear we are not going to be dealing with this matter now, in any event. I quite understand that your honour would want to deal with it in advance of calling the bill, which is contemplated to be called on Wednesday, tomorrow being an allotted day. I would not want the argument to be called on our allotted day. If it would be agreeable to my colleagues and the minister, it might be appropriate if the Chair called the matter at eight o'clock tonight and we had the argument this evening. Then we could deal with it one way or another well in advance of the calling of the bill.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the House leader of the official opposition makes a suggestion with which I have no disagreement. I would be happy to commence argument on the matter at eight o'clock, if that meets the needs of the Minister of Justice.
Unemployment Insurance Entitlements


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, that creates some problem for me in that I expect to be on an aeroplane at eight o'clock tonight.


Walter David Baker: We can all argue on the aeroplane.


Donald W. Munro: Leave it up in the air.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Possibly someone could state my position for me, and it could be proceeded with at eight o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I will not call the point now. The hon. member for New Westminster has given notice of his intention to raise the point. Perhaps it should be agreed that the matter will stand over for consideration to see whether some convenient time could be worked out for calling it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a separate point of order, and I do so before we proceed with the items that have been indicated for today. I refer to Bill C-52, a bill having to do with correcting a situation with respect to unemployment insurance benefits for certain senior citizens. There has been a clear understanding, if the bill was in the terms indicated to us, that we would be prepared to put it through all stages without debate.
The bill was given first reading on Friday. It is now on the order paper for second reading. I would like to suggest that either now, or if you want to leave it until five o'clock or eight o'clock, we carry out our previous agreement of giving second reading to that bill, giving it committee of the whole stage procedure, and third reading. We stand by our undertaking that this bill can be passed through all these stages without debate.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, that is perfectly acceptable to us, if the government would like to call it now as the first order of government business to be proceeded with and dealt with immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ENTITLEMENTS ADJUSTMENT ACT
Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration) moved: that Bill C-52, to provide for the consideration of certain unemployment insurance entitlements, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower-


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; that it be referred to committee of the whole.

May 9, 1977
Unemployment Insurance Entitlements


Mr. Speaker:: I understand there is disposition to eliminate entirely that stage of the bill. If it were to be done at once, the more expeditious method would be to send it to committee of the whole and deal with the committee stage here and now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion in the name of the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), seconded by Mr. MacEachen, that Bill C-52, an act to provide for the consideration of certain unemployment insurance entitlements, be now read the second time and be referred to committee of the whole?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, Bill C-52 stands referred to committee of the whole House, and I do now leave the chair.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Turner in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the title carry?


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Charles Robert Turner: Shall the bill carry?
Bill carried.


Charles Robert Turner: Shall I report the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: The House, I take it, agrees, by consent, to taking third reading stage of the bill now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Having called, as the first order of the day the ways and means motion which is item No. 6, consideration of which was set aside in order to proceed with Bill C-52, the House will now proceed to ways and means motions.


WAYS AND MEANS
Allan Joseph MacEachen: that a ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act, laid upon the table Monday, April 18, 1977, be concurred in.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: that a ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act, laid upon the table Thursday, March 31, 1977, be concurred in.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-54, to amend the Excise Tax Act (No. 2), be read the first time and printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CUSTOMS TARIFF (No. 2)
Allan Joseph MacEachen: that a ways and means motion to amend the Customs Tariff, laid upon the table Thursday, March 31, 1977, be concurred in.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-55, to amend the Customs Tariff (No. 2), be read the first time and printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
May 9, 1977


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-49, to amend the Canada Pension Plan, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, before I initiate discussion on Bill C-49 I wish to express the minister's displeasure at not being able to be here. He has been unavoidably detained, but will be here for the debate later this evening. Therefore, I will initiate the debate.
For some time now various groups and governmental bodies have been putting forward proposals to provide Canada Pension Plan benefits for spouses who work in the home. During the course of the federal-provincial social security review a number of these proposals were examined in some depth. Our aim, and that of most of the groups to which I have just referred, was to provide, under the CPP, both recognition and financial security for spouses who work in the home while at the same time retaining the basic, compulsory earnings-related and contributory characteristics of the plan. Of course, there was a difficulty inherent in achieving these two aims. That difficulty arises because work in the home by one spouse is unpaid employment, and there are thus no earnings on which to base pension plan contributions and benefits. However, after analysing the many proposals put forward, two specific ones were identified which, I believe, will allow us to achieve in part the intended objectives while still retaining the basic nature of the plan. These are the two major amendments to the CPP which are proposed in the legislation before us today.
The first amendment will allow the splitting, upon divorce or annulment, of the CPP pension credits which were earned by both spouses during their marriage. In part, of course, the Canada Pension Plan already recognizes the economic partnership aspect of marriage by providing benefits to a surviving spouse where the death of the other spouse terminates the family's income from either employment or pension benefits. However, the protection offered by survivor benefits ceases to exist when the marriage is terminated by divorce or annulment. Thus, there is at present no further recognition of the fact that both spouses contributed to the accumulation of CPP pension credits during their marriage, either directly by virtue of their both earning credits in their own right or indirectly by one contributing through work in the home.
Of course, work in the home really does contribute to family income and, therefore, to the CPP credits accumulated by the spouse who is in the labour force. Thus, by permitting the splitting of these credits, this amendment will assure to each spouse a fair share of an asset to which they have both, in reality, contributed. Further, it will provide this recognition and some measure of financial security to the spouses and to
Canada Pension Plan
their dependent children at no significant additional cost to the Plan.
In order for the spouses to be eligible, the marriage would have to have lasted at least three years and the spouses would have to have lived together for at least three consecutive years. This is to ensure that the financial effects of credit splitting will actually be significant. As well, the application for the split will have to be made within three years of the effective date of the divorce or annulment, otherwise the administration of the provision would be virtually impossible. Finally, the marriage will have to have been dissolved after the legislation comes into effect. The split would apply to all eligible years of the marriage as far back as 1966, but would, of course, not include any years during which one spouse was ineligible to contribute. You will recall that people are ineligible to contribute if they are under 18 or over 70 years of age or are in receipt of a retirement or disability benefit. If I may illustrate, Mr. Speaker, a typical case might involve a wife who has not worked for wages and has custody of the children when the divorce occurs. To such a person, the importance of this amendment is clear. As long as there are at least five years of credits to split, she and the children have immediate income protection against the possibility of her disability or death. Furthermore, she has at least a start on building a future retirement income.
The second major amendment we are proposing relates to contributors who stay at home or alter their regular work patterns in order to care for young children. Under current arrangements, any periods of low or zero earnings which result from their temporarily dropping out of the labour force will likely affect both eligibility for all types of benefits and the actual amount of those benefits. At present, the amount of CPP earnings-related benefits depends upon the career earnings of the contributor averaged over all the years that he or she could have contributed to the plan, while payment of survivor or disability benefits depends upon payment of contributions for a minimum length of time and also on the recency with which contributions were paid.
Currently, all contributors are able to drop out of the calculation of their average career earnings periods of low or zero earnings adding up to 15 percent of their total contributory period. This provision is designed to protect potential CPP benefits against the effects of periods of unemployment, illness, extended education or voluntary early retirement. At most, seven years of low earnings may currently be dropped out of the maximum contributory period of 47 years.
This generalized drop-out does not recognize the difficulties faced by those who take responsibility for the care and upbringing of the next generation of Canadians. When they are active in the labour force, these contributors face all the problems for which the 15 per cent drop-out provision was created, but in addition they must face the possibility of a reduction, or perhaps even the total loss of their CPP benefits as a result of their remaining at home to care for young children. The special drop-out provision proposed in the legislation currently before us would ensure that a contributor who

May 9, 1977
Canada Pension Plan
remains at home to care for young children will not be penalized for that period during which he or she has low or zero earnings. The provision would protect eligibility for CPP benefits which the contributor had earned through contributions before, during and after the period devoted to raising young children. Again, this provision will provide a measure of real economic recognition and financial security to work in the home, and it will do so without compromising the basic contributory earnings-related structure of the plan.
The child-rearing drop-out would be applied to all periods back to 1966 in which a person had a child under age seven in his or her care and was receiving family allowance benefits in respect of that child. Any earnings during the period which will help to fulfil basic contributory requirements for benefits, or which serve to raise career average earnings, would be retained in the calculation of CPP benefits, but periods of zero earnings or of earnings below the person's career average would be dropped from the calculation of benefit amount. As the family allowance benefit is generally paid to the mother, there will have to be a special provision permitting an exception to this rule, and regulations will be made prescribing the circumstances under which the special drop-out could be assigned to the father if he is, in fact, looking after the child or children.
I should emphasize that the minimum contributory requirements of the current legislation will be retained, even with the special drop-out provisions. For example, at least 120 months of contributions will still be required in order to receive a full CPP retirement pension, regardless of how many years may have been spent at home caring for young children.
I should also point out to hon. members that the proposed drop-out provision is expected to lead to only a small cost increase to the CPP. It is estimated that as a result of the special drop-out provision, the future long-run contribution rate would rise by about one-third of 1 percentage point. Finally, I should make clear that the special drop-out provision will be available to those currently receiving CPP benefits as well as for new beneficiaries. Thus, where the provision would serve to increase the amount of a benefit currently being received, that benefit will be recalculated and the revised amount paid.
As most members are probably aware, amendments of this nature cannot be implemented without the consent of two-thirds of the provinces containing two-thirds of the Canadian population. Members may also be aware that the province of Ontario has expressed its intention to withhold consent on the drop-out amendment. Thus, if Ontario holds fast to its position, then this amendment, even though passed through this parliament, cannot be proclaimed in force.
Needless to say, I consider this stance by the government of our largest province most unfortunate. The eight other provinces have signified their firm agreement, and I am informed that the province of Quebec plans to move ahead with a parallel provision in the Quebec Pension Plan. I can assure the

House that I will do all I can to convince the Ontario government of the wisdom of agreeing to these provisions.
Many hon. members will be aware that the two major amendments I have proposed were not the only courses of action which were considered. Two others which were considered at some length were voluntary CPP contributions by spouses who work at home, and the splitting of CPP credits between spouses during marriage. There was much discussion of both these proposals and much interest in them, but both were rejected by most of the people who eventually expressed firm points of view.
With regard to the first-voluntary contributions-both the CPP Advisory Committee and the Advisory Council on the Status of Women felt that the proposal should be rejected. It was felt that voluntary contributions would benefit most the relatively well-to-do who could afford the additional contributions. Also, those who are older would likely opt to contribute as the early maturity of the plan tends to heavily subsidize older contributors. Such a provision would be unfair to wage-earners whose earnings are less than the maximum; they would be unable to contribute at the maximum rate, while house spouses contributing voluntarily could cover themselves at the maximum rate. Finally, there would be a number of difficult administrative questions to resolve. Who would be eligible- legally married people or common-law spouses? Could they opt in and out of the plan at will? How would we treat house spouses with part-time earnings?
The second of these proposals, the splitting of pension credits during marriage, suffers from the adverse effects it would have on benefit levels for a family unit which is not dissolved. For a family which remains intact, should the major wage-earner die, become disabled or retire some years ahead of the spouse, the family unit would not only lose the employment earnings but would also suffer a further hardship in that the CPP benefits would be based upon only half the CPP pension credits. Splitting credits on marriage breakdown, on the other hand, would provide financial security and protection at a time when two family units have been created from one, and the potential or actual reduction in benefits for one unit enables the creation of potential or actual benefits for the other where no benefits might otherwise be available. Splitting pension credits during marriage is also administratively very complex since the monitoring and verification of all contributors with respect to their marital status would have to be conducted on a yearly basis. Finally, the concept of splitting pension credits on marriage dissolution was preferred because it does not alter the basic contributory, wage-related characteristics of the plan.
Mr. Speaker, thus far I have concentrated my remarks on those amendments to the CPP which serve to benefit spouses who work in the home. But I would also like to draw your attention to a number of other amendments included in this bill, some of which will be of importance to a significant number of people. The first of these amendments relates to the retroactive payment of retirement benefits to those contributors between 65 and 70 years of age who, for one reason or
May 9, 1977

another, delay application for their benefit. To understand the reasons for this change it is necessary to look in some detail at a couple of the provisions of the CPP. First, contributors, upon reaching age 65, are entitled to defer their application for a CPP retirement pension in order to continue to contribute and possibly enlarge their CPP pension. In the first ten years of the plan it was sometimes very difficult to decide whether to use this provision or not. On the one hand the person would not be receiving benefits, but on the other he or she might greatly improve the benefits finally received since both the average earnings and the percentage of the possible full pension could increase greatly over a fairly short period. But over-all, a large number of Canadians did elect to defer their benefits. Secondly, up to 1975 pensioners aged 65 to 70 had to be retired before they could apply for a CPP retirement pension. Even after the pension was in pay these pensioners were subject to an earnings test; that is, the pension was reduced or abated altogether if they were in receipt of employment earnings greater than certain specified amounts. Therefore, the amount of the pension payable could, and sometimes did, vary.
In the decade since the CPP came into being, however, a number of changes have taken place to alter the circumstances cited above. Effective January 1, 1975, the CPP earnings tests applicable to retirement pensioners aged 65 to 70 were repealed. Also, the plan had been in existence for a full decade as of 1976, and henceforth the increase in benefits which could be realized by a pensioner by delaying application for benefits after age 65 was not often as dramatic as before. Increases in the amount of benefits can still, in some cases, be realized by a deferment, especially if a contributor has been subject to periods of very low, or zero earnings earlier in the contributory period; but the number of Canadians who can profit by this arrangement is decreasing.
It is, thus, a natural result of the maturing of the plan that most late applications now result from simple oversight or circumstances beyond the individual's control. The resultant loss of one or more months' benefits has been the cause of concern and sometimes financial hardship to persons who might otherwise have been eligible for those benefits. We would like to correct any hardships this situation brings. Thus, the amendment would allow for the payment of up to 12 months' retroactive retirement pension including periods when the contributor was under age 70. This retroactivity would extend only as far back as the date on which this new legislation takes effect. Moreover, the retroactivity would not extend into periods during which a person was contributing to the plan and so possibly enhancing his or her eventual benefit entitlement. The net result should be to ameliorate the very considerable hardship which some pensioners who had fully earned their pensions faced as a result of quite innocent errors on their part.
A second minor amendment indirectly related to the one just mentioned refers to applications for CPP benefits made in respect of potential CPP beneficiaries who died without applying for their benefits. Up to now the CPP legislation has only permitted benefit applications to be made by or on behalf of
Canada Pension Plan
living persons. In some cases, however, through lack of knowledge or other circumstances beyond a person's control, potential eligibility for CPP benefits is only discovered after the person has died. In these circumstances, any survivor or the estate is denied the entitlement to normal retroactive benefits which would have been received had the application been submitted earlier. This technical amendment will permit any normal retroactive benefits to be applied for and paid in respect of a deceased person, provided the other conditions of eligibility are met.
The next of these amendments would have the effect of making more benefits available to some dependents of deceased or disabled contributors. Under the current legislation, the amount of orphans' and disabled contributors' children's benefits payable per child is reduced to half the full rate for the fifth and subsequent child. Under current provisions, benefits payable to all the children of a contributor are totalled and then divided equally among all of them. The result is that children in large families receive less support per child from the CPP than those in smaller families. The proposed amendment would rectify this problem. Full benefits would be paid to, or on behalf of, each dependent child of a deceased or disabled CPP contributor regardless of the number of dependent children which are eligible for benefits.
Another amendment is of a more administrative nature. It does, however, relate to a topic which is of great concern and has tremendous potential impact for a large number of CPP contributors; that is, international social security agreements. This amendment would enhance the flexibility of the authority which currently is contained in the CPP and would enable agreements to be signed with other nations with respect to the plan. As hon. members will no doubt realize, international social security agreements would directly benefit a very large number of people who have chosen to immigrate to Canada and make their homes here. Often, these immigrants have spent a considerable portion of their working careers in other countries and have, therefore, built up an entitlement to social security benefits from foreign programs. However, these foreign programs may place restrictions or limitations on the nature or level of benefits which they pay to persons living abroad.
Through the negotiation of international social security agreements, the social security protection earned by persons under programs in their countries of origin can be made available to them in Canada. In recent years we have had preliminary discussions with countries such as France, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States, seeking agreements in order to provide coverage for the large number of immigrants to Canada from those nations. A major roadblock to the fruition of these negotiations was our inability to include old age security, the foundation of our retirement income system, in such discussions. With the passage of the recent amendments to the Old Age Security Act we may now proceed with the development of such agreements.

May 9, 1977
Canada Pension Plan
I should mention here that the minister has just come back from a series of discussions with his colleagues in France, the United Kingdom, the United States and Poland. France, the United Kingdom and the U.S. expressed a great deal of interest in moving ahead to finalize social security agreements with Canada on an urgent basis. Our officials will meet with representatives from the U.S. next week, with officials of the U.K. in early July, and with French officials early this fall. Also, Poland has agreed to study the possibility of a social security agreement with Canada. Our officials will also be meeting with Italian representatives in July for technical discussions on the possible features of an agreement.
In order to further enhance our ability to bargain effectively with these other countries, we are seeking a minor adjustment to the enabling provisions for CPP agreements. This amendment, which runs parallel to the recent OAS legislation which I just mentioned, would permit the conclusion of agreements in which the total amount of the combined benefit payable under an international social security agreement is limited to a specified maximum amount. However, full protection is included to guarantee that this limitation will always provide total benefits which are at least as large as the CPP benefit which would have been payable in the absence of an agreement.
Two final amendments of a minor nature are also included in this bill. One would provide regulation-making powers to permit the withholding, if necessary, of CPP benefits to help in obtaining required information from the beneficiary. It is hoped that these powers will make it possible to establish, in case of doubt, whether beneficiaries are entitled to the benefits they are receiving. Where the documentation received confirms eligiblity for benefits, the benefit payments would be reinstated with full retroactivity.
The second involves compensation for members of the Canada Pension Plan advisory committee. This committee has, in the ten years it has been in existence, proved to be an invaluable source of advice, information and liaison for the minister and his predecessors as ministers responsible for the CPP. The CPP advisory committee is a group of up to 16 dedicated citizens representing employees, employers, the selfemployed and the general public, who examine a wide range of topics relating to the role and operation of the Canada Pension Plan. I feel certain that this group of men and women rank amongst the most active federal advisory committees. Their thoughtful advice and timely reports have served to represent the interests of the Canadian people in the development of the CPP. Indeed, the minister has been so impressed with the quality of their advice and the importance of the issues they have addressed that over the last few years he has thought it useful to publish most of their reports in order that others might benefit from their work. The proposed amendment would permit the payment of the regular per diem allowance to members for those days which they spend on advisory committee work, in addition to time spent at the formal meetings for which they already receive some compensation. By virtue of this provision, I hope that some of the financial

burden will be defrayed for members who spend so much of their valuable time and energy on the work of the committee.
In conclusion, these amendments will serve to improve the effectiveness of the CPP in its role as a provider of income security for the retired, the disabled and the families of deceased contributors. They represent a major step forward in recognizing the value and importance of work in the home.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disturbed and surprised that the minister is not in attendance at the time of second reading of this extremely important bill dealing with amendments to the Canada Pension Plan. He should be here, no matter how impressed we are with the amendments and no matter how much commendation the bill deserves.
This bill attempts to give some recognition to the role of housewives, but there is another important factor. I notice that the parliamentary secretary did not take any time to indicate to this House, to the people of Canada and particularly to the people of the province of Ontario, the stand of that province with respect to this bill. The parliamentary secretary gave no indication whatsoever of the reasons behind the hesitation of the province of Ontario in giving blanket approval at this time. The parliamentary secretary neglected to say that there would be certain hardships and inequities as a result of the drop-out provisions as they affect women and that there would be subsidization by the poor in favour of the rich. He did not mention that matter, and I will get into it a little later.
Notwithstanding that, Ontario's approach is commendable. The parliamentary secretary should have at least mentioned that, and he should have mentioned the concern of the province of Ontario with respect to the whole question of the funding of pension plans. It seems to me that the parliamentary secretary was playing politics-


An hon. Member:: Never.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -with a very important piece of legislation.


An hon. Member:: Oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I hear an hon. member opposite who does not know what the bill is about because he has not read it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Would the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) please address the Chair?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I was speaking through you, sir, in order to chastise that hon. member.


Mr. Blais:: Sit down when Mr. Speaker stands up.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The parliamentary secretary said nothing about the concern which is being registered by many Canadians regarding pension plans, and that concern was also registered by the province of Ontario. Another concern of the province of Ontario which the parliamentary secretary neglected to mention is the use of pension plan funds. They are directed to provinces which use them for their own capital
May 9, 1977

works. Meanwhile, the private sector is crying for money. Those are matters we will have to consider extremely carefully. I think the parliamentary secretary was ill-advised to mention the province of Ontario without spelling out why that province wants to think about this matter. I thought I should put that on the record so the parliamentary secretary would know that he cannot get away with murder in this House. I see him smiling over there, so I know I am right.
The Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) intervened a moment ago. All I can tell him is that mail between Toronto and Hamilton takes seven days. We expect him to do a much better job than he is doing now. Mail takes five or six days between Toronto and Ottawa. No matter how much the minister praises the efficiency of the Post Office, constituents-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member should get back to the bill under discussion, Bill C-49.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Well, I think my point is well taken. The Postmaster General will think twice before he moves in again.
The question of including housewives-and that is what this bill is all about, notwithstanding that it uses the word "spouse"-in the Canada Pension Plan was considered last year during meetings of the federal minister and provincial welfare ministers. The intent was to give recognition to work in the home and to provide a measure of financial security and independence to a spouse who works at home. Two approaches were discussed. It was proposed that pension credits earned by spouses during marriage be divided equally between spouses, upon marriage dissolution, which is to be limited to legal marriages terminated by divorce or annulment. In future they would be given some entitlement in terms of equity as a result of their playing a meaningful role in the home. This is in keeping with the belief that both spouses have an equal right to the security being built up by either of them for the future, since each contributes equally but differently.
Another proposal considered by the ministers would permit those contributors who leave the labour force to raise children to drop months of low or zero earnings from the calculation of their average lifetime earnings for benefit purposes. This hopes to ensure that the parent who remains at home to raise children is not penalized for the period of low or no earnings in the calculation of pension benefits, and protects the pension credit earned before or after the period devoted to children.
The drop-out provision would apply to periods of time spent at home with children under seven years of age. The parent would have greater labour market flexibility after the children entered school. This proposal attempts to give economic recognition to work at home and partial recognition to the disadvantages women traditionally experience in the labour market.
Canada Pension Plan
There are problems, however, with respect to the drop-out provision, which I will dwell on at some length shortly.
Bill C-49 brings these two proposals which were discussed by the federal and provincial ministers of health into focus through major amendments to the Canada Pension Plan. In addition, the bill includes a number of housekeeping amendments. The most important of these would allow up to one year's retroactive payment of retirement benefits to contributors between 65 and 70 years of age and who file late applications for benefits. At the present time, retirement benefits can only be paid after age 70.
There are other important amendments which the parliamentary secretary has mentioned that are more or less in the housekeeping area. One is the provision for benefit application to be made on the behalf of a deceased person or persons. This is certainly a step in the right direction. We have no quarrel, either, with equalization of children's benefits in respect of all children, regardless of family size. We want to look very carefully at the payment of a per diem allowance to members of the Canada Pension Plan advisory committee. We want to know why, and how much. When you start playing around with the public purse with respect to advisory committees, it is important to know why, and how much is involved.
There is an extension of the authority to enter into international social security agreements. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this amendment is necessary because we have just brought in amendments to the Old Age Security Act which determine new residency requirements. Just as important, the bill gave authority to enter into reciprocal agreements regarding portability of pensions between Great Britain and Canada, the United States and Canada, France and Canada, portions of the Third World, and so forth. Of course, the minister has been on a trip to explore the possibility of these agreements coming into full force. I understand hundreds of thousands of people are waiting for these agreements and for proclamation of the bill dealing with new residency requirements and reciprocal agreements. I understand the minister wants this amendment to come into force by July 1, and hopes by that time he will have reciprocal agreements ready to be executed by Canada and the countries involved.
Notwithstanding the good intentions there may be regarding the splitting of Canada Pension Plan credits upon marriage breakdown, there are, of course, other implications and problems which will have to be worked out. We intend to pursue this question to make sure we are moving in the right direction. In a case where one partner has been receiving a CPP, disability or retirement pension, the retroactive splitting upon breakdown will alter the calculation of the recipient's benefit-to their disadvantage. Splitting upon breakdown may come into conflict with the provision that a person cannot be both a recipient and a contributor to a retirement or disability fund at the same time. This matter will require review in so far as it affects disability pensions and the definition of "disability" under the plan.
For low income families, retroactive splitting upon breakdown may result in loss of coverage that has been paid for,

May 9, 1977
Canada Pension Plan
because the level of each partner after splitting may be below the plan's basic exemption for a year. Retroactivity may involve administratively complex calculations since potentially very long periods may have to be recalculated.
What would be the implications for private pension plans which are complementary to the CPP? The definition of "marriage dissolution" is restricted to legally terminated marriages, which excludes people who have been deserted, are separated or are living common-law. Mr. Speaker, under the spouse's allowance provisions we ran into a similar difficulty where no recognition was given to widows, widowers, spinsters and bachelors. All hell broke loose as a result of that. We have the same sort of problem here, where although some recognition is going to be given to the work done in the home, the government has again neglected the total question. In my view, it demonstrates a callous disregard of those people who for one reason or another find themselves deserted or separated or, if they are living common-law, there is no recognition of splitting. I think we must Iook very closely at that question. Divorce is the remedy of the well-to-do, not the poor. Family courts remain the principal source of legal assistance for the poor. Splitting upon legal breakdown will further burden these facilities.
Administratively some procedure for informing the authorities of the breakdown will have to be developed. As well, it will have to be determined whether the courts will have the responsibility of splitting the benefits in cases where divorce occurs after benefits are already being collected by one of the partners, or if the department will handle this automatically. There is the whole question of who gets what, how much, why, and when. On the minister being advised of the need for splitting, this will all be decided by way of regulation. But this is a pretty hard pill to swallow, because it can be extremely complicated. Also, the parliamentary secretary has already expressed concern about how it would work. Another problem is the whole concept of automatic splitting upon breakdown and intrusion by the government on a person's freedom to deal with his assets as he pleases.
Let me now deal with the effects of splitting CPP pension credits on CPP benefit levels. With one-wage earner families, the future retirement pension of the wage earner would decrease, while a retirement pension would become payable to the spouse who worked at home when she or he reached the age of 65 years. However, the length of the marriage would also affect the two retirement pensions. Generally, the longer the marriage lasted, the greater would be the effects on the two retirement pensions. Those in receipt of a CPP pension at the time of breakdown would receive a lower pension after the calculation and might also have to repay past overpayments. In two-wage earner families, the effects would be similar to the one-wage earner family, but smaller in magnitude since both partners would be earning their own pension credits. The result would be an averaging.
What about CPP survivors under age 65 years? For survivors' benefits, the splitting of pension credits would provide CPP protection for the new family unit of the previously

non-working partner. At the same time, the protection of the new family unit of the working partner would be decreased. Where both spouses work outside of the home there will be little effect; the magnitude of the effect would depend upon the differences in the earnings levels and work histories of the two spouses.
I now touch on disability benefits. The effects are similar to those pertaining to survivor benefits, except that the magnitude might be larger since disabled contributors' pensions have a larger earnings-related component. In the case of one spouse receiving disability payments at the time of marriage breakdown, a recalculation of the amount of disability pension would be necessary in order to reflect the change in the pension credit record. This could lead to a reduction in benefits, and hence a situation of overpayment in the past. If a disability pension is potentially receivable by a spouse at home, then upon marriage breakdown the spouse at home will receive half the credits and could become eligible for the disability pension. This is possible because one need only contribute to CPP for five years in order to become eligible. This represents an inequity vis-a-vis single contributors who must work for the necessary length of time to become eligible for benefits.
I said that we must consider the implications of the drop-out provisions. First, if we impute contributions to the CPP fund during years when no contributions are made, the welfare aspects of the plan are strengthened. This, I suggest, represents a departure from the basic insurance-related philosophy of the Canada Pension Plan and is not in keeping with the original principle of the plan which was established as a contributory plan based on the number of years actually worked. According to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) in a brief submitted to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs on April 4, 1974, the basic orientation has been to the wage earner. Consequently, the determining of the key factors of the plan, namely, coverage, contributions and benefits, had been tied to the earnings of the participant. This was considered a fair and equitable basis for allocating costs between employees and employers. This aspect ought to be investigated, I suggest. We must determine if there has been a departure from the principles set out in 1974.
Second, I point out that the drop-out provisions do not extend coverage or protection to a woman at home if she has never worked, if she has worked only a few years, or if she has had to leave the labour force in order to care for a disabled child or parent. I shall elaborate on this point in due course. The drop-out provisions apparently do not apply to women unless they leave the labour force to take care of a disabled child or parent.
I suggest that the provisions of this part of the bill also apply to men. One could substitute "man" for "woman" wherever applicable. The drop-out clause provides a subsidy without contribution and as such is a move toward social assistance and away from the insurance intent of the Canada Pension
May 9, 1977

Plan. In this light, why do mothers who remain at home to care for handicapped children or disabled parents deserve any less subsidy? If the precedent or principle of social assistance is established in this area, how is it justifiable, philosophically, to limit the subsidy to housewives who remain at home to care for children and then return to the work force? In other words, the approach whereby the bill recognizes the needs of some, but ignores those of others, is questionable.
I suggest that inequity is created between those who can afford to drop out and those who cannot, that is, between those with different incomes, those who have never worked, and those who do work. The bill creates inequities among women. It does not prevent more favourable treatment being afforded a contributor whose earnings are coincidentally low when children are young. I am thinking, for example, of students or inexperienced workers whose incomes are low. This provision is unrelated to the fact that they have young children at home.
There exists a deeper, basic issue, that of CPP funding and its role in provincial financing. Mr. Speaker, I notice that the parliamentary secretary said nothing about funding. We are concerned about the actuarial soundness of the Canada Pension Plan and any other pension plan in force in this country. At present, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) is involved in the indexation of civil service pensions. I understand a pension board is looking into the efficacy and actuarial soundness of the Canada Pension Plan. But the parliamentary secretary mentioned not one word about this.


Mr. Ellis:: The reason is simple: he does not know.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Quebec government actuaries claim the drop-out provision will increase total pension pay-out by less than 4 per cent over the next 50 years, but this estimate may be based on the erroneous assumption that the behaviour pattern of women will not change with the institution of the provision. The same argument may apply to certain men. It is difficult to believe that the benefit available through the drop-out provision pay-outs of the CPP will not be taken advantage of by many men and women.
Before I deal with the funding aspect of the plan, let me review some further problems concerning the drop-out provision. It is alleged that this bill will be of benefit to women. Perhaps that is correct. The spouse's drop-out provisions may appear attractive to some contributors. Those with labour force attachments who remain in the home while the children are young would receive higher pensions than is now the case. In addition, women who have sufficient time in the work force before the child-rearing period would have their CPP coverage continue against the contingencies of disability and death. For example, three years are required for survivor's benefit coverage, and five years for disability. However, a number of concerns exist with regard to the special drop-out provisions which suggest that these provisions should be studied further. There are three broad sets of concerns regarding the proposal in its modified form.
First, it appears to create inequities among contributors. Second, it appears to create anomalies among contributors and
Canada Pension Plan
certain other groups. These could be used to lever the CPP into increasingly broader subsidies. Third, it appears to weaken the insurance-related basis of the CPP and increase inherent subsidies-that being the welfare aspect of the program-at a time when its underfunding is of increasing concern and general problems of pension and pension funding are the subject of mounting public concern.
The net effect of the proposal would be to provide a subsidy to those women who meet the eligibility criteria and who have little or no earnings while children are young. The interesting point about this subsidy is that it is not constant; that is to say, the value of the subsidy depends upon two variables. They are, first, the number of years out of the labour force a woman could be entitled to by reason of young children, and either chooses to and/or is able to take by reason of her family's financial circumstances, and, second, the women's average lifetime earnings, that is to say, in those years since 1966 which are not affected by either drop-out provision.
The committee will need to examine the question of the number of years out of the labour force. It appears that the aggregate value of the subsidy depends, first, on the amount of time to which a woman would be entitled to drop out relative to the amount of time she chooses to and/or is able to take. A mother of three children spaced four years apart and who is a member of a family which can afford to forgo her earnings while the children are young could be entitled to 15 years to care for her children. She could choose to exercise her full entitlement, or subsidy, and remain in the home throughout.
In contrast, a similar woman from a low income family might have no real choice in this matter; that is, she may be required to return to work as quickly as possible owing to economic necessity. Consequently, she might take only three years in the home, even though she would also be legally entitled to the full 15 years. I say that we must be concerned about the effects of this bill on women since it is intended to give recognition to the work of women in the home.
Going back to my original premise, I would say this: the first woman will receive the full value of the 15-year drop-out provision without any contribution being required. The second woman would only be able to take advantage of the benefits from 3 of her potential 15 years of eligible child-rearing. In addition, she would be required to make compulsory contributions during 12 of her 15 eligible years. The value of any subsidy when the same number of years may be dropped out varies with the average lifetime earnings of the mothers involved. The subsidy to a woman who earns consistently at or above the maximum insurable earnings would therefore be twice that received by a woman earning at half that level.
Neither woman is required to make any contribution for the years dropped out. However, the value of their subsidies varies with their average lifetime earnings levels, although both may make no contribution during their child-rearing years. This occurs because the imputed value of the drop-out provision is based upon her actual contributions in years which are not

May 9, 1977
Canada Pension Plan
affected by the drop-out provision. Thus, it parallels the basic design of the CPP. This technical parallelism results in the assignment of differential CPP values and benefits to the child-raising function. Thus, the value of the CPP subsidy associated with raising a "low income" child is less than that attributed to the raising of a "high income" child. This point is interesting in relation to the concept, if not the technical design, of the CPP, a "contributory" social insurance program. No contributions are required for spouses' drop-out years regardless of the woman's income level. However, the value of the subsidy associated with those years varies with the woman's average lifetime earnings.
Given the preceding points, it is apparent that the implicit subsidy in the spouses' drop-out provision is of greatest potential value to women with higher earnings levels and women who, because of family circumstances, are able to exercise their full entitlement. Conversely, the proposal offers the lowest potential level of subsidy to women with low earnings levels and women who are restricted in their ability to use their entitlement. This raises a broad social policy issue. Is it equitable or appropriate to provide a special provision for some mothers which is not equally accessible to all of those who are eligible and assigns different values to the child-rearing function? I ask this question because I believe people should know what they are getting into if this bill is passed.
There is also the problem of compulsory contributions. The woman who stays in the home would receive pension credits, although no contribution would be required. On the other hand, the woman who must work is not only required to carry the dual role of homemaker and wage earner, but must also pay a compulsory tax by way of CPP contributions in order to obtain her pension credits. The woman who can afford to stay home receives the subsidies, without any requirement to contribute, regardless of her economic status. The mother who cannot stay at home is required to make compulsory contributions for the years which could otherwise be dropped out without regard to her ability to pay.
The preceding discussion has outlined apparent inequities created among contributors. By granting pension credits, for the first time, to one specific group of non-contributors, inequities are created between them and other groups of non-contributors who perform other socially valuable but unpaid services. Mothers who are never able to enter the labour market receive no credits for their child-rearing years. Examples of other persons would be mothers who remain in the home to care for older disabled or retarded children, and women who leave the work force to care for an ailing parent or spouse. I mentioned this before, and I shall do so again. Mothers who remain in the home to care for older disabled or retarded children get nothing, and women who leave the work force to care for an ailing parent or spouse get nothing. So what looks fine on the surface does, nevertheless, raise a number of questions. We shall have to ask those questions and get them answered, because the more I read about this matter, the more it appears to be unfair and discriminatory. I hope answers will be given when the bill reaches committee stage. As this

differential treatment is extremely difficult to justify in terms of social policy, leverage is created by which extension of CPP coverage to the various other groups of non-contributors would be created.
I must pay some attention to the funding problem which will arise as a result of any amendment to the Canada Pension Plan. We do not know what this is going to cost. The minister's draft papers spoke of a minimal cost. Surely that is not good enough at a time when all segments of society are registering concern about the funding of pensions. Current federal estimates indicate that in the medium run the cost of the spouses' drop-out provision will increase CPP expenditures by approximately 4 per cent, assuming no behavioural changes occur. However, if the anomalies which are created by the proposal lead to further extension of subsidized coverage, this figure could increase substantially.
There is increasing concern regarding the basic issue of pension funding in general and that of the CPP in particular. The CPP is not actuarially sound at present, but is currently operating on a modified "pay as you go" basis. The plan is predicated on intergenerational transfers. Current contributions are, in effect, paying for the pensions of those who are now retired. The degree of individual subsidization to all pensioners will decrease over time as the plan matures, other things being equal. That is, although current retirees receive extremely high rates of retirement subsidies, future retirees will receive lower subsidies. However, the plan will always be based on intergenerational transfers, and therefore the costs of any modifications are passed on to future generations. CPP is underfunded at present. Unless the current combined contribution rate of 3.6 per cent is increased, the CPP fund will be exhausted between 1995 and 2000. Further increases will also be necessary. It is estimated that with no changes to the present CPP, a combined contribution rate of approximately 8 per cent will be required by 2025 on a "pay as you go" basis.
The question of the future orientation of CPP and its funding must ultimately be faced. There is a limit to the financial burden which can be placed on future generations. It has long been obvious that the present rate of contribution to CPP will not cover the cost of maintaining the increasing number of retired people who will require pensions. The way the present plan is set up, we are leaving a crushing load as a legacy to our grandchildren in terms of vastly increased taxes. As Ontario treasurer Darcy McKeough pointed out:
In the first decades of the next century there will be more retired people relative to people employed in the labour pool than at any time in Canada's history. By guaranteeing the real value of retirement incomes for these people without appropriate funding, governments in Canada have subjected themselves to future liabilities which are staggering.
Geoffrey Calvert, author of the book "Pensions and Survival: the coming crisis of money and retirement", states: "We are passing the buck to future generations."


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is why seven of us did not vote for it.
May 9, 1977


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As the Canada Pension Plan is now set up, it is estimated that by 1989-90, $6,750 million will be needed to cover pensions. Within a very few years this rising tide of benefit outflows will have overtaken the inflow of revenue from the 3.6 per cent tax, and then the moment of truth will arrive. Calvert further states:
With the radical increase in the ratio of pensioners to workers clearly before us, it would seem questionable for Canada to commit itself to vast and liberal programs of support for its older people if these would result only in an overbalancing and collapse of the economy of the future.
Those are strong words, Mr. Speaker. In other words, what he is saying is that if we do not watch out we can be pricing ourselves out of the market and could, in short, go bankrupt. As Calvert says, it is to the early part of the next century that we must look, when today's young people will be approaching and entering their retirement years. It is in that period, a good deal less than 50 years from now, that the real consequences of decisions made today will begin to become all too apparent, and most of us here today will not be present to see them. It can be stated that by the 1990s the income from the Canada Pension Plan will drop sharply, and it will continue to fall if it continues on its present partially funded course. Calvert also warns that the CPP reserves outlook is, in short, quite ghastly; after rising for a few more years, if no changes are made these temporary reserve funds will top out, then plunge into liquidation. As Dr. John Grant says:
Legislative initiatives which would sharply increase the benefits payable under the Canada Pension Plan could, for instance, have an effect of this kind which could wreak havoc in Canada's financial markets.
I should like to bring to the attention of the House another questionable feature about the Canada Pension Plan, namely, its weak performance as a source of investment capital which this country badly needs. By 1981-85 we will have to raise some $26 billion. Private pensions are an important source of this necessary capital. It is estimated that from 70 per cent to 80 per cent of all new capital needed by Canada and raised by bond and stock issues is expected to be furnished by private pension plans. Unfortunately, that is not the case with the Canada Pension Plan, which serves mainly as a source of low-cost funding for provincial governments. This is why I want to express to the parliamentary secretary the concern registered by provincial governments, particularly by the province of Ontario, in regard to where pension plan funds are being invested.
Let me read a portion of an article published in the Globe and Mail of January 21, 1977. I hear a voice in the wilderness over there saying something, Mr. Speaker. If the parliamentary secretary wants to stand up and make a contribution, I will sit down. In the meantime, we are debating a very important bill and I am expressing our concern at the funding of this plan. Let me direct my hon. friend's attention to the article in the Globe and Mail which is headed "Thoughts for a rainy day":
The Canada Pension Plan is supposed to provide retired workers with security. Instead, in its present form, it could dupe them into insecurity, rob their children
Canada Pension Plan
and reduce the ability of Canada to produce the goods and services that are needed by all Canadians.
I hope that the Canada pension conference, which is supposed to be directing its attention to these problems and coming up with the answers, is apprised of the situation. But how do we know? I have not heard the parliamentary secretary say anything at all about the Canada pension conference. They are the experts on pensions, yet he completely ignored them. Notwithstanding what my hon. friend across the way has said, let me continue with this article:
-the fund that has been collected under the Canada Pension Plan's half-funding system "is completely invested in the public sector". The federal government collects it. What isn't immediately needed for pensions is loaned to the provinces at rates related to long-term federal bond rates.
In this regard Ontario has averaged $324 million a year for the past ten years. This is what Darcy McKeough was pointing out.
This money is then spent by the government, often in building hospitals, schools and universities. It is not invested to earn a return.
All provinces are included in this regard, Mr. Speaker.
Your CPP money, in other words, is not working for you.
That means you and me, Mr. Speaker; it is not working for us. The provinces take it and invest it in the public sector, yet the private sector is screaming for investment dollars.
It is not being loaned at the going rate to earn more money to keep your premiums down. And, just as important, it is not being invested in resource industries or factories to provide more jobs, increase Canada's production and give all Canadians a better standard of living. Yet Canada desperately needs investment capital-
Do you get the point, Mr. Speaker? I am sure you do. We are not getting value for our money, and it is time there was a complete review. But what does the parliamentary secretary say? He conveniently ignores the whole question of funding. I have a great deal of respect for the parliamentary secretary, and I know he has to do what he is told. I hope that when I become a parliamentary secretary, when we take over as a result of the ineptitude and mismanagement exhibited during this government's stewardship, I will be able to do a little better than the parliamentary secretary. However, I am getting off the track, Mr. Speaker, and I know you want to hear our concerns regarding the Canada Pension Plan.
There also exist other areas of concern. All income security programs should be carefully scrutinized in regard to who receives benefits and who pays. However, even if these concerns did not exist, there would still be two fundamental questions in respect to this proposal, namely, the drop-out proposal. The first concern is the role of the CPP. Is the CPP, a contributory, earnings related social insurance program, an appropriate mechanism for providing some financial independence for the spouse in the home? We will have to answer that question, and whether the drop-out provision as related to the Canada Pension Plan is the proper mechanism to recognize the financial independence of spouses in the home.
The second question relates to the orientation of the CPP and the balance between its social aspects and its insurance principles. Is it appropriate to introduce a proposal which

May 9, 1977
Canada Pension Plan
represents a further departure from the insurance aspects of the program and sets a precedent by which the CPP can be levered into further subsidies, before resolving the future orientation of the plan? That is a very important question which all members of parliament, accepting their responsibilities in this regard, will have to ask themselves. Is it appropriate to introduce a proposal, or proposals-and I would say proposals-before resolving the future orientation of the CPP? It should be noted, as well, that with the exception of certain unique cases and some foster mothers the women who would benefit from this provision under the drop-out proposal will not be retiring for at least 15 years. As the proposal does not require contributions, timing does not seem to be imperative at this point.
So I ask you, Mr. Speaker, in order to bring it to the attention of the parliamentary secretary and the minister, this question: Given the implications of the proposal as related to the drop-out provisions, is it essential to proceed with it at this time, in view of the fact that we do not know what will be the future orientation of the plan, and since many people are raising concerns in regard to the whole funding of the Canada Pension Plan?
I have indicated to the House that at long last there is some attempt to recognize the need for splitting pensions in order that spouses will have an equal share as a result of having made a contribution to the home. I have also pointed out there are some problems in that regard. I have also said that we must consider the role women have played and will be playing in terms of raising their children-men as well. Therefore, we are considering drop-out proposals in order to give them the opportunity to raise their children. At the same time, I let it be known in no uncertain terms that there are a lot of problems with respect to the drop-out proposals. I registered my concern about the whole question of funding of the Canada Pension Plan and do not think I have to add any further words in that regard.
Last, but not least, I dwelt upon the question of investment and what has happened with Canada Pension Plan funds. We are not getting value for our money. It is dangerous to proceed, given the fact that all these matters raise several very important questions. We are waiting now to see that this bill is passed on to committee. I can say, on behalf of my party, that we welcome this step; but at the same time we will have to ask a lot of questions regarding the inequities we see. These are inequities regarding the splitting, the drop-out, the funding, and the investment.
It is most important to point out that we do not have any information as to where this plan is going, yet I know there are expert studies. We are expected to deal with this bill now-the amendments to the Canada Pension Plan. We have no idea as to what future funding means, and we have no idea what we are doing in terms of our grandchildren and payments under this plan. We will allow the bill to go to committee. At that time we will be able to talk to the minister in a reasonable

fashion in order to determine where we are going with the Canada Pension Plan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander),
I regard this as a very important piece of legislation. Like him,
I am sorry the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is not able to be here with us throughout this debate. It was explained to me why he is not able to be here this afternoon. I accept that explanation, although I notice that now we do not even have the parliamentary secretary.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Shame.


Stanley Howard Knowles: However, if it is not
against the rules for me to say it, I do note-.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think there should be a note in Hansard to indicate that the reason for that applause is that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has just walked in. Seldom have I had a wish fulfilled so instantaneously. I am aware of the fact that the minister's officials are within the sound of our voices and are taking note of what is being said, so that before the day is out he will have the full debate reported to him.
At the outset I have to say that I shall differ in many respects with my friend from Hamilton West with regard to things he said. I was surprised that his voice was so much the voice of Geoffrey Calvert and Colin Brown of the Globe and Mail, rather than the voice of the people of Canada. I believe that they really welcome and applaud the Canada Pension Plan.
I shall leave until later in my remarks any reference to the position that Ontario is taking in refusing to go along with one of the proposed amendments. That means I shall also leave until later my response to the things that the hon. member for Hamilton West has said about the funding of the Canada Pension Plan and the whole question of its orientation and the direction in which it is going.
First, I want to indicate my views with respect to the things that Bill C-49 actually does. I find myself in a position that I have been in a good many times during my years in this House, namely, having to say that this bill goes in the right direction. Therefore, I shall support it. But it does not begin to go far enough. Indeed, I was annoyed when I read in the minister's press release the day the bill was introduced and given first reading words which said that these amendments will recognize the role of spouses working in the home, and then again that these amendments are intended to provide some measure of recognition and financial security for spouses who work in the home.
Sir, if I was annoyed at those mild statements in the press release issued by the minister the day he introduced the bill, my annoyance went up a few notches when I heard his parliamentary secretary say at the conclusion of his speech this afternoon that these amendments represent a major step for-
May 9, 1977

ward in the recognition of the place of those who work in the home. As if it is not enough to have heard the parliamentary secretary read those words from a speech that had been prepared for the minister, the minister now has the gall to applaud, when I quote those words. It does no such thing. This bill slightly recognizes that there are women who work in the home, and that because of that they should be given some very slight recognition. To call it a major step forward is really a misuse of language.
The bill, in that respect, proposes to do two things. The supporting material the department has put out makes it very clear that neither of these steps is going to cost very much, which means, in effect, that there is not much to it. The bill does two things.


Mr. Lalonde:: It is divided between the two.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It does two things with respect to spouses. It does a number of other things which are housekeeping details. It is interesting that the word "housekeeping" got into this bill when we are talking about spouses. That is an aside. It does two things in so far as spouses are concerned. First, it provides, in the event of marriage breakdown, provided the marriage lasted for three years, that the combined assets can be split between the two parties. The bill goes into a lot of detail as to how that can be done, depending upon when the marriage breakdown took place, when the divorce was completed, the age of children, and so on.
At any rate, that is one thing the bill does. It combines the total value of the assets of husband and wife and splits those assets 50-50, if there is dissolution of the marriage, after that marriage has lasted three years. We accept that and we will support it. We think it is a good idea. We think it is some recognition, but only an infinitesimal recognition, of the fact that the spouse who stayed at home has made some contribution to the economic well-being of that family unit.
The other thing it does is to make a slight change with respect to women who are contributors. I say women, knowing that the bill works both ways, and I should talk about spouses. It could be a woman or a man. But in 90 per cent or more of the cases the bill is dealing with the mother-the woman. In that sense, the bill provides that if a woman has been a contributor already, and then stays home for a few years to raise children, provided those children are not over the age of seven the years spent doing that can be dropped out of the years that are involved in the calculation of her retirement benefit when she reaches age 65.
The hon. member for Hamilton West seemed to be worried about some element of subsidy. I find it awfully hard to see any element of subsidy. It is not giving anybody anything new. It just says to certain women who stay home to raise children that under the law as it stood we took away some of the rights they had earned, but we will give back those rights because the reason for staying home was to rear children. There is nothing
Canada Pension Plan
whatsoever in this provision in this legislation for the woman, the spouse, the wife, the mother who stays home the whole of her married life or was a contributor for a while and never goes back to the labour force. We are asked to believe that this is a major step forward in recognizing the work in the home, but it applies only to a limited number of cases.
As far as that great number of Canadian women-even in this modern day I suggest there are many of them-who play the role of wife, mother and homemaker and do not go out to work, there is nothing whatsoever for them. For the government to try and tell us that this is a move in the direction of recognizing the role of work in the home in sheer nonsense.
I am going to support this bill even though I have called it nonsense. It is a very halting step in the direction of admitting that there are times when women, by their work in the home, earn some economic recognition, some economic rights. However, I want that to go all the way. Let us not wait until the year 2000 or 2100 before we carry the principle of equal rights for men and women all the way.
We have in this legislation, in veterans' legislation, in the pensions that widows get from the Canada Pension Plan, or from working for the CNR or the federal government, the concept that a woman gets only what she is entitled to because she had a husband, because of her attachment to a male person. What about granting to women rights in their own stead? I suggest that the time has come, not just to do the simple little thing that is proposed in this amendment to the Canada Pension Plan, but to recognize in full the role that is performed by women who stay home, raise children, look after the household and the family that in that way help to keep the nation going. This bill does not do that. It does not even recognize it.
Excuses are offered. The main excuse offered for not putting it into this legislation is that the Canada Pension Plan is an employment-related pension scheme. I fully recognize that. I was around when we were putting together the Canada Pension Plan. I feel a certain responsibility for it and a certain pride in it. It is one of the best pension plans to be found anywhere as far as the citizens of a whole country are concerned. Therefore, I accept that it is an employment-related pension plan.
If we were to break that by giving pensions where no employment or no employment earnings are involved, we would then be producing a totally different scheme. The minister is no doubt aware that a good many times I have asked him questions in this area and a good many times I have moved motions under Standing Order 43. I think he will admit that my questions and motions have always been carefully worded. I have not proposed that women who stay at home should get benefits under the Canada Pension Plan as though they were employed and had earnings. I have proposed that they should be given pension rights equivalent to those that are given to those who work and contribute to the Canada Pension Plan.
The various committees that have studied this have come up with the answer that it cannot be done under an employment-
5422

May 9, 1977
Canada Pension Plan
related pension plan, a plan which is related to earnings from employment. I suggest there is a way this can be done and that it would meet the problem we are dealing with today much better than this bill does. It would deal with those cases the hon. member for Hamilton West talked about, persons who stay at home to look after an ailing parent or an ailing spouse.
What business is it of the state to pick and choose among the reasons why a person stays home? What business is it of the state to say this is an idealistic thing that you do, and this is not? I suggest that we should go for a form of universality. We should provide that every person between the ages that apply in the Canada Pension Plan, the 47-year period between 18 and 65, who is not employed and is not contributing to the Canada Pension Plan should get a certain percentage of credit toward a supplement to his old age security, a certain percentage for each year he is not a CPP contributor. Although the specific percentage I am suggesting is not the point to hang on, it is the idea, and I am suggesting that the figure should be 2 per cent per year.


Marc Lalonde: To be contributed?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Without contribution. I am suggesting there are 47 years between ages 18 and 65. That is the compulsory period for contributing to the Canada Pension Plan. Every person is allowed to drop out 15 per cent. Fifteen per cent of 47 years is just a fraction over seven years, which means that the remaining portion is almost 40 years.
A housewife and mother who stayed home all that time, or a male person, for any reason whatsoever, should get a credit of 2 per cent for each of those years up to the 40 as an addition to his or her old age security. In other words, the nice, good, old-fashioned wife who stays home the whole time, raises the children, looks after the old man, and generally behaves as good Canadian wives and mothers used to behave, would have an 80 per cent, 40 years times two, supplement, without a means test, added to her old age security.
Therefore, at the point of retirement, the husband would have his old age security and the Canada Pension Plan to which he contributed. The wife would have her old age security and an 80 per cent addition because of the contribution she had made to Canadian society, the Canadian economy, the Canadian life, by being a Canadian wife and mother at home. For shorter periods without making contributions, the supplement would be lower. Do not smile about this. Do not laugh about it. I suggest it is the kind of sensible proposal the government ought to consider.
I do not agree with at least half the criticisms advanced today by the hon. member for Hamilton West, but he did have a point. He said it is unfair to grant this consideration to the woman who stays home to look after the children, but not to the woman who stays home to look after an ailing husband or ailing parent. If you try to bring in various categories, you will do nothing but get into trouble. However, I suggest there is a way along the lines I have proposed to see that everyone's contribution to our economy gets recognized.

I am back to the basic point that underlines all that I want to say this afternoon. I am not going to go into the kind of details that the previous speaker did. I think for the most part the details that are in the bill implement correctly what the bill is trying to do. However, I quarrel with the fundamental assertion by the Minister of National Health and Welfare made by his parliamentary secretary that this measure is a major step forward in the recognition of the role that women who stay in the home play in our economy.
As I have said, look at the pensions of veterans' wives and widows, the pensions of widows of Canadian National employees, or of members of parliament or of public servants. In all cases they are not pensions that are given to them in their own right as persons. They are given to them because they can say, "he was my man". If this is a day of equal rights, if we proclaim it in legislation and in fine oratory, I suggest it is time to move in that direction. Yes, this bill moves in that direction but it does so hesitatingly. It does only two things: it says that if there is a marriage breakdown, the assets can be split 50-50, and it says that in the case of a woman who has an attachment to the outside labour force and has an attachment again later, we will give back to her certain credits that were taken away from her under the legislation as it stood.
I am quite prepared to vote for this bill. As I say, I have been voting for decades for pieces of legislation that did not go far enough but moved in the right direction. This one does that, and I hope that in committee we can have some useful discussion about it.
If I may indulge in something that might seem a bit light, let me say that this bill raises another problem. In addition to being a stickler for the rules of this place, I am a stickler for the rules of grammar. I shudder sometimes at some of the errors that I hear in the House, but they are usually corrected in Hansard. One rule that really bothers me is the rule that he or his includes she or her, but the reverse does not apply. I wrote a letter to the president of CBC a while ago-I do not do it very often; I do not complain about the so-called bias of CBC-about a professor whom I had heard, who turned out to be a professor of English, making a speech in which he used the phrase "everybody and their dog". That is a pretty common error. It should be "everybody and his dog", even if the "everybody" happened to be a woman. The rule I mentioned is in the Interpretation Act. It states that his includes her and he includes she.
In this bill we are talking about the person who stays at home, the family allowance recipient. In 95 per cent of the cases we talk about the woman, the mother, but all through the piece it refers to he and his. It is clumsy to use the his or her expression-I do not go for it at all-and I would certainly not consent to using the word "their" because we are talking in the singular.
Maybe the time has come for us to amend the Interpretation Act and where in that act we say that his includes her and he includes she, we should write the reverse and say that she
May 9, 1977

includes he and that her includes his. However, as it stands we are talking about these persons who stay home, and time after time we read that he stays home to look after his children although, as I said, in 90 per cent to 95 per cent of the time it is the woman we are talking about. I hope that that piece of grammar can somehow be straightened out. It is probably cause for an amendment to the Interpretation Act rather than an amendment to this act.
This bill does two main things, as I said. It splits the benefits or credits in the case of a marriage breakdown and it makes a slight concession to women who stay at home to raise their children. It also does a few other things that are quite acceptable to me. I refer to the retroactivity that is established for persons who apply for their Canada Pension Plan retirement benefit between the ages of 65 and 70. I refer also to the international agreements and various other details that are in the bill. So far as we are concerned, those things are acceptable and we go along with them.
Although the bill did not raise the matter, my friend the hon. member for Hamilton West did raise the whole question of the funding of pensions. He used some pretty broad language. He spoke about the whole nation being concerned, and about all segments of society worrying about the future of pensions. This, of course, was his answer to the reference that the parliamentary secretary made to the fact that the Ontario government has not yet agreed to one of these amendments. I regret that as well. I say, quite frankly, that I hope that when this House and the other place have passed this bill, Ontario will reconsider its position. I may say, in passing, that I was one of those back in 1965 who voted against the clause in the Canada Pension Plan that gave this power of veto to a province. We did not like the formula at all, and we said so at the time. We said, in effect, that this was writing some of the constitution into the Canada Pension Plan. I am sorry to see it being used at this time.
I see that it is almost five o'clock, Mr. Speaker. When I rose to my feet I wondered whether I might finish before five o'clock, but since I cannot do that, and since I want to deal with the points raised by the hon. member for Hamilton West about funding-he is worried about future generations being burdened with the cost of higher pensions-perhaps I might be permitted to do that when the House meets again this evening. So at this point may I ask that you call it five o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of the adjourn-
Economic and Social Development ment are as follows: the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)-Transport-Date of decision on use of refrigerator cars to transport potatoes-Possibility of rate increase; the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke)- Canadian Mint-Reason for accepting orders for coins from foreign countries; the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche)-Administration of Justice-Reported ineffective surveillance of therapeutic abortions-Government action to correct.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Notice of motion No. 16 in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The motion stands at the request of the government.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I think we can expedite the work in private members' hour this afternoon by pointing out that there is general agreement to deal with notice of motion No. 22 standing in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche).
SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ON CANADA'S GOALS FOR THE 1980s


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government ought to establish a special parliamentary committee on Canada's goals for the eighties, to enable the formulation of national objectives for the decade ahead, such committee to (a) receive briefs and representations from organizations and individuals suggesting priorities for economic and social development of Canada, and for Canada's role in international development (b) conduct hearings in every province to enable interested persons to communicate their views personally (c) publish a report on findings and recommendations to be debated in the House of Commons as a guide to the government in presenting its programme of economic and social legislation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to place my motion before the House this afternoon for general consideration, bearing in mind that it is fortuituous that we are debating this motion today when Mr. Justice Berger's report has just been tabled. The Berger report dramatically shows how deep are the feelings within the Canadian public about energy and environmental questions, and how much we politicians can be helped by a thorough examination of alternative routes into the future.
Put as concisely as possible, the future of Canada revolves around the nature of the growth of our society. Who will
80016 -3V2

May 9, 1977
Economic and Social Development determine the nature of this growth? At this very moment the Canadian Association of the Club of Rome is meeting in Ottawa to wrestle with that question. This is not just a theoretical exercise. Great changes and perplexing questions are all around us in Canada and throughout the world. Will we give human development precedence over material growth? Will we forgo the satisfaction of immediate desires in favour of future stability? Will we use our enormous techno-scientific power for the benefit of humanity as a whole? An important new publication by the Club of Rome entitled "Goals for Mankind" stresses the urgency of establishing these goals. I quote from it as follows:
The inquiry into what we are up to, what we can or should do with ourselves and future generations, should undoubtedly come first, if for no other reason than because without an over-all design our frenzied activities can but give rise to colossal disorder-which is precisely what is beginning to occur today.
I am asking parliament to establish a mechanism for focusing on a wide range of interlocking economic, social, scientific, constitutional and cultural problems that will be facing Canada in the 1980s. I am asking that we look ahead to establish priorities in government planning so that Canadians get a sense of direction of where we are going, so that Canadians be given a chance to state what kind of country they want and so that the input into the decision-making process is greatly expanded beyond governmental bureaucracy.
The committee I propose is far more than just an exercise to keep parliamentarians busy. It is urgent because of the economic and social disorder of our time. To put it simply, we are backing into the future. Technology has given us the ability to plan our future, yet the political process does nothing more than put band-aids on problems that break out. Analysts by the dozen, from Alvin Toffler to the Economic Council of Canada, have told us that. We are preoccupied with inflation, unemployment, regional disparities and discontent and, now, the overriding question of national unity. Nor can Canada escape increasing involvement in the two paramount international issues of disarmament and Third World development. All of these problems call for co-operative, long-range solutions. Why, then, do we not provide Canadians with an opportunity to tell government what kind of Canada they want?
In this moment of crisis in which we seem stunned by the threat of Quebec's separation, let us take some positive action which will establish not only why the country should stay together, but also how we can build a more just and equitable society, responding to economic and social needs in every region of Canada.
Government and parliament make a big mistake by consistently examining society using only factors easily convertible to quantitative data such as income levels, production and trade balances. The determination of public policy should also take into account the psychological and, in the broadest sense, the spiritual reaction of society to the rapid social changes of the past three decades. Of course, it is difficult to find consensus on national goals in modern society. But we ought to try, for it has become clear to me on my travels across the country-and I have spoken in 24 Canadian cities and towns since January-

that there are men and women in increasing numbers who long for a more human social order.
A successful society requires more than growing statistics. It requires the revival of what journalist-philosopher Walter Lippman called a public philosophy. In a public philosophy the highest laws are those upon which all rational men of good will, when fully informed, will tend to agree. All men, both those who govern and those who are governed, are always under those laws which can be developed and refined by rational discussion. The question before us is whether we will implement a public philosophy in the 1980s or continue to tolerate a disjointed society where the loss of human dignity has reached scandalous proportions.
People are paying higher taxes to support ever-growing government at all levels, while the problems of housing, resource distribution, safety and transportation are getting worse. Distrust of a powerful and faceless bureaucracy in Ottawa is increasing. Many people have vague feelings about something being wrong and blame their politicians for not solving it. The criticisms we receive, however, go beyond specific objections and reveal a fear and frustration over the discontinuities of modern life. It is normal for politicians to receive complaints. What is abnormal is that the source of alienation now goes beyond the political process and is found in the depths of society itself. This is by no means a Canadian phenomenon. It is part of the general decline in the confidence in democratic governments everywhere. A lack of faith in democracy is spreading.
Analysing this crisis, the trilateral commission, which is composed of scholars from western Europe, Japan and North America, declared that the central dilemma of democracy is that "the demands on democratic government grow, while the capacity of democratic government stagnates." We have for so long elected politicians on their supposed ability to ensure the fulfilment of consumer demands that the political process is unable to respond to the unprecedented challenges posed by the reality of an interdependent global community. Our political system was made for another age. I do not have much confidence that it will be reformed as long as we encourage members of parliament to measure their usefulness by the number of short-range benefits conferred on their electors.
Unquestionably, the parliamentary process itself needs to be updated to make it more effective: television coverage, shorter speeches, examining departmental estimates in the House rather than in committee, more support staff for members of parliament. However, merely improving the myriad internal systems and mechanism will not be enough. Modernization of the institution will not, by itself, restore public confidence in the ability of members of parliament to lead Canada today.
Members of parliament cannot just snap their fingers and restore stability and tranquility. Members of parliament are not even agreed on how much or what kind of moral leadership we are capable of giving. Politicians alone cannot successfully cope with the explosion of change around us. People from every walk of life must become more finely attuned to what is really happening in the world. Then, perhaps, the political
May 9, 1977

process will more accurately reflect viewpoints and there will be a greater section of society more responsive to this kind of leadership.
The technocrats have had their way in the parliamentary process for too long. It is time for a new kind of political leadership based on a declaration of value openly arrived at, and that entails bringing some philosophical beliefs concerning key moral issues on to the floor of the House of Commons. It is not just a matter of finding immediate answers to problems, but of examining the horizon of where we are headed. As we turn to the horizon today we see the dignity of man and his most basic rights threatened increasingly. Prophetic voices are needed, and parliament should be a great amplifier.
I believe that it would be a constructive act for us to establish a special committee of this House assigned to the task of listening to the needs of Canada in the way I have outlined. I must point out that I am not alone in my thinking. On February 11 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) proposed the appointment of a special committee to consider and report upon the government document entitled "The Way Ahead". However, the committee I envisage would do more than study our economic future. We ought to be concerned, as I have said, about other facets of society that all intermesh and that are woven into the fabric of Canada. It is the full range of economic, social, scientific and constitutional factors that should be examined.
The Science Council also believes that some mechanism must be created to assure public input into public policies, to assure that the public good is represented in government decision-making, and to assure that this fragmented society becomes one of consensus. Senator Maurice Lamontagne advocates forming a separate government agency called Horizons Canada to stimulate discussion of Canada's future. But why set up a new body? Why cannot parliament fill this role through the creation of a special committee?
The hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) has asserted his belief that the definition of choices and goals for Canada to adopt in the post-control period certainly should not be done only by some planning group working confidentially within the government. His proposal is to set up a special parliamentary committee on national goals. It is worth noting that this committee as envisaged by the hon. member would not be restricted to economic issues. He points out that there should be attention given in the committee's work to the question of whether the country's policy emphasis should be on economic growth or on improving the quality of life.
A similar view is held by the Gamma group of Montreal, organized with federal funding to study the concept of a conserver society. In its final report the group proposed as its first of four major recommendations that a public debate should be initiated in order to elicit reactions from different pressure groups concerning the desirability of a conserver society. Such an inquiry should not be open only to those who
Economic and Social Development
have been organized into pressure groups; it should be carried out by a parliamentary committee.
In "The Way Ahead for Canada", subtitled "A Paperback Referendum", the editor, Robert Logan, has devised a novel means of allowing public input in government policy. Readers are invited to fill out a questionnaire at the back and mail it to the Prime Minister's office. Professor Logan believes it important that all people have some input into future policies, and sees this unique poll as a first step. It is significant that the scope of the questionnaire is wider than that of the government working paper and that Professor Logan wants parliament to have a major role in determining what Canadians want as their future.
In asking members to support my motion, I suggest that Professor Logan's book contains many reasons for their doing so. Here are a few quotations, the first from the futurologist Alvin Toffler who says:
Unless we are able to reconnect citizens with the political decision system, unless we can create many new and sensitive channels for feedback between people and their governments, we will not be able to solve our economic and social problems. For even more fundamental than specific government programmes, are the processes by which we arrive at them.
This next is from the distinguished hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) who says:
Economic policy-making in Canada has been poor in recent years because it has been so totally closed. The senior officials in the Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada set the policy directions of the nation. The results have demonstrated that this is not an adequate system. Economic policy is so important that instead of being made in secret, it should be a matter of public debate.
The third is from Bruce McLeod, former moderator of the United Church of Canada, who says:
If it is important that Quebecois determine their own destiny and not be made into Albertans, or vice versa, it is possible to argue that without the struggles and disagreements within a fellowship that includes both, neither would easily achieve an undistorted self-understanding appropriate to this end of the twentieth century. Structures that divide us and keep us separate and unexposed to those who think and act differently, do not necessarily ensure our own growth, let alone our responsible participation in the building of the earth of which we are a part. What is needed is a model of federalism in which diversity is expected and protected, but in which doors are opened between narrow circles and unity is forthrightly declared.
I agree with Professor Logan when he says that although decisions are best made by elected representatives, our present system of government could be vastly improved if more meaningful input could come from the people.
Mr. Speaker, I turn briefly now to some of the chief areas of my concern about the next decade and why I am reluctant to see policy formed only on the basis of narrow opinions, no matter how expertly couched. I take, as my first example, immigration. Surely the immigration debate which is still going on reflects the diversity of views among Canadians brought out by the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. What worries me is that in the formation of policy undue weight may be given to special bodies such as, for example, the Science Council of Canada which has come out strongly for a low-population, high-technology future for Canada without, at the same time, redressing present dispari-

May 9, 1977
Economic and Social Development ties among either the nations of the world or the parts of Canada.
Science alone is not the answer to human development, as the Canadian Council on Social Development makes clear. Neither is economics. The incessant economic tendency of the strong to take from the weak must always be fought against. The danger of this is heightened by the fact that many Canadians now place the blame for our current troubles on excessive social welfare expenditures and are inclined to demand cutbacks in those programs first. For these reasons, Reuben Baetz, in the 1976 annual report of the council, calls for an over-all strategy for social development in a time of economic constraint.
If the over-all resources available for social development are to be more limited in the future, then they must be more concentrated on helping those most in need. Mr. Baetz identifies the most vulnerable groups as one-parent families, the retired living on diminishing savings, the physically handicapped and underemployed and unemployed youth. He calls for a much better understanding of the size and nature of our social welfare programs, arguing that their size is often exaggerated, their effect on inflation frequently misrepresented, and the "hidden welfare" of tax exemptions and corporate subsidies typcially ignored. These are some of the questions we are beginning to examine as we look into the next decade.
Finally, I see the network of Canadian problems revolving around our perception of the conserver society. I suppose if you had to boil it all down you would say we hope for the kind of society in which conservation is going to be a good word. The source of our current problems, however, is much deeper and more complex than resource limitations alone. The con-server society, based as it is on a concept of growth with a purpose, will not be achieved merely by conserving resources. It calls for changes in our values and outlook. The conserver society recognizes that there are social limits to growth. The traditional values of thrift, efficiency and the avoidance of waste need to be re-found. This is also the theme of the Vanier Institute of the Family, trying to protect family values and to establish a better relationship between family and society that promotes social co-operation and the well-being of all. The key word to the conserver society is "rethink". We are being asked to question our need for things and the way in which Schumacher, in his book "Small is Beautiful", has raised these questions.
Clearly, the concept of the conserver society has greater implications than asking people to save 10 per cent or some other percentage. How can we ever expect people to accept the principles of the conserver society, which suggests serious changes in our lifestyles, without allowing them some input?
In conclusion, I urge parliament to reflect on the fact that many of our problems today are due to decision-makers of the past who ignored the future. Today we have new tools to build a future Canada, and our responsibility for doing so is all the greater. Building for the future is the most realistic kind of politics there is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) has put before us a motion that really engages our imagination and thoughts. For that we are most grateful. It demands that we should project our thoughts forward to what we shall do in the eighties.
In his motion, the hon. member suggests how we should go about establishing priorities for the Canadian people. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's proposal is to be commended. It deserves support. I say this because all who enter politics, whether they sit on the government side or in opposition, want very much to participate in the shaping of laws which govern not only what we shall do in the present, but anticipate-if that is the right word-that which is to come in future. However, I do not agree with one part of the position put forward this afternoon by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. In saying this, I do not wish to detract from the importance of his motion and the ideas he put forward this afternoon.
The concern he expressed about growth and about a conserver society strikes me as the sort of concern expressed by those who have "made it" in society, to use a popular expression, who have attained a certain degree of success in life and can therefore view with equanimity the prospect of diminishing growth or no growth. That concern is not shared by Canadians who have not "made it." Such Canadians look on growth as of the utmost importance. They do not look on it with fear or think it a bad thing. I cannot be convinced from my political experience, therefore, that growth is bad nongrowth is good.
The tests of growth are these: What kind of growth is it? In what sectors of society does it take place? What kind of waste does it create? How does it contribute to the quality of life, if I may use an expression, the meaning of which is not well defined? Also, what are the advantages of growth? What benefits will it bring us? Conversely, what are the benefits of giving up certain goals which we in our lives pursue? Really, those who would try to persuade Canadian society and parliamentarians that we should look forward to no growth in the 1980's, or look on growth with suspicion as something bad, are engaged in a fruitless exercise. I do not think the pursuit of growth is terrible and I do not support the suggestion that we should not pursue it.
Having said that, I see, nevertheless, the merits of parliamentarians consulting with the Canadian people on the broader questions of our goals for the 1980s. I prefer this course. In the past parliamentarians have consulted with Canadians across this country on a variety of topics. The hon. member has already mentioned one. I think of the committee which travelled across the country at the time of our taxation reform. Before that a committee travelled across the country to consult citizens on the question of constitutional reform. That was a most successful process of consultation. In parentheses, let me add that consultation as a process of arriving at
May 9, 1977

a decision, no matter what it may be, is, as the hon. member suggested, as important as arriving at the goal which the government, various parties or groups of individuals may pursue.
A special group of parliamentarians, such as that to which the motion refers, perhaps can consider matters relating to present day reality and questions which we must face. Perhaps it need not look as far ahead as the 1980s. In this country a number of consultative bodies function. I am thinking of bodies such as the Economic Council of Canada, the Science Council, and the Council for Social Development. I think the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona referred to such consultative bodies. Evidently, since the hon. member has suggested the establishement of a special group of parliamentarians for the purposes set out in the motion, he feels that the consultative bodies previously referred to are not totally in touch with present-day reality; that their reports are not sufficiently comprehensive and do not indicate clearly what we should do in the years to come.
If that is the hon. member's position, I agree with him. A special parliamentary group of the kind suggested could consult with the Canadian people about a number of areas of concern and return to Ottawa with interesting ideas. For example, take the field of education. All of us, young Canadians included, ask if our educational system is preparing people adequately for their entry into the labour force. Is it preparing Canadians for those tasks in the labour force which must be carried out in our complex society? Or, because our young are trained in the ideas of the past which considered higher education as a desirable goal in itself, and the alternatives to it as perhaps not worth pursuing, or attractive, are certain types of jobs in the labour force begging for takers left chronically unfilled?
I am referring to the large numbers of graduates our universities produce every year who are considered as overqualified or too highly educated for the jobs available. For these reasons I suggest it is time the federal government looked carefully at our educational system. I know education is not a federal responsibility in the main. Nevertheless, employment and the labour market fall under federal jurisdiction. Therefore, it is of the greatest importance to the Canadian public and educational institutions, to determine if our educational institutions are in tune with the demands, needs, aspirations and realities of our labour market. Are we educating people to meet that demand?
Another area which comes to mind is that of renewable energy. The subject has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, but I should like to add that consultation among Canadians as to what interest they have, what steps they are prepared to take, and what they would like the government to do in the field of solar energy, for instance, or the utilization of wind and tidal power, or of the utilization of the products of biomass, would be most valuable. The shortage of conventional energy sources will
Economic and Social Development become more acute as the years go by, and certain decisions will have to be implemented probably much sooner and with a greater degree of priority than might presently appear likely.
Another area this committee could cover is that of automation and its effect in wiping out, virtually, large numbers of unskilled or semi-skilled jobs, resulting in unemployment unaccompanied by parallel work opportunities. Inevitably we see technology producing ways of eliminating jobs through the introduction of automation. Evidently this gives rise to difficulties with which the average Canadian is familiar either on a personal basis or through observation. As a phenomenon of our time it certainly has implications for the years ahead.
This displacement of the work force has yet another aspect. In Canada today we find an increasing number of people who, having spent 20 or 30 years at work in a highly demanding occupation, find themselves physically incapable of continuing in their jobs, simply because, having arrived in their fifties they have given the best of their energies. At this point they find there is no suitable alternative employment available to them, though this used to be the case before the trend to automation began. The alternatives are disappearing. Here we have individuals with five, ten or 15 years of useful working life ahead of them, who can find no place to go as a result of the trend in automation. I regard this as an important point, and it is one I should like to raise in relation to the motion before us.
Yet another field is that of the relationship of Canadians to their environment. This is a subject which concerns Canadians of all ages and at all income levels. National priorities would be well worth establishing. We would, I am sure, be able to find out what Canadians in all the various communities are thinking-those who live by the sea, in the mountains, in the cities or on the prairies. We could ascertain what Canadians believe governments at all levels should do to protect the environment. I am not thinking only of pollution. We all know what is taking place there. I have in mind the spread of new diseases such as the budworm disease in Nova Scotia which does not seem to respect provincial boundaries and which therefore calls for techniques based on a new approach.
Another thought which comes to mind is related to an issue which the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona raised last week-it was dealt with subsequently in the media-consequent upon the resignation of the Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Concentration of Corporate Power. There is definitely a need for a continuation of this kind of dialogue. The terms of reference of the Commission were criticized at an early stage as being too narrow. It was said that certain groups in Canadian society could not be heard. In view of the latest developments, it occurs to me that this question of the concentration of power in our system might well be one into which a parliamentary committee could inquire. The committee might spend some time establishing the consequences of this concentration of power, and determining what should be the policies of the eighties with regard to its redistribution.
When we talk of concentration of power we must also talk about taxation. The present system of taxation is designed to

May 9, 1977
Economic and Social Development retain the incentive to create jobs with the public goal of redistributing wealth. Of course it is no easy task to strike a balance between the two. We remember what we went through in 1971 at the time we travelled throughout the country to hear the views of Canadians on this subject. Six years have already gone by, and it would not seem unreasonable to me if we were to decide that the tool of taxation, being one of the highest importance, requires regular analysis in order to determine whether it is still in tune with current values and the general objective of the nation.
The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona made one or two remarks which disturbed me. He may be right; I do not know. He indicated that the political process seems to be increasingly unable to respond and that we are working within a political system which is made for another age. With those two comments he raised an area of investigation and study, because if it were so-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Has the hon. member unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I rarely speak on these private members' motions but I want to congratulate the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), who has just sat down, on doing something which should be the aim, I think, of every member who comes to this place, namely, to hear an argument presented logically and coherently, as did the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), and then as an opposing member to stand up and debate the subject matter raised by the original speaker, which is to have a confrontation type of debate. Sometimes there is contradiction, sometimes there is support. I congratulate the hon. member for Davenport for doing what every member of the House of Commons should do.
Sitting on this side of the House, and having sat on the other side too, nothing depresses me as much as to hear members on the government side reading written material obviously prepared by someone in the department for which they are the mouthpieces. It appalls me that in the House of Commons, where we are supposed to represent the people, not our civil service masters, this sort of thing could happen.
I think the remarks of the hon. member for Davenport lead me into what I want to say in support of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. What the hon. member is trying to say in this motion, as I understand it, is that the procedures that we are using to put information before the decision makers, theoretically this parliament, are obsolete. I would question the use of the word obsolete as being accurate.
I should like to remind the House that the subject we are debating briefly today is not new. During the days of the depression and during the days of war many, many people in all parts of Canada put their minds to this problem of where

we are going, and what can we do. Without going through a whole recital there was a vast movement of people who said that the answer to our economic problems was to let the government take over the ownership and control of, for example, resources. That was an alternative course to what we were doing.
There was another train of thought which developed during the war, primarily among our civil servants, and at universities to some degree, namely, that our universities, our business people and our civil servants had done a good job of running the country during the war. They had accepted the doctrine of Lord Keynes, for example, in the monetary field. They had accepted the doctrine of Beveridge-the hand-over proposals which we are debating today, universal pensions for everybody regardless of contribution or need. They also accepted a third principle, namely, the principle that there is only a small elite in each country which can rule. Burnham put it into words.
Rightly or wrongly, this country did not take the course of socialism. It did not continue the course of drifting of the pre-war period. Instead we adopted the course of a directional type of control run by a select few, mostly civil servants, with a few allies at universities and in business, and the name that we began to apply to this peculiar function was "The Establishment". As I understand it, that is what the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is saying.
Let us assume that there are in all parts of this House of Commons enough people with a mentality sufficient to labour long and hard, and to look at several ideas put forward by the people. Do we have forever to bow our heads and bend our knees in worship of a small group, which is so small in our federal establishment that they can be numbered almost on the fingers of one's two hands? Should this small little group of mandarins decide reaction to events and the future course of our country?
Let me go back a bit, Mr. Speaker. In 1946 these same civil servants, the group I am referring to, when this concept was first introduced, produced a paper known as the white paper of 1946. If a person were to look at that paper-and I looked at it under Mr. Howe's leadership-he would come to the conclusion that it was a brilliant conception of what Canada was going to be for the next 30 or 40 years. This was the real birth of the concept of directional planning on the part of a small, elite group, not the democratic socialists that the NDP, or the CCF in the old days, talked about, but a small, elite group, the managerial elite, who would run this country. I ran into this group as a minister. Certainly I had a few victories, but very few, and I remember the thousands of defeats by these people more able than I, more persuasive, using bigger words, and overwhelming in their logic and their argument.
I suggest that in the last 15 years one of the basic problems facing our people has been the complete surrender of parliament and of the cabinet to the views of this group. That, I think, is what the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is saying. Maybe there is some truth out there among all these people. Maybe that truth could be funnelled in, as the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona said, by getting out of here
May 9, 1977

and getting in contact with people on specific issues like taxation.
I know that the white paper of 1946 caught my imagination. I was very struck by it, as I had been struck by the concept of democratic socialism in the thirties. But you have to apply the test of experience to these things, Mr. Speaker. When we formed the government in 1957 there was a group of us in the government who during the days of depression and war had planned certain programs to implement if ever, by God's grace, we were to sit on the other side of the House.
We took advantage of the fact that the American republic to the south of us was very worried about the tremendous utilization of their resources during the war. They had produced a six year study in 1950 called the Paley report. Unfortunately for the American people their Congress paid no attention to the Paley report and its five volumes, which warned the United States that by 1980 it would be in a serious position in regard to several strategic resources, including oil and gas. The only thing that has happened which is different from what was projected in this period of 1949-1950 is that the crisis has arisen sooner, and fear has hit the American people.
This brings me to a small but important matter. I think the hon. member for Davenport misunderstood what the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona was saying about growth. I know the views of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona; he is for growth. But he is against unlimited growth without a social purpose. That is the difference. He knows about Dennis Meadows and the "Limits of Growth", and how it is completely erroneous in its basic concepts. He knows what the scientists have said about that. He knows what was done by all governments in the world in the International Geophysical Year, 1960-61. Many reserves of the world are supposed to be non-renewable, yet we find they are still growing as the earth changes its forms and its pressures and produces the so-called non-renewable resources. I am not going into details in this regard. I am simply saying that, speaking for this party and, I hope, the great majority of the people of the world, growth is still with us. I am sure that for the next 30 or 40 years growth is going to be more in the form of growing into the utilization of resources with a renewable basis.
I am sure hon. members have heard me say in the House, "Don't worry about energy. There is no shortage of energy. Whenever you get tired of using oil and gas, the farmers will grow it. The farmers of the United States and Canada will grow that energy cheaper and purer than you can get it otherwise out of the earth-no sulphur content." We are not going to do it now. Under the terms of educational practices and policies in Canada, we are not allowed to explore these other ways.
Today in the House of Commons I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) if he had in his hands yet the report put out by Middleton Associates of Toronto. He stood up and said, "Yes, I got that last fall." I got it a year ago last April. There was nothing about the security
Economic and Social Development of the nation in it. It was a good report. It lists all the various types of renewable energies in Canada in which we lead the world. It lists 18 different types of renewable energy with technology in various parts of Canada. In six of those techniques it lays down where it is cheaper, cleaner, and better to use renewable resources rather than the present oil, gas or electricity. That report should not remain a secret from the people.
My second question to the minister today asked if he would make that report available to the public, and would he make it available particularly to provinces and municipalities that only get the stuff that is coming out of our establishment. According to the mandarins in control of Canada, the way to get over this energy difficulty is to put all the emphasis on nuclear power plants. Nuclear power plants are good, but there is a better way that is cheaper and cleaner, such as solar power, wind power, tidal power, and all the heat reserves in the earth stored for our use. Why should all of this knowledge be hidden from the people? It is because our masters have said we have developed the great CANDU nuclear plant. I played a big part in that during the early days of its formation. It is good, but there is no reason to say that is the only alternative.
In conclusion, I would like to say that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona has served this country well by putting forward the idea that we can have a select committee, as we had before according to the British House of Commons system, through which we make direct contact with the people. It is an idea that should be followed. I am not saying there are no other ways, and here I mention the Resources for Tomorrow Conference which we held in 1961. This is a good idea and would put parliament back into a position where it can give advice.
There was a Senate committee in 1957-58. On the basis of the evidence they produced I, as the minister, developed the ARDA legislation, which is ranked by people who study the social sciences as one of the most radical, progressive types of legislation in any part of the world. It has not been used very much, but the principles are there. That came from a group of Senators calling in people to give advice on land use and water use. A select committee could do the same thing.
I have a long list of things I want to talk about, but the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is saying, "Get a select committee; go out and get these ideas; and try to give this country a national purpose so that we do not spend all our time reacting to events." We need a purpose in looking ahead over the next ten or 15 years. You cannot make it too precise, but you can find out from the people of this country the direction in which they want to go. He believes that in this direction there will be growth, but there will be a national purpose and a social purpose for all of us here because no country can grow unless it realizes its resources of manpower and natural resources. It is a part of the whole world. It is not for handouts but for the self-help approach.
I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona for putting forward a positive, constructive idea. I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Davenport for
5430

May 9, 1977
Economic and Social Development having responded with a truly critical analysis that is both positive and negative. This makes very clear the fact that on occasion there can be genuine debate in this House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in my view what we need in Canada today is to do some thinking about where we are going, and about the kind of society we want. I am not concerned about our parliamentary institutions. I am concerned as to whether we really know what goals we want to achieve. I think we should do some hard thinking here in parliament. I think the people of the country should be encouraged to do their thinking and to add their input to ours. For these reasons I am glad this motion is before us and 1 am happy to indicate our support.


Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), I would like to congratulate the initiator of this motion because it is a very worth-while motion. As a scientist I am concerned about the problems of the future. I have been fighting a battle against those problems since I arrived here in 1974.
It has been mentioned that scientists caused all the problems of the past. They may have caused some of the problems, but they discovered some of the solutions of the past as well. They will also do so in the future. These solutions to problems should be planned as much as possible. To do this, you have to have debate from as wide a base as possible. I am in complete agreement with the context of what the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) is trying to accomplish. The question, therefore, is just the method by which it can be done.
The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona made reference to Motion No. 13 under the heading "Government Business" which tackles this problem by asking that a special joint committee be appointed to consider and report upon the document entitled "The Way Ahead". The only difference between the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and the motion presented by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is that, in his interpretation, his motion is more widespread and all-encompassing. This is where I take a different interpretation. In the economic and social reference contained in the motion by the Minister of Finance these other areas he has mentioned are encompassed. It may not be spelled out in detail, but you really cannot talk about scientific development without keeping a very close eye on both the social consequences and the economic parameters. The economic restraints we live with today are very real, and will be in the future.
I was very impressed by the last budget which the Minister of Finance tabled which indicated that several things were done in the scientific area. Every one of them was done with very close regard to the economic aspects of it. In all the measures that were brought down in the budget, we saw there was reference to how much money these entailed and how these compared to what happened in that past. In the words of the motion by the Minister of Finance, the narrow context of

social and economic parameters really encompasses all the wider ones. Therefore I see no difference between-


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
On the Order:
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act-The Minister of Justice.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Further to agreement made earlier this day with regard to the point of order with reference to the gun control bill, Bill C-51, I recognize the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I will not take too much of the time of the House. Before commencing my argument with respect to the matter, I wish to refer to some of the other efforts that have been made in the House with regard to this and similar legislation to achieve some kind of severence in subject matter. What I want to deal with initially is efforts that have been made in the past concerning similar legislation and attempts in the past to sever omnibus legislation into separate pieces of legislation. Those previous efforts failed.
I refer specifically to the efforts of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) in this House, and I think Your Honour was in the chair at that time, when he attempted to apply Standing Order 46 to introduce an amendment to the bill to have it referred back to committee to consider the procedure under which it was initially introduced.
There have been other efforts. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) made a similar attempt to have a bill directed to different committees to deal with different aspects. Again in that instance, it failed.
My initial submission is that on the precedents, which no doubt the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) will raise in opposition to this motion, the relevant rule is Standing Order 47 which reads as follows:
May 9, 1977

A motion to refer a bill, resolution or any question to a Committee of the Whole, or any Standing or Special Committee, shall preclude all amendment of the main question.
In each case there was an attempt to amend the main question. Those applications failed on that ground. I want to impress upon Your Honour that the thrust of my argument does not deal with the amendment to the legislation. It is not founded on the arguments that were presented previously. It is founded on a different principle. That principle is provided under Standing Order 51 which reads as follows:
Whenever Mr. Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of Parliament, he shall apprise the House thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and quote the Standing Order or authority applicable to the case.
The word I want to emphasize in this Standing Order is the word "privileges". I am not arguing that Bill C-51 was introduced contrary to the rules. It is clearly within the Standing Orders. What I argue is that it violates the essential and ancient privileges of this House and the ancient privileges of British parliamentary tradition.
Those privileges are set forth succinctly over and over again in rulings that have been made in other parliaments and in this parliament saying members should not be placed in the position of having to vote aye on a motion when they would wish to vote nay. That may sound like an inconsistency, but in a sense a motion can betray the wishes of an hon. member to his constituents. In other words, if an hon. member's vote can be misrepresented to his constituency, it is an ancient tradition of the House that the member of parliament should be given an opportunity to register his vote clearly in terms of the issue in question.
As authority for that proposition I would like to refer Your Honour to the decision rendered in the British House of Commons on November 13, 1912. I will refer to it again in the course of my argument in terms of a ruling made by a previous Speaker of this House during the flag debate. This is what Mr. Speaker of the British House said on November 13, 1912, with regard to a similar point of order:
-the rule of course is if any hon. member feels embarrassed on voting on a resolution that the Chair shall revise the resolution in order that the member may, if he wishes to vote "Aye" on the one part and "No" on the other not be embarrassed by having to vote "Aye" or "No" on the whole of it-
In essence, that is the problem that all members of the House face with regard to Bill C-51.
Now I would like to go back to Bill C-51 because there has to be some history given to understand why so many members of the House feel so strongly about being placed in the invidious position of having their vote on that bill misinterpreted.
The history of this bill is that on the wiretapping section, a minority parliament, in a very abrasive debate, finally resolved itself, came to a position and passed the wiretap legislation, which was at that time a very high profile matter in the minds of the public. Subsequent to that we had the question of gun control. I do not think there is any member of the House who
Criminal Code
cannot say he has had literally hundreds and hundreds of letters on the subject of gun control. It is one of the major issues in the country, and it is something that we cannot ignore in this place in terms of the votes of members on such a piece of legislation.
The problem is that when this bill comes to second reading and members of parliament are asked how they voted on the gun control bill, they are in the incredible position of having to say, "Well, there was wiretapping; there were penitentiary provisions; there was gun control, and the provisions on dangerous offenders". How do you explain that, by virtue of that long standing British tradition that a member should not be required to vote aye when he wishes to vote nay, and be in the invidious position of not being able to take a clear stand on a public issue that is so distinct? I am not suggesting that we sever every piece of legislation. What I am saying is that Bill C-51 is like putting old age pensions and the Mackenzie Valley pipeline into the same bill and asking members of parliament to vote on it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: That is clearly wrong in terms of British parliamentary tradition. It is even wrong in terms of the American parliamentary tradition to which we are not as bound. But let us look at the American experience.
If we were to discuss this with an American senator, I suggest it would be inconceivable for him to have before him two such provisions such as wiretapping and gun control and to be told that he cannot vote separately on those items on second reading of the bill or on the principle of the bill, because the essential principles behind wiretapping and gun control are completely different and completely unrelated, yet members of parliament are placed in the invidious position of having to make one decision on both these matters. We are now faced with having to make a Hobson's choice. Some of us may agree with both provisions, some with one or the other, but we are placed in the position of having Hobson's choice in terms of the public perception of where their members of parliament stand.
The public is entitled, according to the British parliamentary tradition, to know where their member stands by virtue of the way he votes in the House, and he cannot do that on Bill C-51 because the government has, very shrewdly, joined these very inconsistent provisions, particularly because of the high profile these two subjects have in the minds of the public.
Now I would like to refer Your Honour to Hansard of June 15, 1964. That was the time of the flag debate in the House. A motion was presented by the government under government orders. I will not read the whole motion, but in essence it said that there shall be a new flag for Canada. That flag is the one we now have. It also said there shall be a second flag for Canada, a red ensign, which will be used on certain other occasions. There was a great dispute in the House because there was a variety of opinions about the flag.
It was a very emotional issue. Some members wanted only the red ensign, some wanted only the flag we have now, and
80016-4%

May 9, 1977
Criminal Code
there were some members who thought the motion was all right. It left members in the invidious position of having to say either yea and nay to this motion and finding it impossible to explain the position they had taken in the House to their constituents.
At that time the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) raised a point of order, and I will paraphrase some of the argument he put forward. He also drew attention to Standing Order 51.1 will not repeat it, but it does provide that when the Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered is contrary to the privileges of parliament, he can take the appropriate action.
Again I say that the form of this bill leaves us in an impossible position and violates the ancient rights of parliament.
Perhaps I could deal briefly with two authorities. One is May's Parliamentary Practice, thirteenth edition, and I will quote from page 270. The reason I quote this particular authority is in case Your Honour may believe that a bill is something entirely different from a motion. The argument made in May covers when we are dealing with a separate subject. May makes it very clear. He states:
Every matter is determined in both Houses upon questions put by the Speaker upon a motion made by a member, and resolved in the affirmative or negative, as the case may be.
We are dealing with a motion in exactly the same way as we were dealing with a motion during the Canadian flag debate.
I would like to refer also to page 297 of Bourinot's fourth edition where the following is stated:
"Whenever the speaker is of opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament-
Again I emphasize the phrase "privileges of parliament"
-he shall apprise the House thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and quote the rule or authority applicable to the case".
What I am asking Your Honour to consider seriously is that, before the House deals with this bill in second reading debate, you should make a ruling on whether the bill in its present form offends the ancient privileges of parliament, so that members can have an opportunity not to confuse their aye or nay on such a fundamentally important question as either gun control or wiretapping.
In the precedent on which I rely quite heavily, the precedent of the flag debate, a great deal of argument went back and forth concerning the complication of the motion, but when it was all over, Mr. Speaker Macnaughton, having considered the arguments pro and con, came to a conclusion which, I submit to Your Honour, is the fair and appropriate conclusion to reach in these circumstances. He said this, and I quote from page 4306:
Taking into consideration the references and quotations just cited, and more especially the view expressed by the Speaker of the British house on November 13,1912, where he said:
-the rule of course is if any honourable member feels embarrassed on voting on a resolution that the Chair shall revise the resolution in order that the member may, if he wishes to vote 'Aye' on the one part and 'No' on the other not be embassassed by having to vote 'Aye' or 'No' on the whole of it,-

-I must come to the conclusion that the motion before the house contains two propositions, and since strong objections have been made to the effect that these two propositions should not be considered together, it is my duty to divide them as follows:
And he did, and he called for separate votes on the question of the new flag or the Red Ensign.
I submit that we are again dealing with exactly the same situation in this House. Part of the reason for the ruling in 1964 on the flag debate dealt with the history of the debate, how it became emotionally charged and how people out in the country took stands pro and con. Therefore members of parliament were left trying to reflect in their own minds, represent their constituents and have a clear vote on the subject so that their constituents would not be confused as to where they stood in this place.
I submit that combining gun control and wiretapping in the same bill leaves us in exactly the same position as where we were in 1964. I ask hon. members to look at their mail. I ask them to consider how their constituents stand on these two very important and sometimes emotional issues. I question whether it is fair under British parliamentary practice that hon. members in this House should be asked to vote on such a combined question, leaving them in the ambiguous position of trying desperately to explain whether they were for or against. It is inconsistent to place these two things in the same bill, particularly in light of the history of the bill.
Mr. Speaker Macnaughton went on to say the following:
Therefore, unless there should be an appeal to the house from my decision, and my decision is not sustained, it is my intention to put the question on the first part of the motion as divided.
I suggest that the question of gun control should be severed from the bill and that Your Honour has full power under the rules to rule that on second reading of Bill C-51 the Chair can call the question on part one of the motion of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), gun control, and then call a separate question on the remainder of the bill.
There is authority in the rules. Precedents have been set in English parliamentary practice, but I think it most important that common sense should prevail in these circumstances. The plain history of this legislation and the issues which have been debated across the country are such that common sense should also prevail in this House, and members of parliament should be given an opportunity to vote separately on these vital and important questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Before going further, I should indicate to the hon. member and to others who want to participate in the discussion that the Chair would not have great difficulty, assuming that the cases were identical or very close to it, or if we were dealing with a resolution like the flag resolution which contained within its terms mutually contradictory or, if not contradictory, at least duplicate statements, so that the Chair could be persuaded that a member was put into the invidious position of having to vote for a resolution which contained two parts, wanting to vote in favour of one and against the other.
May 9, 1977

That reasoning is sound as far as it goes, but to my knowledge it has not been carried over to a resolution which simply gives second reading and reference to a committee of a bill which contains several parts, the theory being, first of all, that the motion is not in its own terms duplicate because the motion does one thing, although the bill may do several.
The second part of the reasoning against it is that the member has the opportunity in committee, presumably, to vote against or amend those parts which are distasteful to him, and similarly at the report stage to take some steps to bring the House to a vote with respect to those distasteful or disagreeable portions of the bill.
Therefore, the situations are quite different. However, it would be helpful if there were some extension of the flag resolution reasoning across to the second reading motion reasoning that we have traditionally followed, and if the hon. member has anything to add to what he has already said, I would be glad to hear him.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for inviting me to respond to your remarks. The point about the distinction between a resolution and a motion is, I submit, met by the principle contained within the original British parliamentary practice. The argument about this being a bill rather than a resolution is, I admit, a difficult one to face, but it still does not deal with the principle which has been enshrined in British parliamentary practice. I still say that the mere fact that it is a bill should not violate that fundamental principle, and if we need to set a precedent here and now, which Your Honour has full authority to do, and if we need to present for the first time this principle in this House dealing with a bill, it seems to me that we will go a long way toward improving the quality of this place. That is the first thing. I admit I could not find a precedent dealing with a bill specifically, but it seems to me that the principle is so well enshrined in parliamentary practice that Your Honour should apply it.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on the last point Your Honour raised I have the same difficulty. I did the same search as the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). I dropped my line over the same boat and came up with the same empty hook, as the hon. member described it. I confess that at the outset of my argument.
However, I think it is important to note that Bill C-51 does not deal merely with firearms control and electronic surveillance; it deals with dangerous offenders, custody, release of inmates and revisions to the Prisons and Reformatories Act. It deals not just with amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada but to other statutes as well.
With regard to the position of members of parliament and how they must deal with constituents and matters about which there might be conflicting opinions, I think the House should consider carefully what the hon. member for New Westminster has said. When a member has to vote aye on a bill when he really means nay, that has an effect on the business of the House. The practice of lumping bills together, which has developed in the Canadian House of Commons, has been a
Criminal Code
long one. It provokes hon. members to speak and to explain their positions to their constituents, which they might not otherwise have to do.
Whether the practice is legal is one thing, but I think the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) and his colleagues in the ministry ought to realize the effect this has upon private members in terms of the business of the House.
I have looked at some precedents regarding this practice. I would like to read into the record something which was not read into the record by the hon. member for New Westminster. Perhaps it was not read into the record because of the modesty and the shy and retiring nature of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Mr. Benjamin:: Shy, but not retiring.


Walter David Baker: In the Journals of the House of Commons for Tuesday, January 26, 1971, there is a reference to this argument being raised in connection with a bill dealing with the organization of the government. It reorganized about seven departments of government and seven statutes, some of which might appeal to some members of parliament and others which might not appeal to the same group and so on. We had this horrible mixture of conflicting approaches to a particular bill, at least in the mind of any one member who might be in favour of one thing and against another.
At page 284 of the Journals of January 26, 1971, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is quoted as saying:
"This procedure places the Members of the House in the situation of being faced with a resolution which deals with eight different matters. Naturally there are eight different principles involved under ordinary circumstances. As far as I can see from casual examination, most of these things are matters which perhaps everyone in the committee would agree with. When we hear more about them, that may not be so. In any event, it might very well be that amongst those eight amendments is one with which we would disagree violently and therefore feel called upon to vote against the resolution or particularly, after we have the bill and have the information, to vote against the bill because of that one matter."
It really puts this parliament in an invidious position.
I have examined the precedents referred to in this particular extract from the Journals-they go back a long way-and I regret to say that the precedent of this House seems to be that this practice is "acceptable" in the parliamentary sense. I think the best you can say about the practice is that it is legal. In terms of the operation of this House it is not reprehensible, it is not immoral, but it is certainly bad.


John Raymond Ellis: It is cunning.


Walter David Baker: If I had a suspicious mind I would be tempted to adopt the words of the deputy opposition whip, that it smacks of some form of cunning in the approach to the legislative process.
I hope that representations will be made by those in charge of drafting legislation to the lions in the Department of Justice that they ought to carefully consider what they are doing, (a)

May 9, 1977
Criminal Code
to the legislative process in the House of Commons, and (b) to the understanding of the legislative process by the general public.
In respect of this bill the general public deluged us with representations pertaining to firearms-and they may do so again-but generally ignored the equally important provisions on electronic surveillance, dangerous offenders, and custody and release of inmates. I dare say members would not be stoop shouldered from the weight of correspondence received in regard to the rest of the legislation. I think this practice is so bad that it misrepresents to the public the intent and purpose of parliament. If parliament is to remain relevant, if the actions of members of parliament are to be understood, and if members are to be held accountable, then I think this practice ought not to be followed.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that omnibus bills do nothing but prolong debate in the House. In this day and age of communications being almost instant between constituents and members of parliament, the member has somehow to explain himself and the position he takes. The only way he can do that logically is to answer the mail he receives which comes from a few people who question his actions, or else the only place he can do it is in this House where it is put on the record.
We are dealing with the whole attitude of the public toward parliament. A line has to be drawn somewhere and a study made of what is happening. It may be that in your summation of the position, and in your findings with respect to the arguments put to you, that you can commence the drawing of the line between what is appropriate for an omnibus bill and what is not appropriate. It may be that you do not feel you can do it here, but I hope you can. It is important that the House of Commons start-and the public will follow in terms of knowledge-to understand that there is a limit to the use of the omnibus bill, the lumping together of all kinds of things that may be related but often may not be related at all. That leads to such confusion that only a Philadelphia lawyer could understand the bill to begin with, and members of parliament have difficulty in establishing clearly and succinctly for the public what their position is, and ensuring that the positions taken in the House are not misconstrued.
I am not going to repeat the precedents. I think the hon. member for New Westminster has done that. I must say in conclusion, however, that if the practice is to be found legal in the sense that governments can have all they want with respect to omnibus bills, then this practice, which is continuing and growing, borders on the irresponsible. It could very well bring this House into disrepute and make the life of members, in terms of how they vote, untenable and, worst of all, unexplainable.
[ Translation]


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at length on this matter. I listened with a lot of interest to the hon. member for New Westminister (Mr. Leggatt) and the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). If I did understand the argument of the hon. member for New Westminster, he suggested that the procedure adopt-

ed in this case by the government in relation to Bill C-51 was clearly within the rules of the House but he was objecting on the grounds of the privileges of the House. As to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, in his inimitable and usual style he said he was confused-which did not surprise government members-and did not understand the legislation put forward by the government. In brief, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton nevertheless clearly stated, at least it would seem, that this practice was legal and sanctioned by the customs of this House, and in fact we all know that the practice of introducing omnibus bills in the House is not a recent one, particularly in relation to the Criminal Code to which the hon. member for New Westminster referred, who did try to limit his remarks to the amendments in Bill C-51 dealing with the control of firearms and the amendments dealing with wire-tapping.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is not a new area in which the practice is to have omnibus bills, and the reason for that is quite simple: the Criminal Code, as we all know, includes a great variety of provisions on a great variety of subjects. If one wanted to push the argument of my hon. colleague to the extreme a separate bill would have to be introduced every time we want to touch any section of the Criminal Code if the amendments did not all deal with the same subjects.
I will give a few examples, Mr. Speaker, with respect to omnibus bills. First, in 1969, the government introduced Bill C-150 amending the Criminal Code with respect to firearms, lotteries, abortions and alcohol abuse. In 1975, we had Bill C-71 which also included a whole series of provisions about summary conviction, rape, appeal procedures and release on bail. Moreover it is our usual practice not only in criminal matters but also quite frequent in non criminal matters to use the same procedure, as was done during this session for Bills C-19, C-27, C-48 and C-52.
However, I would like to say a few words in answer to the point raised by the hon. member for New Westminster who said that hon. members would not have the opportunity to vote on each provision itself, but would have to vote on the provisions taken as a whole. On this point, I would only refer hon. members to two paragraphs of the debate of January, 26, 1971 when your predecessor had to make a decision on an issue which was not identical but similar matter. I quote from page 2768 of Hansard for January 26, 1971:
Perhaps hon. members might have wanted to say the same thing about the bill now before the House. There is no question, without going further into the details, that this is a long established practice. We have had this type of omnibus bill before the House on many occasions.

Of course the Chair goes on and says a little further: [English]
The House must note that there is a third reading stage of a bill. When a bill comes to the House for third reading-



And I realize the procedure has changed somewhat since then.

-there is not one clause or one part of the bill that cannot be brought into question by way of an amendment proposing that the particular clause or section be referred back to committee. I think this gives every hon. member an opportunity to vote either for or against, or to express his views in the House either for or against, a particular clause of the bill, and to do so by way of a recorded vote. Accordingly there still is a measure of protection afforded hon. members.

To sum up, Mr. Speaker, I would say there must be a number of precedents particularly in matters concerning criminal law. Moreover, we do find a single theme throughout this bill since its real purpose is to offer Canadian society better protection against violent offenders and other criminals.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, as we can see in the quotation I just made from the official report, hon. members will have the opportunity in committee and at the third reading stage to move an amendments and to vote for or against the proposals of the bill. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the bill has been proposed according to the Standing Orders of the House. There is no abuse of the privileges of hon. members of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the question you must decide is not an easy one, and I also recognize the validity of the points already raised by the Chair in response to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). However, one or two other things can be said, to which I hope Your Honour will give consideration.
First, I suggest that the argument just now advanced by the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox), which was similar to the point Your Honour made about second reading, does meet the point. The right, after second reading, either in committee of the whole or in a standing committee to vote against some clause of the bill, does not alter the fact that such a vote is separate and distinct from a vote on second reading. On the second reading vote, the hon. member has only one vote to cast on the whole bill and all that is in it. The same applies at third reading.
The Solicitor General suggested that at third reading a member could move an amendment to refer the bill back to committee for the consideration of any clause thereof, and thus put his position on record with respect to any such clause. But on the assumption that all such amendments are defeated, we are left with the third reading vote on the bill. The member casts one vote for or against all the propositions contained in the bill, for the individual member has only one vote. So I think that side of the argument is not cut and dried.
However, since Your Honour is responsible for procedure you must decide whether this argument applies to the bill in the same way as it applied to a resolution. I should like to read a few sentences from May's 19th edition, at page 380. I have read the same things in earlier editions, and they are also to be found somewhere in Beauchesne. May says:
Criminal Code
The ancient rule that when a complicated question is proposed to the House, the House may order such question to be divided, has been variously interpreted at different periods. Originally the division of such a question appears to have required an order of the House, and in 1770 a motion 'That it is the rule of this House, that a complicated question which prevents any member from giving his free assent or dissent to any part thereof ought, if required, to be divided,' was negatived on a division ... As late as 1883-
We are coming to modern times:
-it was generally held that an individual member had no right to insist upon the division of a complicated question. In 1888, however, the Speaker ruled that two propositions which were then before the House in one motion could be taken separately if any member-
In other words, any one member:
-objected to their being taken together...
That was the ruling of 1888. I am reading from May's 19th edition, the latest edition.


Walter David Baker: It still has the dust covers on it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes. I continue:
... Although this ruling does not appear to have been based on any previous decision, it has since remained unchallenged. A complicated question can, however, only be divided if each part is capable of standing on its own.
The practice at present seems to be clear. At one time it was done by a vote. Then, at one point the Speaker seemed to make the decision. Then he said that a member cannot require the splitting of a proposition. Finally he said that if one member wants a division because of a complicated question, division of the proposal into its separate parts has to take place.
Having said all this and having mentioned ancient dates, may I point out that there is a footnote (a) which applies to the sentence ending "it has since remained unchallenged." That footnote (a) at the bottom of the page, in print so tiny I can hardly read it, seems to refer to things which have happened as late as 1968 and 1969. There is a reference to page 1313 concerning amendments to bills.
At Westminster the practice has become established. May contains such a reference with respect to bills. I know that in our records there is no case of the Speaker ordering a bill to be split because of two different propositions contained in that bill, but there is Mr. Speaker Macnaughton's ruling of 1964, when, as my hon. friend said, I raised a point of order, that the flag motion ought to be split.
There are also precedents that are relevant or parallel. They have arisen since Your Honour took the Chair. I say this since on two or three or occasions Your Honour has ordered changes in bills. There was that famous bill I always like to mention about the pay of members of parliament which was amended a certain way in committee, with the approval of the government. Your Honour ordered that bill to be sent back. Then we had one or two supply bills where, because the rules had not been adhered to, Your Honour ordered changes. Your Honour has ordered things like that to be done. I therefore suggest that the question of whether Your Honour has the right to look at a bill and order that something ought to be done to it has been established by no less distinguished a person than the present occupant of the chair.

May 9, 1977
Criminal Code
If you couple that with the decision of Mr. Speaker Mac-naughton, a decision the government did not like because it seemed to challenge its right to put down any motion it wanted, the result, I suggest, is that there seems to be support for the proposition, which is still in vogue at Westminster and which May's 19th edition refers to, that no member, not even one, should be asked to vote on a question which is so complicated that, in order to say yes to something he likes in the bill, he must also say yes to something he does not like in it, and vice-versa. I think, therefore, that Your Honour having made these other decisions about bills being contrary to the rules and privileges of the House, you should consider very carefully whether this bill with these two completely disparate subjects in it does not contravene our rights and privileges, in which case Your Honour ought to order, or at least suggest, that it be split so that there can be two separate bills enabling hon. members to vote on the different subjects.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, as an amateur in this field I hesitate to rise, but having long established my amateur standing I should like to say one or two words on this point of order as an amateur backbencher or as a backbencher who is an amateur.
My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre said this was a mixture of complicated questions. The hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) noted that the bill seeks to combine measures dealing with wire tapping, gun control, the customs tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiaries Act, and the Prisons and Reformatories Act. I do not know how the customs tariff got in the middle there, but it is a mixture of complicated questions, as my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre said.
As I understand it, the House considers, on second reading, the principle of the measure before it. The vote on second reading is directed to the principle involved. I gather, however, that members are now being asked to vote for or against two measures in particular which, in principle, are entirely different.
In relation to gun control it seems to me we are dealing with the question of whether citizens may own and bear arms and, if so, under what conditions, whereas the provisions related to wire tapping concern civil rights and civil liberties in terms of the invasion of privacy, watching and besetting, and so on. Some members may agree with the proposals concerning gun control while disagreeing with the way in which citizens rights are dealt with in the area of wire tapping and the ensurance of privacy. On the other hand, certain members may disagree with the principle advanced with respect to gun control measures while agreeing with that part of the bill which involves the rights of citizens with respect to privacy.
It seems to me we are being asked to vote on two quite opposite principles. One has to do with the privileges of citizens, and the other concerns the fundamental rights of citizens. I suspect that opinions in the House on these two measures vary a great deal, to say nothing of what they might

be about the other five portions of the bill. I hope Your Honour will allow members to vote separately at least on the principles of the two major items to which I have referred, namely, gun control and wire tapping. It seems to me there is such a wide difference between the principles involved in these two measures that it is unfair to ask us to vote "all or nothing" on second reading.
If I may add to what my hon. friend said, I should like to touch on another aspect-it occurred to me when the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) mentioned third reading. No matter what happens to amendments in committee we can still be faced with voting "all or nothing" on third reading. Surely that is not good enough. I myself would be agreeable to the bill being divided into seven parts, although I admit there may be grounds for combining three or four into one, since they affect only the privileges of our citizens. If people are dangerous offenders, then they obviously lost some of the rights the rest of us enjoy when they became dangerous offenders. Others lost some of their rights under the provisions of the Parole Act or under the other acts to which the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton referred. This reinforces my main argument. To ask hon. members to vote "all or nothing" on a matter which affects the privileges of citizens in conjunction with a principle which affects the rights of citizens is unacceptable, because the two principles are incompatible. I hope Your Honour will rule that the bill should be separated, at least in the areas of gun control and wire tapping, so that we may vote on these issues separately.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to belabour the points which have been made in the course of this discussion. I think it has been an interesting and worth-while discussion about an important point. I simply wish to underline two considerations which have been advanced. One, of course, is the distinction which Your Honour has drawn between the rules relating to resolutions and the rules relating to legislation. This is a valid distinction and one which serves to support our proceeding with Bill C-51 as it presently stands. Moreover, it tends to minimize the value of the precedents which have been cited to support the argument put forward by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) and others.
Further, I should like to underline the suggestion made by the House leader for the official opposition who indicated that this approach to legislation is legal and not improper, and that while he might wish to complain about omnibus bills in specific cases the practice was an acceptable one and well established and recognized under our rules.


Walter David Baker: Not acceptable, but recognized.


Ralph Goodale: I would want to check that phrase. I believe the word "acceptable" was used, but I shall stand to be corrected when I see Hansard tomorrow.
What members of the NDP are complaining is the complexity of legislation. This is a problem which faces all mem-
May 9, 1977

bers of the House. It is unfortunate, but we live in a complex and complicated world-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: But why make it worse?


Ralph Goodale: Sometimes parliament must respond accordingly. I suggest that legislation in this day and age sometimes must fall into the realm of things that are complicated. Our parliamentary process, well established as it is through years of tradition, as a "total process" is designed to cope with this complexity. As the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) has pointed out, we follow a very long, careful and reasoned deliberative process when dealing with legislation. This is a process which is distinctly different from the process which is designed to deal with resolutions in the House of Commons; if I may use shorthand, that is a shorter and much simpler process.
In dealing with legislation, the process that this House goes through, I think we would all agree, is time consuming, for a reason which basically allows members of the House to examine legislation very carefully and to make sure that their views and opinions are put on the record. We have the second reading stage where matters of principle are considered; we have the committee stage where legislation is considered clause by clause and votes are taken clause by clause; we have the report stage where it is possible again for consideration to be given to legislation clause by clause; and finally we have third reading debate, where positions can once again be stated. All of that must take place before making a final decision and taking a vote of the House. That is the procedure that must be followed by the House of Commons when it deals with legislation.
That procedure is distinctly different from the process and the steps involved in dealing with resolutions. That is one of the reasons why there may well be the distinction, to which Your Honour referred earlier this evening. A member might be in a position to complain about inconsistent or distinctly different parts of a resolution and to argue that those parts be separated. I do not think that argument can be valid or can stand in the case of legislation, as opposed to a resolution, for a number of reasons, one reason being the different process which this House itself follows in dealing with these two distinctly different things. The system, rules, and procedures of this institution already guard against the matter complained of tonight because of the step by step deliberative process of the House of Commons when dealing with legislation; and it was admitted earlier this evening by the hon. member for New Westminster that the bill itself is in fact within the rules of the House of Commons.
The propriety of omnibus bills is clearly established, and I think is accepted in our practices and our precedents. On that basis I think the objections which have been raised by the hon. member for New Westminster cannot stand, and that it is quite proper and within our practices and privileges to continue with Bill C-51 as it stands.
Criminal Code


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for New Westminster seeking to clarify a matter?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Yes, Mr. Speaker. What I wish to clarify is this. Your Honour put two propositions to me at the conclusion of my remarks. One had to do with the difference between a resolution and a bill. The second proposition you put to me was with regard to the opportunity that a member might have following second reading vote to clarify the situation either in committee or at third reading. In answer to the second reservation which Your Honour may have about this question, in order to clarify one's position in committee there would have to be 264 members on the committee.
The present procedure is that it is not the committee of the whole which will consider this bill, which means that members will not have the opportunity to explain in a procedural way the position that they would take in principle on this particular piece of legislation. In other words, Mr. Speaker, they are locked into the same inconsistency that exists on second reading and on third reading, and thus the procedure of this House does not resolve the dilemma that members of parliament are faced with in terms of the innate inconsistency that exists in the motion before the House.
The second question that was raised by the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) was whether members were somewhat confused. It is not the members who are confused; it is the attempt of members to stop confusion of the public and to allow the public to be properly informed about what actually happens in this House in terms of the votes and proceedings. I submit Your Honour has ample authority under the terms of British precedents to establish a very worth-while precedent here in giving members the opportunity of voting separately on a bill which has such a clear inconsistency in principle. It is impossible to vote one way only on the principle of the bill before the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A point of order having been raised by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) earlier in the day, it was agreed that at a convenient time, which turned out to be at eight o'clock this evening, time would be taken to hear argument on both sides. That has now been done, and it has interrupted the House's consideration of another matter to which we will now return.
I should indicate, as would be expected, that on a matter of some importance I will take some time to consider the argument, to examine the precedents carefully, and attempt to rule on the matter before the bill is again before the House. The matter which was under discussion when private members' hour was called at five o'clock this afternoon was, I believe, Bill C-49, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan. If I understand correctly, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had the floor.

May 9, 1977
5438_____________________________________________
Canada Pension Plan CANADA PENSION PLAN


AMENDMENT TO EXTEND DEFINITIONS
[Stage Direction]
The Elouse resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen (for the Minister of National Health and Welfare) that Bill C-49, to amend the Canada Pension Plan, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the debate on the second reading of Bill C-49 was interrupted at five o'clock, I had indicated our readiness to support the bill because it takes two very timid steps in the right direction. The direction, of course, is to recognize the place of women who work in the home. My contention is that that place should be fully recognized, not just partially as is proposed by this bill.
We accept the splitting of credits of the two spouses for Canada Pension Plan purposes when there is marriage breakdown, and we accept the idea that a woman-or a man, but in most cases it is a woman-who stays home from work to raise children should not be penalized in terms of her Canada Pension Plan benefits because of that activity. I have already suggested that I think there is a better, more universal way to provide the equivalent of Canada Pension Plan benefits for those who have years when they do not contribute. I need not spell that out further tonight because I indicated the idea I had in mind when I spoke this afternoon, and I hope the minister and his department will give serious consideration to it. If it works out, as so often happens, that it takes a few years, five or ten, to put something like that into effect, I trust that those who are here today will remember when they first heard the idea proposed.
When debate was interrupted at five o'clock, I was proceeding to say a few things in reply to the remarks of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). He had taken offence at the reference in the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. McRae) to the non-concurrence of the government of Ontario in the proposed amendment which would allow mothers to stay home to raise their children and not lose their pension credits. The defence the hon. member for Hamilton West put up was that Ontario wants to look at the whole question of pensions and pension funding. My good friend from Hamilton launched into broad, general statements to the effect that the whole nation is concerned about what is happening to our pension plans, that everybody wants to get these things sorted out, and so on.
I suggest that the only people who are concerned in the terms indicated by the hon. member for Hamilton West are those who make money out of pension plans-the insurance companies, the Colin Browns, the people who support Geoffrey Calvert, those who see pension plans as a means of making money. Most of us see pension plans as a way of determining that the older people in our society will get their share of the wealth that society produces in any decade or in any year.

I know of no subject that is confused by figures so much as is the question of the funding of pension plans. When persons are pensioners and live on those pensions, they are not living on food, clothing and services that they saved when they were working. They are living on food, clothing and services that are being produced right then. What pension plans, pension accounts, pension figures and all the rest of it do is simply to arrive at a calculation as to how much a person shall get in his retirement years. These opponents of indexing are telling us that a few years down the road there will be pensions twice as much as are being paid now, and that that will break the system. When I came to this place, the old age pension was $20 a month.


Mr. Abbott:: That was the nineteenth century, though.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, it was in this century.


An hon. Member:: Just barely. Anyway, it was a Liberal government which introduced old age pensions.


An hon. Member:: It was the minister's father.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh no! But leave his dad alone because his dad is on a judge's pension.
If at that time I had suggested a pension of $100 a month or $140 a month, as it is now, members of that day would have said that would break the economy. We have now got more than $140 as the basic pension paid to everyone who is 65 years of age and over, and I submit we have a much better economy than we had then.
When I came here, the average wages for industrial workers were in the $2,000 to $3,000 bracket. If anyone had said then that 30-odd years later the average was going to be around $10,000 or $12,000 a year, these same people would have said that that would break the economy.
When I came here, members of parliament were paid $4,000 a year and no expense allowance. If anyone had said then that 30-odd years later we would be getting in pay and allowances over $36,000 a year-nine times as much-persons would have said then that that would break the economy.
Mr. Speaker, 30 years from now these figures are going to be ancient history. Wages are going to be higher; probably the indemnities of members of parliament, despite my opposition, are going to be higher; and pensions are going to be higher. I just hope that they will be higher in the same proportion. That is what the indexing of pensions is all about-making sure that as other incomes go up the share of the wealth we produce, which is allocated to senior citizens, will also go up. To say we cannot afford it or to say that it will break the system is not to pay any attention to the realities of the pension situation.
If we can afford today to devote a certain portion of the goods and services that are produced in this decade to the education of children, to family allowances, a certain portion to health and a certain portion to the retirement of senior
May 9, 1977

citizens, we can do it ten years from now or 20 years from now or 30 years from now, even if that portion is in many more dollars. If wages have doubled and if costs have doubled, I hope that pensions will have doubled as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: What seems to bother the Colin Browns and the Geoffrey Calverts is that indexing seems to guarantee that the pensioners will continue to get a share of the wealth produced that is commensurate with the capacity of society at that day. Let us not be confused by these figures or by these assertions that we will go broke. Let us not be confused by those who say we are putting an unnecessary burden on our children and our grandchildren. We are simply saying that tomorrow's generation will be human beings, as we are, and will do the same thing that this generation is doing. We will decide what portion of the wealth we produce is to go to those who are working, what portion is to go to the children, and what portion is to go to our older people.
I am immensely proud of the progress we have made in this field since the day I came here, which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott) thought was in the last century. We have come a long way from that $20 a month at age 70 with a means test. One of the tremendous improvements we have made is the Canada Pension Plan itself which, incidentally, is indexed. It is indexed while people are contributing to it on the basis of the wage index, and it is indexed after retirement on the basis of the Consumer Price Index. For a while there was a limit of 2 per cent per year, and then we accepted the proposition that it should be equal to the actual rise in the Consumer Price Index. It is a good scheme, and I see the day coming when it will have to be enlarged. Instead of just paying a pension of 25 per cent of the average of one's last three years, it will have to pay 40 per cent, 50 per cent or even more. I see this development taking the control of pensions away from those who sell pensions for benefit and cannot meet the need for all pensions to be indexed. I see the development bringing more of the security of our older people under the responsibility of the people as a whole in a greatly increased old age security pension and an improvement in the Canada Pension Plan itself.
To suggest that the Ontario government is saying no to this slight improvement for women, because it wants to take a look at the whole question of the funding of the Canada Pension Plan and all the rest, is a terribly backward step. No one has been more critical than I have of the slowness of the government across the way. The fact of the matter is that in the old age security system that we have built up, based on universality up to a point, and in the other stage-the Canada Pension Plan we have established-we have done well. I do not want to see it held back by the Colin Browns, the Geoffrey Calverts and the Ontario government who say we must not take even this little step without checking the whole pension system. It is a good scheme we have got. I think it is worthy of a lot better
Canada Pension Plan
step forward than we are shown in this bill that is before us tonight.
To get back to the bill itself, as I said this afternoon when I began, it is like a good many bills we have to consider. It does not go far enough, but because it goes in the right direction we support it. I hope, as a member of this House, to see the day when we will establish women's rights on the basis of absolute equality. It is not good enough to say to the women of this country, "The kinds of pensions you will get will depend upon the man you have got or on your attachment to a male." Women should stand on their own feet. One of the ways to make that a reality is to say to the women who stayed in the home and made that a career that they are entitled to a pension equivalent to the Canada Pension Plan, just as much as the women who go out and work in industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us not have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare standing up, as he did this afternoon, to say that this is a major step forward. It is only a slight step forward. Because of that, I shall vote for it. But I hope to see the day, as a member of this House, when we go all the way and accord to women pension rights that are equal across the board-rights in their own stead. Only then will there be pension equality between men and women.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, in order to give an unbiassed opinion on Bill C-49, as a preliminary comment and for the enlightenment of Hansard readers, allow me first to quote the beginning of the departmental press release.
Today in the House of Commons the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Marc Lalonde, has introduced amendments to the Canada Pension Plan the purpose of which is to recognize the role of working parents at home.
Those important changes were discussed during the federal-provincial review on social security which ended in June 1976 and were stated in the last Speech from the Throne.
The two main amendments are meant to provide some recognition and a measure of financial security to working spouses at home while keeping the same basic provisions of the plan: contributory, compulsory and related to incomes.
The first of the amendments will enable the equal splitting of CPP benefits acquired during the marriage between the husband and wife in case of divorce or annulment.
Pension credits would be equally divided, regardless of the amount of direct contributions paid by the husband or wife.
As a result, the assets accumulated during the marriage years would be divided equally when the marriage is dissolved.
Spouses having never worked outside the home and therefore having never contributed directly to the Canada Pension Plan, as well as those who contributed only for a short period of time, would be entitled to share the pension credits acquired by the husband or wife, by their contributions to the plan.
The division of credits acquired during the marriage years since the establishment of the plan in 1966 would be done on demand by either spouse within the three years following the marriage dissolution.
Further, the marriage would have to be dissolved after the amendment has come into force and the marriage would have lasted three years. The spouses would have lived together for at least three consecutive years.

May 9, 1977
Canada Pension Plan
I am going to dwell for a while on this amendment, for I should not have enough time to deal with all the other aspects of this bill.
I want to try to get to the gist of it so that Canadians will not be easily gulled by a presentation which is ambiguous, to say the least. The title of this bill inspires a lot more trust than its detailed reading. I would have hoped that this bill would bridge the gap between the woman working inside her home and the woman working outside. It is as though a mother with a family of two, three, four or even five children to rear is not considered as a working person on the labour market, not only by the Department of National Health and Welfare, but by all federal agencies, including the Department of Manpower and Immigration. Although it is a ridiculous situation, the working mother who must leave her job to care for her children is no longer considered an active worker and cannot receive unemployment insurance benefits. This is the sort of social mistake for which the authorities are responsible, without even knowing it. This is such a time honoured notion that, where we inquire with utmost simplicity whether a mother is working, we are told as stupidly as possible: No, she does not work. That is the answer because she does not work outside the home.
Today the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) introduces a bill which supposedly amends the Canada Pension Plan. Socially, it does not change a thing. Financially, it does not give a cent, it simply says to the husband or wife: From now on, the contribution shall be split in two, one part for you and the other for your spouse. That is what is called a reform in Bill C-49, and what is called the splitting of pension credits.
As a matter of fact, we can read the following in the statement released by the department:
Objectives: The clause concerning the splitting of pension credits upon termination of the marriage aims at guaranteeing to the "spouse at home" an equitable part of the assets acquired during the union. That provision provides therefore, when divorce or annulment of the marriage occurs, some measure of financial security and recognition to the "spouse at home" and the dependent children.
The amendments would permit the splitting, upon marriage breakdown, of the CPP pension credits earned by both spouses during their marriage, provided:
(a)	that the marriage lasted at least three years and that the spouses lived
together during at least three consecutive years;
(b)	that a request for the splitting of the pension credits be submitted less than
three years after the divorce or the annulment; and that
(c)	the marriage is dissolved after the amendment comes into force.
Thus, the bill considers only cases of divorce or annulment.
But what does it really do? It imposes a reduction to the spouse who was working outside the house in order to give something back to the other. That is all the minister does. If both spouses continue to live together till death, they will only enjoy the pension derived from the contbutions paid by the one who worked outside.
In my opinion, I would have preferred that the housewife raising her family at home get the same benefits as those provided to the woman with no family working outside. Indeed, when both spouses work outside, they both contribute

to the plan and both have their Canada Pension Plan, or Quebec Pension Plan for those living in Quebec.
Had the government wanted to do justice to the spouse at home, they would have given some portion of the pension credits to the housewife, to the spouse staying at home-as the previous speaker said a moment ago-so that the spouse at home or the mother of a family raising her children be considered absolutely like a worker within the labour force of Canada. If there is someone who works hard for her country, it surely is the mother of a family! Yet, all governments have totally forgotten her till now. So I want to tell the minister that he has made a very little step ahead towards greater social justice.
In addition, this little step does not cost him any money because the working spouse will be the one to support its consequences. That is why I ask the minister to present an amendment during the committee stage to give justice to the housewife. We often hear, for instance, that a minister cannot amend such or such a bill because of its financial impact. The minister cannot refuse to amend his bill on that ground because I have already pointed out that it would not have any financial consequences.
Finally, we have another evidence of that in the release we have received:
If the above conditions are complied with, pension credits of the spouses would be added and shared equally among them from the period beginning at the most recent of the following two dates: the first year of cohabitation or the year 1966 until the last year of cohabitation. For technical reasons, the sharing would apply for the first full year of cohabitation as well as the full year preceeding the last year of common life. If there have been periods of separation during the marriage, periods giving right to pension credit sharing could be affected.
Moreover, pension credits would not be shared for the whole period in which one of the two spouses has not been entitled to contribute to the plan, namely when he was under eighteen or when he was seventy or over or when he was drawing disability allowance or CPP benefits. Furthermore there would be no credit sharing for the whole year in which the sum of the pensions credits of the spouses does not exceed twice the amount of the basic exemption for the year, namely twice $900 in 1977.
Where one of the spouses or both are drawing disability allowance or CPP benefits when CPP credits are being shared,...
... or Quebec Pension Plan for Quebec .. .
... the benefits would be established at a new level according to the pension credits which are being shared. The adjusted amount would become payable the month following the application for sharing. Furthermore, when one of the spouses becomes eligible for CPP benefits, after the sharing of the pension credits, the current provisions concerning retroactive payment of the present legislation would apply.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to say how disappointed I am about the fact that the department always refuses to give up a few dollars in order to set up a more equitable social justice. We keep on reasoning and acting according to the money factor, instead of introducing renewed policies aimed at human capital. That is why people are so dissatisfied nowadays.
Once more, I appeal to the minister and all members of the standing committee of the House, so that they bring forward amendments and make of this bill an example of what the government can do, if such is its intention, on the matter of real social reform. I will vote of course in such a way that the
May 9, 1977

bill goes to committee, because I hope my remarks will be seriously taken into account, so that for a change we steer towards a real social reform that will give justice to all our courageous family mothers.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, speaking on this bill to amend the Canada Pension Plan Act gives us an opportunity to discuss not only these amendments but the state of pensions in Canada, both private and public. It is no secret that the state of pension plans is giving great concern to many Canadians who, in the past 30 or 40 years, have invested in certificates, life insurance policies, trust companies and so on. They are viewing with alarm the fact that their contributions are being wiped out by inflation. In the last budget we find the proposed tax on life insurance policies which would amount to a virtual confiscation through the tax system of what have been savings on pensions earned long ago. It has become increasingly apparent as time goes on that savings on private pension plans are virtually useless in many instances.
There are two major amendments in this bill. The first one is the splitting of the CPP earned during marriage. On divorce or annulment the total pension credit would be divided equally, regardless of the amount of contributions paid by husband and wife. Spouses who have never worked outside the home, as well as those who have contributed for a short time only, would be able to share the pension credits accrued through the CPP contributions made by the husband or wife. As I understand it, the application by either within three years of marriage dissolution would bring about the splitting. The marriage would have to be dissolved, and after three years they would get their share, but before the dissolution they would have had to be married for three consecutive years. This would apply if the amendment were to pass. This pension aspect seems to have the support of all the provinces as well as of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. It was extensively discussed at the federal-provincial ministers' conference on June 1 and 2 of 1976. It gives recognition to the wife who does not go out to work.
The proposal was that pension credits earned by spouses during a marriage would be divided equally between spouses on marriage dissolution. This would provide some financial security for the spouse who has remained at home as she would have immediate protection against disability, and also benefits for children, should the other parent die. Furthermore, she would be given some retirement benefits under CPP.
Under this legislation it would appear as if both partners had been contributing equally to the estate. I believe that an analysis would show that the splitting of credits would affect only a relatively small portion of contributors. Under the present legislation a series of exceptions would develop. These exceptions would complicate the plan further as they would retroactively alter accumulated pension credits. Situations would arise where individuals would move between split and unsplit pension credit circumstances. The effect of splitting
Canada Pension Plan
pension credits would be greatest on single wage earning families. The CPP retirement income would become available in two stages, according to the ages of the wage earner and the non-working spouse, and would reduce the dollar value of the wage earner's benefits. Also, disability benefits would increase on the death or disability of the non-working spouse. However, in the case where both marriage partners earn an income, the splitting of the pension credit would not be so great.
There are other problems that might arise. In the case of one partner receiving CPP disability retirement pension, retroactive splitting would reduce the recipient's benefits. Also, there might be a conflict with the provision which states that a person cannot be both a receiver and a contributor to a retirement or a disability fund at the same time. How this will affect disability should be reviewed. There is also the problem of low income families. Will retroactive splitting result in a loss of coverage that has been paid for because the level of each partner after splitting may be below the plan's basic exemption for a year? Again, retroactivity may involve administratively complex calculations since long periods may have to be recalculated. Also, what about the implications of private pension plans which are often meshed with CPP and old age security?
Is the definition of marriage dissolution restricted to legally terminated marriages, which excludes those people who are deserted, separated or living common law? In view of the fact that divorce is more often the privilege of the well to do, this will work further hardship on the low income group. Furthermore, how will the authorities who administer the CPP be informed of the breakdown of the marriage? These are some of the problems in the bill to which we will have to address ourselves.
The second major amendment has to do with those who leave the labour force to raise young children. The provision helps them guard against the deterioration of their CPP benefits during periods of low or no earning in the child raising years. Contributors would be able to drop out from the labour force for certain periods when they were raising their children and include these years when calculating their lifetime average earnings for benefit purposes. Since this clause is applicable back to January 1, 1966, it has major implications in principle.
This drop-out provision raises a question about whether the CPP is an insurance fund or a welfare fund. In fact, raising children and contributing to the CPP emphasizes the welfare aspect of the plan. One may well ask whether the CPP disregards those who may have had to drop out because of illness or some such thing. When the CPP was introduced, it was introduced as basic insurance, and this change is not in keeping with the original principle of the plan. It was a contributory plan based on actual years worked. For these women the CPP cannot be an earnings related plan. There may be some difficulty in recognizing the idea that the work of housewives is valid in an earnings related plan.

May 9, 1977
Canada Pension Plan
Over the years the basic orientation has been to a wage earner, and the plan has been tied to the earnings of the participant in terms of coverage, contributions, and benefits. Furthermore, as the drop out provision has considerable exemptions, it raises further complications. There is no coverage or protection for a spouse at home if she has never worked, if she worked only for a few years or if she had to leave the labour force to care for a disabled child or parent.
This drop out clause provides a subsidy without contribution, and as such moves towards social assistance rather than the insurance intent of the CPP. Are mothers who remain at home to care for a disabled parent or child entitled to less subsidy? If there is a principle of social justice in this area, should we limit this subsidy to housewives who remain at home to care for children and then return to the work force? Certain inequities and subsidization will result.
It seems likely that there would be a transfer of benefit from low income contributors to high income contributors because the plan is not fully funded, and low income families will not likely be able to take advantage of the drop out provision. For instance, a woman who works ten years out of a possible 40 is not presently entitled to one quarter of the full possible pension. Now, however, if she was raising children for ten years and was eligible for 20 years drop out, her pension would be half of her full possible pension. She would receive double pension without any extra contributions. This subsidization may be for those mothers who work at lower average incomes because they are not likely to stay home to look after children but have to get into the labour market.
It seems that inequity could be created between those who could afford to drop out and those who could not, the more well to do being the beneficiaries. This bill seems to create inequities between and among women. These could be explained by government actuaries.
Then there is a very basic problem. What is the role of the CPP, provincial financing, and the method of funding the CPP? I understand that Quebec government actuaries claim the drop out provision will increase total pension pay-outs by 4 per cent in the next 50 years. This estimate could be erroneous if the behaviour patterns of women change after the institution of the provision and, like unemployment insurance, it seems very likely that people would take advantage of these changes.
By 1982 pay-outs from the CPP will exceed outstanding provincial loans and interest charges. If present contribution rates do not go up, the provinces will have to pay at least a portion of their annual interest on their loans. By the year 2000 all loans will be repaid, and the pension will become a pay as you go operation. This is certainly an area which needs extensive discussion. At the moment current contributors are paying for the pensions of those who are now retired, and the degree of individual subsidization will increase as the plan matures.
Currently retired persons receive an abnormally high rate of subsidy, and as modifications are made to the CPP, these will tend to be passed on to future pensioners. The CPP is underfunded at the present, so it will enventually become exhausted.

There is also the problem of financial burden which can be placed on future generations, and there is a basic problem of the orientation of social insurance programs. In the United States social security system the situation has progressively improved. It has been extended over the past decade, but without appropriate adjustments at the contributory level. Therefore it is good to have a discussion about the role of the CPP. Is it a contributory insurance scheme? Is it an appropriate mechanism for providing something for spouses? Should we be doing it this way or some other way?
The second question relates to the orientation of the CPP, its social aspects and its insurance principle. The introduction of these amendments represents a further departure from the insurance principle.
A Globe and Mail article on January 21, 1977, had this to say about the CPP:
The Canada Pension Plan is supposed to provide retired workers with security. Instead, in its present form, it could dupe them into insecurity, rob their children and reduce the ability of Canada to produce the goods and services that are needed by all Canadians.
Mr. McKeough told the Canadian Pension Conference to consider some of the dangers of the CPP and some means of correcting them. He pointed out that the CPP is only half funded by contributions. This means that those who are working are supporting those who have retired. Canada had a baby boom followed by a sharp reduction in the birth rate. There is no way that this small number of workers can support large numbers of pensioners. They may well feel it impossible to finance them. The Globe and Mail article went on to say the following:
There are other problems arising from this redistribution of income. Workers, feeling that CPP will provide for their basic needs in retirement, don't save as much. Instead they spend, and the pensioners also spend their pensions. Underfunded public pension schemes create a double effect... resulting in lower savings (a reduction in the money available for investment in the production of jobs, goods and services) and increased consumption.
A United States study into the effects of the wholly unfunded or pay as you go U.S. social security system was made. The system was introduced in 1937, and it has lowered the rate of personal savings by 35 per cent. Because it is pure pay as you go, it accumulated no fund to replace lost savings to be available for capital investment. If, instead, the U.S. plan had been fully funded from the start and had allowed its funds to be invested in the private sector, capital accumulation in 1974 would have been 55 per cent greater than it actually was.
It may well be that the CPP is one of the causes of diminishing capital resources that we are now experiencing. This bill gives an opportunity to debate the philosophy of pensions. More and more people are taking the view that the value of private pensions is not very great. People save money for a purpose, to buy a car or a home. Similarly in years gone by people saved money so that in their old age, when they were unable to work, they could look after themselves. However, with the advent of hospital, medical and drug costs protection the necessity to save is not nearly as great.
Indeed, the every day needs and wants of the retired are much fewer than they were when they were working people
May 9, 1977

with growing families. Very often these people own their homes. They have accumulated many goods during their lifetimes. They generally have household furniture, cars and things necessary for their comfort. Indeed, a person approaching 65 years of age would be well advised to buy a good car and put his house in order, or to have a boat and motor if he enjoys the water or a cottage at the lake, rather than putting money into a pension plan which inflation eats up day by day. If people want to be especially prudent, they may want to take their money to a country where the climate is more hospitable so that they could take advantage of their money should currency controls come to pass.
This cynicism about the value of pensions was expressed by Mr. I. H. Asper of Winnipeg, a former Liberal leader in my province, when he spoke to the Life Underwriters Association in Toronto. Mr. Asper had this to say: "There are very few pension plans that are funded sufficiently." Some may dispute Mr. Asper's sombre warnings, but nevertheless there is abroad the opinion that pension plans are losing their value. The question of whether pension plans can be indexed has been raised. The private sector has suggested that it is unable to provide full protection to the federal public service. It is widely suggested that only through the taxation powers of the federal government are we able to give protection to the federal public service. This would be impossible for private companies.
Will the government attempt to move into the private sector to protect private pension plans? With inflation at 4 per cent a person retiring on a pension of $10,000 a year would find in ten years he could buy only $6,800 worth of goods and services. At 8 per cent the real value would be $4,600.
Could the private sector provide an indexed private pension plan? It would require a great deal of change in investment direction. Present pension funds are invested in a mixed bag of securities. Stocks tend to lose value when inflation rates are high. The returns on new bonds tend to rise with inflation, but those holding existing bonds suffer a loss. Perhaps we should look at an indexed bond type of security.
With those words, Mr. Speaker, I should like to resume my seat and hear the government put its case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I shall only have a few words to say on this second reading. I understand that we are all eager to see this bill go to committee so that we can look at its detail and discuss it.
I will not take the time of the House tonight to give detailed information on some of the points that have been raised. I should only say that these points have been studied extensively by the Canada Pension Plan Advisory Board and by the Advisory Council of the Status of Women. The bill before us comes out of the recommendations of these two independent, autonomous bodies. The Canada Pension Plan Advisory Board is composed of quite a few experts in the field of pensions, and
Canada Pension Plan
the Advisory Council of the Status of Women is composed of outstanding Canadians, mainly women, who have at heart the improvement of everything to do with the status of women in this country.
I would remind my colleagues in the official opposition who have expressed some reservations about this bill that all but one of the main provisions have the support of the ten provinces of Canada, and the other provision has the support of nine provinces.
I apologize for being absent at the beginning of debate this afternoon but I am glad to have had an opportunity to hear the speech of the main spokesman for the official opposition again tonight from the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie). I can find some of the words and exact quotations there so I do not think I missed too much of the argument of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). I will take his remarks about my absence as a tribute to the importance of my presence, but I want to assure him that this did not go to my head.
I want to agree with the hon. member that the bill before us is of major significance. I notice that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was not too sure that he wanted to go that far, and expressed reluctance in some respects. I am used to hearing from the official opposition that we are going too far, however, and from the New Democratic Party that we are not going far enough.
What concerns me about some of the arguments used this afternoon, particularly by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, is that some of the propositions he put forward would have very little support from provincial governments. That would be very important in this field since all amendments must have the support of at least two thirds of the provinces having two thirds of the population. After listening to him, however, I am quite convinced that there is a great difference in being the third party in this House and being in power in a particular province. I do not think I have heard any NDP provincial government put forward the proposals he has, and for good reason. There are tremendous costs involved in some of them. What surprised me is that he is not going any further; I have not heard him propose full salary for spouses staying at home in all conditions and all cases.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do. That is a good idea.


Marc Lalonde: The hon. member did not go that far this afternoon so I suspect we will have another speech along this line soon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is always another year.


Marc Lalonde: Questions have been raised about the actuarial soundness of the plan or the cost of the proposals. I should like to remind hon. members that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) recently tabled in this House Statutory Actuarial Report No. 5 put forward by the Chief Actuary in the

May 9, 1977
Adjournment Debate
Department of Insurance of the federal government. Under the Canada Pension Plan the Chief Actuary is required to put forward a report costing those proposals everytime there is an amendment. The conclusion of that report is as follows:
In our opinion, the enactment of Bill C-49 is expected to result in combined employee-employer contribution rates gradually increasing to be higher than projected in Statutory Actuarial Report No. 3 by 0.1 per cent of contributory earnings in the year 2005 and by 0.3 per cent of contributory earnings in the year 2025.
I think it is important to bear in mind this type of figure when we are talking about these particular amendments.
There are a lot of other points I should like to raise but I think I should reserve them for consideration in committee where I will be happy to discuss them with my hon. colleagues. I would therefore move second reading, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that a week ago today I asked both the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) a question with respect to the current status of this matter. I see both parliamentary secretaries are here, so I hope we will get a double-barreled answer because a single-barreled answer has not been too productive in solving the issue. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Roy) and I have had a number of exchanges on the issue. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Pelletier) comes originally from New Brunswick and recognizes the importance of this question to both New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island as well as to other potato growers all across Canada.
I make no apologies for raising the issue again this evening, Mr. Speaker. I will continue to do so until we get statisfactory action from the government on this serious situation. It is one of the most serious that has confronted this most important industry for many years, namely, the future availability of basic transportation equipment for potatoes. I have raised this issue repeatedly because there has been rapid deterioration in the number and quality of railroad cars to transport potatoes from eastern Canada to the central Canadian markets.
As both parliamentary secretaries know, a number of studies have been done by their departments, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Department of Indus-

try, Trade and Commerce. I have heard rumours of studies done by other departments, as well as basic studies done by the Prince Edward Island Potato Marketing Board. I think the potato interest in New Brunswick as well has examined this problem seriously.
Frankly, the problem is that we are now down to approximately 1,000 refrigerator cars, whereas only two years ago we were operating well over 4,000 of them. Considering that the actual production of potatoes has not decreased significantly in the last half dozen years, that we have not been successful in transferring a large percentage of this perishable commodity to other sorts of transport, although there have been useful experiments involving intermodal transportation, and considering the strength of demand for this product at least in the foreseeable future, it is obvious that perhaps as much as 80 per cent of this important product will have to be moved by rail. Therefore we must have-we ought to have had it by now-a commitment from the federal government to make available adequate numbers of transportation vehicles.
Recently the transportation committee of the province of Prince Edward Island legislature examined this question seriously. Indeed not many weeks ago the legislature of my home province passed unanimously a resolution urging the federal government to take action to ensure that the rail cars will be available for the next shipping season. So far, the only assurances we have received from the CNR are less than satisfactory.
We know, for instance, that there will be a further decline in the number of reefer cars available for the next shipping season. The figure will be down to something like 700. Considering the condition of the reefer cars, the number available may be even smaller. In addition, we are assured that perhaps as many as 400 insulated boxcars, of 110,000 pound carrying capacity, will be available to transport potatoes to central Canadian markets. Mr. Speaker, I question how realistic CNR officials are in even making such suggestions, or suggesting such solutions. Considering the great problems the use of this equipment will create in warehousing, packaging and marketing, I am led to wonder if there has been any consultation with those who are directly involved.
Frankly, what concerns me is this. More than a month ago reports presented to the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Agriculture, and others made specific recommendations; however, I am not aware that there has been any significant consultation with the potato producers of eastern Canada, with potato shippers, with marketing boards directly concerned, or with the retailers in central Canadian markets who, in the final analysis, will distribute the product. Yet in the absence of prior consultation, any recommendations or any actions taken by the CNR could be counterproductive or destructive both to the general system of marketing of eastern Canadian potatoes and to the provision of employment which is so important to eastern Canada, given our current serious difficulties in unem-
May 9, 1977

ployment. We have had studies done, but I have seen no evidence of action.
Both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Transport keep telling me that they are still considering recommendations coming before them, that they will shortly present recommendations to their cabinet colleagues, that they hope to meet shortly with provincial representatives, as the Minister of Transport said to me on May 2, and that they hope to meet at an early date with the premier of Prince Edward Island. But neither minister has indicated to me that he has had satisfactory, direct consultation with potato interests in New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island. Even more important, the Minister of Transport has not given us a firm date as to when federal action will be taken in this field.
One talks about disparities existing in this country, but I suggest there has been no greater disparity than that illustrated by the minister's action a month ago when he ordered a further 2,000 grain cars from the manufacturing plants of this country, to be added to some 6,000 already purchased by the federal government for the transport of western grain. Yet for eastern Canadian potato producers, not one single car has yet been purchased or ordered by the government. This shows a shocking inconsistency. If there were a realistic and balanced policy with respect to providing equitable transportation facilities for both eastern and western Canada, surely we could expect more action from the government than we have seen up to the present on this crucial question.


Mr. Ir6n6e Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the problems related to the distribution of last season's maritime potato crop have been well documented and thoroughly discussed. As the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has indicated previously, he is most concerned that the distribution system not just be patched to prevent a recurrence of last season's problems, but that it be rebuilt in such a manner as to become a reliable system which will deliver a high quality product and encourage the purchase of maritime-produced potatoes.
The interdepartmental committee on maritime potato distribution has been working with this objective in mind. It has not filed a final report because, among other activities related to this topic, its members have been involved in discussions with provincial, industry and government representatives. As the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has said, "We are awaiting a meeting with the provincial premier and the minister of transport of Prince Edward Island as a further concrete step in the resolution of this issue". Nevertheless, I can assure the hon. member that the committee's work will be completed and activities will be initiated in a time-frame to prevent a recurrence of last season's problems.
The troubles that can be initiated or continued through a panic band-aid solution must be avoided, and the strongly positive results sought will be achieved through the thorough planning and the discussion of solutions that is now taking place between the interdepartmental committee chaired by Agriculture Canada and including representatives from Transport Canada, the National Harbours Board, and the provincial
Adjournment Debate
governments of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, as well as key industry representatives. I can assure the hon. member that the results of these efforts will mean that future crops, including next season's, will move smoothly to their respective markets.
Those are the notes from the department, but I can add that the minister envisages the possibility of the Canadian government eventually buying cars which could be put to the use of the potato producers of the maritime provinces. This is one of the topics which has been discussed in the department although I do not believe the suggestion has yet been put before the cabinet. I know the minister has discussed it with maritime producers and with officials from the hon. member's province and from my own native province of New Brunswick. This is a matter which has been of great concern to the department for the past two years, and we hope that this year we can arrive at a formal solution which will be beneficial to producers and satisfactory to consumers also.


CANADIAN MINT-REASON FOR ACCEPTING ORDERS FOR COINS FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, on March 31 I asked the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) a question concerning contracts awarded to the Royal Canadian Mint.
Before I deal with the substance of the question I wish to comment on the answer given to my supplementary question. I asked whether the services of agents had been used in obtaining these contracts, because the State of Israel was involved as one of the countries to which the coins were sold. I asked whether the government had used the services of Shaul Eisen-berg or other agents in obtaining these contracts. The minister replied "The question does not sound very serious." That response raises a question in itself. I fail to see how it is up to the minister to decide whether or not a question is serious. Surely that falls to Your Honour. Besides that, the use of agents, particularly Shaul Eisenberg, has been the topic of much debate in and around this Chamber of recent months, and only today very serious questions were asked in connection with agent's fees in that particular case.
As far as the question itself is concerned, Mr. Speaker, it really has two parts. The first asks why has the government found it desirable to be in the business of producing coins for sale, in competition with private sector minting companies. The minister said that the mint, in doing so, does not compete with the private sector. I have had reason to contact some private minting companies. I do not know how many there are but I think there are at least six in Canada, and they certainly feel that the Royal Canadian Mint is competing with them.
If I may refer to some correspondence that I have had with them, the Sherritt Mint has been in business since 1961 and was selling blanks to the Mint itself. In 1964 the Sherritt Mint went into the export market for blanks only, and in 1966 it obtained its first export order. It finds that it is competing with

May 9, 1977
Adjournment Debate
national mints in other countries, because that is the competition on the national markets. They comment that when the Royal Canadian Mint decided to seek aggressively export orders after completion of the new Mint in Winnipeg, they indicated to the Sherritt Mint that they felt the Sherritt Mint should quietly vacate the export field and leave it entirely to them. They go on to say that they think the Royal Canadian Mint is competing with the private sector.
Another mint I have a letter from is the Lombardo Mint, located in Sherbrooke, Quebec. They point out another kind of conflict in that they were receiving help from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce which was trying to help them obtain contracts for minting coins. They say they almost succeeded in obtaining a very large order from the Bank of Mexico; unfortunately they were not successful for some hangup reason with the Canadian government and a German company got that contract. However, they found that the Royal Canadian Mint was competing with them, and they think the Canadian government should be giving the private industry the opportunity rather than competing with the private sector. There is not only competition in coinage, Mr. Speaker. There are many other things mints make, including medallions and other things that souvenir hunters like to collect.
The second part of the question asked whether adequate steps had been taken to ensure that Canadian taxpayers will not be subsidizing coinage in other countries. There were seven other countries involved and six and a half million coins in this particular contract. All too often the Canadian government gets into enterprises which it finds unprofitable, and of course the taxpayer ends up carrying the load. The minister's answer to that part of the question was that there was no reason why the Royal Canadian Mint should not make maximum profits out of its operations, and then the minister goes on to speak about competition.
I should like to refer to the latest edition of the public accounts of Canada, 1976, wherein the financial statements of the Royal Canadian Mint are contained. It is true that in 1974 and 1975 the Mint made a profit; $1 million in 1974, and close to $3 million in 1975. However, I think it is interesting to note that on the income side in 1975 only $675,000 was attributed to foreign contracts. Other sources of revenue were domestic coin, numismatic coin, Olympic coin and refining. Foreign contracts contributed to gross revenue only to the extent of $675,000. Unfortunately, due to the manner in which the accounts are kept there is no way that one can tell whether a particular contract, and especially these foreign contracts, contributed or detracted from the operating results of the Mint. In any event, the Government of Canada has an equity investment of some $31 million in the Mint, and the return of $3 million is hardly what one could describe as being overly generous.


Mr. Rod Blaker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to take the remarks of the hon. gentleman in the order in which they were presented. He did, indeed, on March 31 ask whether or not

Shaul Eisenberg had acted as an agent in any respect in connection with the Royal Canadian Mint for the sale of coins or blanks. At that time the minister replied that he did not think the question was serious. To the extent the hon. member wishes the department, myself or the minister to take that question seriously, then I will do so right now. The answer is that Mr. Eisenberg has not and does not now act as an agent for the Royal Canadian Mint. I will not make any reference to the future.
With respect to the comments in terms of competition between the Royal Canadian Mint and private companies in Canada, the hon. member may have been a little bit selective in his comments with regard to the Sherritt Mint. I have before me an article which appeared in the Financial Post magazine of March, 1977, in which, taking up that very question of competition between the Royal Canadian Mint and the Sherritt Mint, the president of Sherritt Mint, Mr. Pearce said:
"I'll have to be a little more nimble, perhaps," he allows. He also looks forward to occasions when Sherritt and the RCM may be able to co-operate profitably and cites a case where they have already done so.
With respect to the Lombardo Mint, I think the answer is obvious that whether Lombardo had been bidding on a particular contract from Mexico or whether the Royal Canadian Mint became involved or not made no difference. The contract went to Germany.
With respect to the hon. member's remarks on subsidization of foreign currencies and whether the Canadian public is in any way subsidizing costs of production through the Royal Canadian Mint, the answer is no. All contracts undertaken by the Mint are usually at a profit and where not, on rare occasions, may be at cost. On those occasions they are accepted in order to keep employees on staff and utilize the facilities of the Mint and the maximum number of employees possible.
It is well known that the Royal Canadian Mint enjoys one of the highest reputations around the world for the quality of its production and its ability to undertake and successfully carry out large programs, as was done for the Olympic coin program. That the Royal Canadian Mint is successful in obtaining lucrative foreign contracts is a compliment to the efficiency of its operations. To the extent that the facilities which are already existing for the production of our own Canadian currency can be utilized to serve the requirements of other clients in an open competitive market, there is no reason why the Mint should not optimize its production and maximize its profits. In this way full use is being made of existing facilities and continuing employment opportunities are ensured for a significant number of Canadians.
Another important element is the impact the Royal Canadian Mint activities have on other Canadian industries which are in the business of processing raw materials or manufacturing by-products for Canadian and foreign consumers. It follows, therefore, that the successful ventures of the Royal Canadian Mint in the foreign markets are not only beneficial to the Mint but also to other important sectors of Canadian industry.
May 9, 1977

The Royal Canadian Mint Act clearly sets out that the activities of the Mint must be carried out in anticipation of profit and the Mint has the corporate powers, embedded in law, to carry out this mandate and ensure that it is a financially viable enterprise. It is not the intention of the government to subsidize the operations of the Royal Canadian Mint and it must therefore continue to undertake and carry out activities within its corporate powers to ensure that it remains self-sustaining financially. It follows that, in so doing, the Royal Canadian Mint may find itself in competition with Canadian private enterprises which have acquired or developed a minting capability.
In fact, the minister has been advised that since the Royal Canadian Mint has recently intensified its marketing efforts in the foreign markets, it has found itself competing along with a Canadian company in a few instances.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but he has gone beyond his time.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-REPORTED INEFFECTIVENESS SURVEILLANCE OF THERAPEUTIC ABORTIONS-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO CORRECT
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, two years ago the largest petition ever brought into parliament, signed by more than one million Canadians, urged the government to tighten the law on abortion. The response of the government was to set up the Badgley commission which issued its report a few months ago.
Among the conclusions of the Badgley report was a very strong finding expressed in the report that the basis of the chaotic situation on abortions, which now amount to approximately 50,000 a year, is in the federal abortion law itself which does not clearly define the reasons for which abortions can be performed. The therapeutic abortion committees in hospitals across Canada are interpreting the word "health" according to their own whims and perspectives. The Badgley report maintains that most abortions now being performed are not based on any actual hazards to the woman's life or health.
The response of the government to the Badgley report, which is a very important document-time does not permit me to give the full range of its findings here-has been to tell the provinces that they will have to ensure that therapeutic abortion committees are operating within the perspective of the Criminal Code.
The response of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), who has taken the initiative in this regard, has been to advocate the setting up of comprehensive women's clinics across Canada and to collaborate with the provinces in ensuring federal-provincial support for these clinics.
The clinics have been attacked by such organizations as the Alliance for Life and indeed by many people across Canada who are espousing a pro-life position, on the grounds that such clinics will bring in by the back door what has been prohibited
Adjournment Debate
officially by the law, namely, wider entry to abortion. I appeal to the minister to make a definitive statement on such clinics.
Obviously clinics are needed for a wide range of health conditions related to women, including pregnant women. I appeal to him to make a specific and firm statement tonight that such clinics will in no way counsel abortions or lead directly to therapeutic abortion committees in hospitals. Otherwise the charge that is being made will be proven correct.
The issue I want to highlight at this moment is the fact that the terms of reference of the Badgley commission specified that the report would be debated in the House. It has not been debated. Rather, the action has been to toss it over to the provinces. It is scandalous that no debate is being offered in the House or that a standing committee of the House has not received the Badgley report for study.
Over the week end the Festival for Life met in Ottawa to try to indicate to members of parliament that the people who believe very strongly in the preservation of life insist that the basic issue is a change in the law.
It is to be deeply regretted that the pro-life movement is now fighting not only government inertia on this, because the government has taken a position that it is a political no win situation when both sides seem to be sawed off even though, as I said, a petition from one million people has made clear a very strong opposition to the widening of abortion or to the continuance of the present level of abortion. The fight is not only against government inertia but against the media which is giving a distorted view of the reality of the pro-life movement. I speak specifically of the Festival for Life over the week end.
I want to put on record a statement made today by Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt, the vice-president of Alliance for Life, who said, and I quote:
This week end Canadians of all religious and ethnic backgrounds, from every province, reaffirmed their commitment and concern for the well-being of those least able to help themselves, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the dying. Twenty-five thousand Canadians participated in the Festival for Life which featured distinguished international and Canadian speakers, including Malcolm Muggeridge, Dr. Paul David, Marshall MacLuhan, John Howard Griffen and Dick Gregory.
It was discouraging that such a gathering of important thinkers should have received such scant attention from the media. By giving such scant attention, the media indicated that the pro-life position was of little interest to them, and thus they have performed a grave disservice to the people of Canada.
When I watched the CBC news myself on Saturday night I found that the impression was created that the counterdemonstration to the pro-life movement was about equal. When I came back to Ottawa I found that there were around 30 to 100 pro-abortion demonstrators countering the demonstrations of 2,000 people who came up on Parliament Hill on Saturday afternoon. The CBC has done a real disservice to the fair representation of what actually took place on the week end.
I do not believe that abortion is by any means a lost cause. Perhaps the government hopes the issue will go away. I appeal

May 9, 1977
Adjournment Debate
to the government's sense of justice. I urge that the government ensure that the Badgley report will be debated in the House to give all members an opportunity to express views that have been communicated to us by thousands and thousands of Canadians across the country.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the question of abortion has been raised many times in the question period in the House and in motions. When the hon. member says he would like to have this question debated further, may I point out that the government has said it does not intend to amend the legislation at present. The hon. member knows that if he or his party feels strongly about debating the issue, there are many opposition days when this matter could be debated. As a matter of fact there is one tomorrow. They could use it if they want to do that.
So far as the question about women's clinics is concerned, I am glad he gives me the opportunity to reiterate what was in the statement, which appears to have been either misunderstood or distorted. Women's clinics, about which I have
spoken, are to be completely and exclusively the responsibility of the provinces. It is their decision whether they want to go ahead with them or not. I indicated clearly that they should be part of recognized hospitals, as is the case at present when a therapeutic abortion takes place. There is no question of bringing in abortions by the back door. It is a matter of applying the law as it is at present.
Clinics which are properly set up and run would, I believe, reduce the number of abortions rather than increase them, because they would provide the whole spectrum of services to women. I am afraid that this is something that has not been examined very carefully by the critics. There exists already a women's clinic in Canada which, I am advised, is working very effectively. The question is rather whether we can improve the health services provided to women in this country within the context of the law as it stands at present.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 10.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, May 10, 1977