1961-03-24

AGRICULTURE


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that the agricultural stabilization board has been authorized to support the price of sunflower seed to the producers of this crop in the provinces of Manitoba and Alberta at 4.15 cents per pound for Canada No. 1 grade, 10 per cent moisture, delivered at the crusher for the manufacture of sunflower seed oil. The support price is approximately 100 per cent of the base price.
The production of sunflower seed in Manitoba has been an important secondary cash crop in that province for a number of years and the board has supported the Manitoba producer price for the past two years. Production of sunflower seed in Alberta has been increasing in recent years, and it is now becoming an important secondary cash crop in that province. Alberta producers have therefore been included in this year's support program.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. G. R. Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of his announcement in regard to sunflowers. Is the 4.15 cents a fixed price for each province or an average price on the production of both provinces?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, it is a national average taken from the figures that we have for Manitoba and the estimated figures that we had for Alberta; a national average.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: A supplementary question. Is it not a fact that the farmers of western Canada asked for a regional price and not for an average national price?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I always bow to the great wisdom of the hon. member for Essex East on agricultural matters. In this instance we consider the prairies to be a region or national area.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My question was, is it not a fact that the farmers of western Canada asked for the application of a regional price on the basis of individual provinces and not an average price, as suggested wrongly now by the Minister of Agriculture?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The representations from the sunflower producers were based on the one price for the two provinces.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to add anything to what he was good enough to tell the house yesterday on the serious situation in Laos.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in the 24 hours that have elapsed since I commented yesterday on the Laotian situation there have been certain positive developments. The military situation is that the Pathet Lao are continuing to make serious inroads into territory previously held by the royal Laotian government. The situation changes from hour to hour, and I think what appears in the press will give a general idea as to the situation in that regard.
A determined effort has been made by the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States to find a basis for peaceful negotiation with the objective of bringing an immediate end to the hostilities in Laos, of ensuring its neutrality and detaching it from the pressures of the cold war. There can be no doubt that this course is the one best calculated to serve the true interests of the Laotian people and prevent the present hostilities from spreading beyond the borders of that country, the result of which would be to create an even more serious threat to world peace.
As hon. members know, yesterday the United Kingdom laid specific proposals before the Soviet union. These call for an appeal from the United Kingdom and Soviet cochairmen for an immediate cease-fire in Laos, the first and the most necessary step; following that cease-fire, the reconvening in New Delhi of the international control commission for Laos, of which Canada is a member along with India and Poland.
Inquiries of the Ministry
When the commission so reconvened found that an effective cease-fire was in effect, an international conference would then be called. This conference could consist either of the countries represented at the Geneva meeting of 1954-that is, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, communist China, the U.S.S.R., Laos, Cambodia, South Viet Nam and North Viet Nam-or on the other hand, the larger conference along the lines proposed by Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia. This would extend membership of the conference to the members of the international supervisory commission for Laos and to Burma and Thailand.
The proposals which I have just outlined represent a sincere attempt to find common ground and would, if successful, accomplish the main objective of a neutral and independent Laos. There are, of course, grave difficulties still to be overcome, including the timing of a cease-fire in relation to the proposed conference and the identity of the government which would represent Laos at such a conference. The Canadian government fully shares the objectives of the United Kingdom proposal and, as I said yesterday, would be prepared to play its part in the international supervisory commission which would have an important function to perform in relation to the implementation of the proposals.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gaie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada announced by the Prime Minister on January 23 with respect to Fort Pepperrell, just outside St. John's, has yet been made.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: No,
Mr. Speaker. My understanding of the situation is that counsel for the government of Canada and the government of Newfoundland are working on an agreed statement of facts which would form the basis of the reference.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the urgency of getting a decision from the court in the present year so that use can be made of this very valuable property, I wonder whether the minister would see if this matter can be expedited.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was inquiring into the matter just yesterday, and am glad to be able to tell the hon. gentleman that I have anticipated his suggestion.



CANADIAN OVERSEAS VOLUNTEERS&quot;


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that a Canadian peace corps called "Canadian Overseas Volunteers" has been set up under the sponsorship of groups at the University of Toronto and Laval University, with its first objective being the provision of volunteers for Ceylon, is the Canadian government prepared to lend any financial assistance to this worthy project?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was kind enough to send me the reference to this organization and a summary of what it has done as set out in Varsity of March 10.
The action of the young men and women both at Toronto university and Laval University, as well as the members of the faculties associated with them, shows a foresight and a spirit of co-operation in international affairs that deserves the widest commendation. This plan in essence has been in formulation for about a year. I think it is only fair to say that the fact that these young men and women got this under way so long ago indicates that they are taking a proper interest in world affairs.
In so far as the question of finance is concerned, the article points out that the Canadian overseas volunteers are now engaged actively in raising the funds they will need and are appealing to industry, business and the various student governments at the universities. As far as the government are concerned, we give the highest approbation to the conduct of these young men and women, and the external aid office and Canadian missions abroad will extend to them, in their initiative, every administrative support and assistance.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister tell us whether the contributions of industry, business or individual persons to this group will be allowable as income tax deductions on the basis of similar types of charitable donations.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think I ought to pass that question over to the Minister of National Revenue and, even in so far as he is concerned that might be placing him in the position of interpreting the law which I am sure the hon. gentleman being a lawyer would not want him to do.

<c


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt that the hon. member
for Ottawa West would expect to receive the answer to such a difficult problem across the floor of the house.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I can rephrase my question. Is this organization listed by the Department of National Revenue as one of those that qualify in that category?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge the answer is no. As the hon. member appreciates, those organizations must make application to qualify as such, and it is not just a matter of the department doing these things on its own. Organizations must apply in this regard. I received three such applications yesterday, as a matter of information. When an application is received in the form which is prescribed, the matter is taken into consideration by the officers of the department, the legal branch and by the minister, and a decision is rendered. This course will be followed in this case if and when an application is made.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the Prime Minister's very complimentary and generous remarks with regard to this organization do I take it that if it includes the government in the list of bodies to be approached for financial assistance, the government will give sympathetic consideration?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I note in the article that it states that some 35 students are presently devoting their Saturday mornings to briefing sessions about Ceylon, that the scheme will cost $2,000 annually for each volunteer sent. There has been no request made so far, and I have never found it convenient to anticipate what the results will be when requests are made. These young people are doing worth-while work and have not asked for any government assistance. [Later:]


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have been reminded by the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Stinson) who is president of Canadian Overseas Volunteers, that some time ago that organization made application to the department to have donations thereto ruled as charitable, and such ruling was granted.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask if he would comment on the revelation that Eldorado has had a contract with
Inquiries of the Ministry the United Kingdom for some years for the purchase of some $200 million worth of uranium over a period of years. Would the Prime Minister inform the house on what basis this large contract will be allocated among the producers?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that would be a proper question at the moment. I suggest I simply take it as notice and that on Monday an answer be given as far as it is possible to do so.



PROPOSED U.S. RESTRICTIONS ON TOURIST IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government been notified whether any decision has been reached by the United States government in respect of the bill to reduce the value of tariff free tourist goods permitted entry from $500 to $100?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Justice if he can comment on the report that a magistrate in the town of Lillooet, British Columbia, has dismissed a charge laid against a native Indian for having bottled beer in his possession-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Harold Edward Winch: -contrary to the federal Indian Act because the section involved contravenes the bill of rights?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is asking the Minister of Justice to comment on a routine matter of the administration of justice, which is a provincial rather than a federal responsibility.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point of order Your Honour has raised, surely what the hon. member is inquiring about is a decision which the court has made with respect to legislation of this parliament. In view of the fact that the bill of rights is involved it seems to me it is a proper question.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry, but I cannot agree with the hon. member in that respect. It does not seem to alter the case at all, the fact that the magistrate referred to the bill of rights.
On the contrary, it would involve an improper request for a legal opinion.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask if he could advise the house whether it is the intention of the government to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act this session in order to bring under coverage tradesmen and particularly those carpenters who are employed in repairing or altering privately owned homes, and who are being denied coverage on the ground that they are employed in casual labour in a type of work which has nothing to do with the employer's normal line of business.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member given notice?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The question involves, I
would think, an inquiry into particular circumstances.


Hon. Michael Siarr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am in no position at this time to say what form the amendments will take.


Mr. Speaker:: It is a matter of policy.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister tell the house whether there will be amendments to the act?


Michael Starr: There will be amendments to the act.



BANK OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Acting Minister of Finance. Is he aware that on Wednesday, March 15, I raised a question with respect to the submission of the report of the Bank of Canada to the banking and commerce committee. The minister made a commitment that not later than the end of this week he would make a statement in connection with this subject. Is the acting minister going to make the statement today?


George Clyde Nowlan: I would have to take that under consideration, Mr. Speaker. I have no instructions on the matter, and obviously I cannot make a statement.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Jean Casselman (Grenville-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice and ask whether it is a fact, as stated in a report in the Ottawa Journal of March 21, that the government failed to answer a complaint from the city of Ottawa made last January regarding identical tenders received by the city for aluminum sulphate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No,
Mr. Speaker, it is not a fact. The facts in this respect are quite contrary to what appeared in the press which, in turn, appears to reflect what was said at a recent meeting of the Ottawa board of control.
The facts are that a letter complaining about these bids, dated January 12, 1961, was received from the city of Ottawa. It was addressed to Mr. T. D. MacDonald, who has not been director of investigation for some months. Mr. Henry, who is the director, replied on January 17, advising that an officer from the branch would get in touch with the city purchasing agent shortly. This was done, and the officer made a report to the director on the information obtained. This report is being considered.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Richard Garland: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister any estimate of the saving to the unemployment insurance fund that resulted from the winter works program that, according to the minister's statement yesterday, will provide an average of approximately 11 days of work per man on site?


Michael Starr: The latter part of the question is incorrect, Mr. Speaker. I did not say that it supplied 11 days of work per man on site. The hon. member's division is incorrect. As to the other aspect of the question, I suggest that he place his question on the order paper so that we can look into the matter to see whether any computation can be arrived at.


John Richard Garland: May I ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member's original question is properly one for the order paper, particularly since he did not give any notice that he required statistical information. If he has another question I shall recognize him later.


John Richard Garland: On a point of order, the minister has implied that the figures I have used are wrong. I suggest to him that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member would have to give me more information before I could find a point of order in what he says. There is really no point of order arising that would permit the contradiction of a statement made by another member. There might be a personal explanation if it involved the reliability of the hon. member's statement, and if the hon. member wishes to make such an explanation I will give him the floor for that purpose.
[I/O ter:]


John Richard Garland: May I address another question to the Minister of Labour. Apart from the 22 days of work per man in respect of the on-site and off-site figures used by the minister yesterday, is it reasonable to assume that the real unemployment figure in this country is 929,000?


Michael Starr: No, it is not.
[Later.-J


Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, could I ask-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) is having some difficulty obtaining the floor.


William Heward Grafftey: I would like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he can inform the house as to the number of days of work which will be provided by the winter works program.


Michael Starr: I gave the answer to that question yesterday, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would like to ask a supplementary question. How was the minister in a position to give that answer when the table which I have asked for has not been compiled?


Michael Starr: The table the hon. member asked for had relation to the various projects, where they are located and other information about them. There are over 6,000 projects, and the hon. member will realize the amount of work entailed in the compilation of such a table.
Inquiries of the Ministry



WINTER WORKS PROGRAM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour based on a question put by me on March 9 and again on March 15. On the former date I asked the minister if he would table the statistics indicating the extent of the provision for work and the number of projects in consequence of the winter works program. The minister replied that he would be able to do that very soon. Then on March 15 he assured me that he would table this information in the next day or so. I do not find it in the records. Can the minister give me an explanation?


Michael Starr: On checking the question asked by the hon. member for Essex East we found he wanted information to be given by localities. 1 was informed by the responsible section of the Department of Labour that it would take two weeks at least to compile the information on that basis. We have mobilized all our resources in that department in order to do this, but the figures will take about a week and a half to prepare. As soon as they are available I will inform the house.



GLEN EXELBY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to answer the question of which he took notice yesterday, as to whether Mr. Exelby of Hamilton has yet been found a job by the national employment service.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the national employment service inform me that they are continuing their efforts on his behalf.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschaielels (Maisonneuve-Rose-moni):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance or, in his absence, to his parliamentary secretary. Did the minister receive a few days ago a joint letter from several Catholic priests of the province of Quebec in connection with receipts for charitable donations and, if so, would he table this letter as well as a copy of his reply?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Richard A. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: I shall make inquiries, but I believe this is a matter which lies under the administrative jurisdiction of the Minister of National Revenue.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Would the parliamentary secretary verify whether the letter was sent to the Minister of Finance?


Richard Albert Bell: Yes, I shall make inquiries.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Senate of the United States has now ratified the Columbia river development plan almost by unanimous vote, we can expect that this treaty will be submitted to parliament shortly for consideration?
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): I am sure Canadians as a whole will be very happy at the outcome of the proceedings in the United States. In so far as the latter part of the question is concerned, determination as to if and when the matter will be brought before this house should be made shortly after Easter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago in answer to a question regarding the Columbia river treaty I inadvertently said "if and when it will be submitted to parliament". I want to make it very clear that it will be submitted, but the date when it will be submitted still remains to be considered. I do not want any misunderstanding regarding my words in that connection.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I rather assumed that was a slip of the tongue by the Prime Minister. May I ask him whether the treaty will be submitted to this parliament for consideration irrespective of the negotiations with the province of British Columbia?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we dealt with this on a previous occasion, and I have nothing further to add to what was said in that regard.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. M. Creaghan (Westmorland):: I wish to address a question to the Associate


Minister of National Defence. Yesterday I received letters suggesting that certain civilian firefighters at No. 5 R.C.A.F. supply depot at Moncton would no longer be required. Today I received letters saying that 30 men had received notice that as of April 1 they would no longer be employed. Would the minister investigate the accuracy of these reports and, if they are correct, take steps to reverse the decision of his officials?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: As a result of changing commitments the number of civilians required at a particular defence establishment may increase or decrease. The department's total requirements for civilian employees have been reduced during the past several years as a result of programs designed to increase efficiency.
The department attempts to carry out reductions of civilian staff resulting from changing requirements with a minimum of adverse effects on individuals. With this objective in mind, arrangements have been made to retain in employment during the winter months a number of employees whose positions will become redundant, and who would encounter difficulty in securing alternate employment if released during the winter months. The number of individuals in this category at the present time is approximately 250 of the more than 45,000 civilians employed by the Department of National Defence. The army and the R.C.A.F. employ approximately 900 civilians in the Calgary area. Of these, 16 are in positions that will shortly become redundant.
In answer to the second part of the hon. member's question, may I tell him that the complete question is at present under consideration by the officials of the Department of National Defence and the members of treasury board.



INQUIRY AS TO DATES OF BY-ELECTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wonder if I can address a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether he is yet in a position to make an announcement about that matter which so greatly concerns the Leader of the Opposition and others, namely the announcement of by-election dates.


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Speaker.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO MEETING TO AMEND CONSTITUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he is in a position to tell the house whether the provinces and the federal government will be meeting shortly to seek a formula for amending the Canadian constitution in Canada, particularly as a result of the initiative taken by the government of the province of Quebec.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, we were very glad indeed to find that the thinking of the government of the province of Quebec appeared to be in line, generally speaking, with the thinking of the majority of those who met in the course of this conference, which arose out of the initiative taken by the Prime Minister of Canada last year.
In reply to the specific question, I may say that as attorneys general it was our hope that it would not be necessary to have another meeting and that we had arrived at a proposal on which it was hoped general agreement might be reached to the effect that that proposal should be submitted to the governments of the provinces and the government of Canada for consideration, and in due course should be presented to the respective legislatures and parliament.
I have not yet heard from the attorneys general of the provinces whether in fact the proposal has been agreed to by their governments so that it will be recommended by them to their legislatures. It may be that another meeting will be necessary, but I still hope it will not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say something in clarification of a remark I made in answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Essex East. As I recall it, I said I had not yet heard from the attorneys general of the provinces. That is not quite correct and would perhaps convey a wrong impression. I have heard from several, but with respect to at least two they said they were engaged in affairs of their legislative sessions and would not be able to let me have a definitive reply until a little later.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister know whether it is a fact that the attorney general of the province of Saskatchewan finds it difficult to accede to the proposal made by Mr. Gerin-Lajoie of Quebec?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think I understand the implication of that question, but even if I did I do not think it is the kind of question I should answer at this stage, because the discussions and negotiations are not yet completed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Since the minister has not fully understood my question may I ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member asking a further supplementary question or presenting an argument?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the fact that the minister apparently did not understand my question I am trying to clarify it, Mr. Speaker.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I pointed out to the hon. member, even if I did understand his question it is not one that should be answered at this point, when negotiations are not yet complete.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How can you say that when you do not understand the question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I simply wanted to know whether the government of the province of Saskatchewan appears to take the position that in the absence of any conference it would be unable to agree to the proposal for a specific formula to amend the constitution of Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not know upon what the hon. member is basing his assumption, Mr. Speaker, but I am afraid I must remind him that the discussions have been held in camera. We are hopeful of a satisfactory outcome, but I am not yet at liberty to disclose the position taken by the government of any province. If he wants an answer to that question he will have to ask it of the attorney general of Saskatchewan.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Charlton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last the following question was asked by the hon. member for Algoma West:
Could the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration say for what reason the deportation of Mr. George Lee Powers was suspended?
I have been informed by immigration officials that Mr. Powers was permitted to remain in Canada under permit, in view of the relatively minor nature of the offence for which he had been convicted and as he had had no previous difficulty, had fairly
3306	HOUSE OF
Statement on Flood Conditions lengthy residence in Canada-more than three years-and was reasonably well established.


Frank Howard: I wonder
whether the same sort of courtesy will be extended to Mr. Chan?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the parliamentary secretary
think that a conviction for bootlegging is a relatively minor offence, whereas being of Chinese origin is not?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member in asking for information of that kind is debating the issue and not seeking further information.



BEAUCE COUNTY, QUE.    STATEMENT ON ASSISTANCE BY ARMY

Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, I wish for a brief moment to revert to motions in order to make a statement concerning flood conditions in Beauce county.


Mr. Speaker:: The Associate Minister of
National Defence asks for leave to revert to motions in order to make a statement concerning flood conditions in Beauce county. Has the associate minister leave of the house to make this statement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, there are
serious flood conditions in Beauce county, and as a result the Quebec provincial authorities have asked for the help of the army. This request has been granted, and 31 all ranks departed from Quebec on March 21 and arrived at Beauceville at approximately 11.40 hours. Blasting operations commenced in the area, and this work is continuing. The Department of National Defence will do everything in its power to help in this particularly distressed area because of these flood conditions.
(Translation):


Mr. Jean-Paul Racine (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement made by the Associate Minister of National Defence, I should like to ask him a question to which he may reply some time next week. Will the cost of the blasting be paid by the federal government or by the provincial government?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member to speak in a louder voice, because I was unable to hear his question.


Jean-Paul Racine: I shall repeat it with pleasure, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Associate Minister


of National Defence whether the cost of the dynamite and of blasting operations is to be paid by the federal government or by the provincial government?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, that is a rather technical question. It is my impression that the Royal Canadian Engineers personnel who were sent into the Beauce constituency to help in the emergency operations will pay their own expenses, but as I am not sure I shall inquire and let the hon. member for Beauce have the answer later.
(Text):



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 22, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Fleming (Eglinton)-Mr. Rea in the chair:
That a sum not exceeding $638,909,350.10 being the aggregate of
(a)	one sixth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1962, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $614,823,482.50;
(b)	one half of the amount of item 227 of the said estimates, $650,000.00;
(c)	one third of the amount of item 38 of the said estimates, $233,333.34;
(d)	one sixth of the total of the amounts of items 191, 198, 199, 271 and 307 of the said estimates, $2,038,429.67;
(e)	one twelfth of the total of the amounts of items 63, 277, 370, 398, 456, 459, 464, and 469 of the said estimates, $21,164,104.59,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1962.
Mr. Marlin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to hold up this resolution for any length of time. However, there is one matter which I think should be given some consideration before we go any further. I refer to the situation in which our old age pensioners find themselves in this country today. On July 19, last session, I had occasion to raise this matter, but unfortunately no decision was reached at that time. The matter was discussed until eleven o'clock that night but no decision was reached. The outcome was that the business of the house was arranged in such a way that we had no further opportunity to discuss this question during the following month of that session.
I am not going into all the detail that was discussed last year on this matter. However, I think in all fairness we should review the situation, particularly in view of the considerable support that government members gave it that day. I made a check and found that the matter was supported to a lesser or greater degree by the hon. members for

Chapleau, Parry Sound-Muskoka, Restigouche-Madawaska, York-Humber, Simcoe East, the present minister of northern affairs, the hon. members for Regina City, Prince, Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, Inverness-Richmond, Athabasca, St. James, Wetaskiwin, the present Minister of National Health and Welfare, and the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet.
Some 15 hon. members on the government side, including two cabinet ministers, supported this proposal to a lesser or greater degree. However, I am sorry to say that all hon. members were not in support of the matter which was raised at that time, and the debate ranged from the full support that was given by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska, who is unfortunately no longer with us, to lesser support by other hon. members. I do not know whether the fact that the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska is no longer with us has anything to do with the position he took on that occasion. I was talking to him some two weeks ago and he informed me that this was definitely one of the reasons that he moved from the house. He said it was because he felt the government had failed totally, completely and absolutely to carry out any of the promises they had made during the election campaigns of 1957 and 1958.
I should like to quote very briefly from the words of the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska as they are reported on page 6507 of Hansard for July 19, 1960. In the first column of that page, near the middle of the column, the hon. member is reported as having said:
I listened, as I said, very attentively to the representative of the C.C.F. group who introduced this amendment, as well as to the hon. member for Essex East. I could see nothing in what they said, with one possible exception, that was not in strict conformity with the solemn promises we officially made during the 1957 and 1958 elections.
Unfortunately some other hon. members did not agree completely with that and the debate ranged from a back-patting contest of saying how much the present government had done since they took over to an out and out condemnation of myself for raising this very embarrassing subject at that time.
I think it would be appropriate at this time to remind the committee once again, as I did last year, of just what is involved in this problem. I should like to quote from page 6521 of Hansard of July 19, 1960. I reminded the house of this matter last year, and I think this quotation is very appropriate. I am reported as having said:
I hope we have not lost sight of the problem with which we are faced by reason of all the diversions I have listed. It is not the Liberal party of 1923 or the Conservative party of 1931 that is going to have to deal with the problems facing old
90205-6-209
Interim Supply
age pensioners today. It is the members of the government and other members sitting in this house a few days before the end of the session who are going to have to decide if they are going to do anything for the old age pensioners other than utter kind words about them. We are going to have to make a decision before the end of the session so that the old age pensioners will know whether they are going to have to face another bleak winter before the government has another opportunity to do something for them.
That winter has come and gone and we do not seem any closer to solving this problem than we were when we debated it last on July 19 of last year. In spite of the kind words of many hon. members that day, and in spite of all the grand assurances of the 1957 and 1958 election campaigns, which were referred to by the former hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska, the cold facts of the matter are that this government have been in office for almost four years and they have failed to take this problem into consideration.
Something else has developed over that four-year period. It is something we hear very much about in this house from time to time. I refer to the problem of unemployment. I should like to refer to that problem only to relate it to the present problem of our old age pensioners. In this respect, as our communities across the country face increasing unemployment and as more and more of the unemployed come on to their relief rolls, we find that the municipalities are less and less able to give consideration to the relief of old age pensioners.
There is another factor which I think should be brought to the attention of the committee, and that is the increase in the number of old age pensioners over the last four years. If we look in the Canada Year Book we find on page 315 that old age pensioners between the ages of 65 and 70 have been increasing at the rate of 1.1 per cent every two years. This means that over a four-year period there has been an increase of between 300,000 and 400,000 in the number of old age pensioners who are in so many cases trying to live solely on the miserable pittance of $55 a month.
We also find that the cost of living has steadily crept up since the last increase in pension rates was given. The cost of living rose from an index of 121.9 in 1957 to 129.6 at the time the latest figures were given, a substantial increase for people who are trying to live on that sort of money.
There are two or three other things which I think should be listed to drive home the nature of this problem. The subindex shelter figure has risen from 134.9 to 144.6, and shelter is something which, obviously, no old age pensioner can do without. The cost of household operation has climbed-not as much as some of the other things, but it has climbed

Interim Supply
from 119.6 to 123.5. One of the most tragic things of all is the rapid increase in the cost of certain basic foodstuffs, and I should like to list two of the worst instances. Living on $55 a month, old age pensioners do not buy sirloin steaks; they have to look for the cheap cuts of meat. Yet we find that the index figure for the cost of stewing beef has risen from 52.6 to 140.5, an increase of 437 per cent, and the cost of hamburg from 37.9 to 123.7, an increase of 310 per cent.
Certainly this is something which the government must take into consideration and remedy. We find today that the prisoners in our federal penitentiaries, according to an answer given last year by the Minister of Justice to a question asked by the hon. member for Skeena, to be found on page 1386 of Hansard of February 23, 1960, cost $167.71 to maintain for a 31-day month. That is the difference, $167.71 for prisoners as against $55 for old age pensioners. If that is the free enterprise system the Prime Minister was talking about on television last week, it is a sorry picture. If it takes three times as much to maintain a prisoner in a penitentiary as the amount upon which we expect an old age pensioner to live, no wonder we have so many people in prisons under free enterprise systems. It is because they are treated better there than when they are outside.
Last year we heard so much about the amount of money involved in the resolution I moved. It was going to cost $200 million, and where was all that money to come from? Well, if the government have not got the answers to the problems which have to be met in our society, why do they offer themselves for the job? Where is the money coming from for the $1,250 million we spend every year on obsolete weapons? Where does the money come from for the $900 million interest a year it costs us to maintain our federal debt?
My point is that this government can do something when they want to do something, but it is very obvious, at least in connection with the difficulties of the old age pensioners, that they do not want to do anything. They shrug their shoulders and say "What can we do?" If they can do nothing it is time they got out and let somebody else try. Yet in the face of this problem we see the Prime Minister having the effrontery to go on television and pronounce pious platitudes about free enterprise versus socialism. It would be a joke if it were not such a tragedy.


Mr. McMillan:: It is not our intention to hold up interim supply, but there is one aspect of the vote which should give cause for alarm to all members of this committee and, for

that matter, to all Canadians. I refer to the extra public debt charges which are piling up at a very fast rate indeed.
At the end of the fiscal year about to start these extra charges since the present government came to power will amount to the staggering sum of $878.6 million, and most of this is for extra interest. This huge amount is arrived at by including the minister's estimate for these two years, that is for this fiscal year and the next fiscal year; and since the Minister of Finance has practically always been on the conservative side in his estimates as far as interest charges are concerned I have no reason to think that this staggering sum will be any less; in fact it is likely to be more.
So far we have not paid one cent of this extra interest nor are we likely to do so in the foreseeable future. The point is that we have borrowed this money, and this debt on account of these extra interest charges is snowballing at an alarming rate, particularly since it is being compounded every six months at a high rate. The hon. member from Carle-ton, the parliamentary secretary to the minister, tries to salve his conscience by talking about the per capita debt. All I can say is that Canadian babies are not being born fast enough to help spread the debt among them so as to give any weight to his argument.


Frank Howard: The hon. member for Timmins has raised an extremely important subject matter and one which has, of course, been extremely important for many years, even in the years preceding the time the Liberal government was forced into establishing a system of pensions in 1925 and 1926; forced, I may say, because of the high principles of the socialists in the house at that time, under the late Mr. Woodsworth, a man for whom everyone in a position to judge had the highest regard, respect and admiration.
Even though the legislation in those days was totally inadequate from the point of view of the needs of our elderly citizens it was, nevertheless, a step along the road toward security for these people in their later years. It was primarily in 1925-26, in that period of time when there was a minority government, a matter of political consideration which the late Mr. King had in mind. This was one of the conditions on which he and his government could stay in office. The C.C.F. group in this chamber was then under the leadership of Mr. Woodsworth. We cherish the letter Mr. King wrote; in fact it is framed and hangs in Mr. Woodsworth's house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The fact that nothing is said should not be taken as acquiescence, because these are not the facts.


Frank Howard: The hon. member should pay more attention to what are facts. We all know

his ability to twist facts so they no longer appear factual. The hon. member's many years of experience in the Liberal party enable him to do this effectively. The fact is that Mr. King introduced amendments to the old age pension legislation because of political considerations in order to have support to remain in office and-I am sure my hon. friend will not disagree with this-it was the old guard Tories in the Senate who turned it down. Surely the hon. member will not deny that that is a fact.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the only part of the hon. member's statement with which I agree.


Frank Howard: I am sure of that; none the less both statements are true and factual. It is an historic fact that political considerations have always been instrumental in the adjusting of old age pensions, fixing the amount and governing the regulations relating thereto. Political considerations relating to the 1949 federal election resulted in the establishment in 1950 of the joint committee on old age security. When the universal plan, as it is called, was instituted in 1951 and became effective in January 1952, it was primarily as a result of political considerations relating to the 1949 federal election.
The niggardly $6 increase introduced by the Liberal party coincided with the election of 1957. Again the old age pensioners were used as political footballs, but this time the technique backfired. The Conservatives with a different conscience from that which they displayed in 1925 and 1926 made promises in this regard, which incidentally have not been kept. When the Conservatives came into office old age pensions again became a political matter. A $9 increase was introduced in November of 1957 by the minority government, again coinciding with an election. The promises about pension increases have not been kept. Let me refer to a statement made at page 411 of Hansard of October 25, 1957. I quote from one on whom the hon. member for Essex East will look as an outstanding authority whose word could never be doubted. I propose to quote the hon. member for Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A very high
authority.


Frank Howard: I am sure my hon. friend agrees with that statement. On that occasion the hon. gentleman quoted statements made by the present Prime Minister prior to the election. These are the words of the Prime Minister which the hon. member quoted:
We believe the old age pension is inadequate. We intend, this September, to call together a parliament and there and then fix a fair and reason-90205-6- 209i
Interim Supply
able amount for the old age pensioners, indeed for the other pensioners, and also make provision for a formula whereby due alowance will be made in the future for the rising cost of living, providing that it continues.
The reference is to September of 1957. Of course the cost of living has continued to rise. Commenting on that statement the hon. member for Essex East said:
That last provision was an essential part of the program.
The present Minister of National Health and Welfare then interjected, "That will be looked after", and following another statement by the hon. member for Essex East an unidentified hon. member interjected "Give us time". The Minister of National Health and Welfare said this matter would be looked after, but we have waited three and one half years and nothing has happened. Perhaps he has not had time to look after it. Old age citizens deserve dignified treatment and should not be treated as political footballs, as they have always been treated by the old line party governments over the years.
In the short session of 1957 the Conservatives took a different approach and employed another election gimmick, as a result of which we got the Clark report. That report has been in the hands of the minister for some years and is probably languishing in a dusty drawer in his desk. In response to our persistent inquiries the minister says he still has it under consideration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Study.


Frank Howard: I venture to suggest the opinion that the minister, considering his great concern for political matters, will suddenly complete his study and come up with recommendations at a time that will coincide with the next general election, and again the old age pensioners will be used for political purposes. Our senior citizens have contributed greatly to the development and wealth of Canada over the years, and should not be treated in this shoddy manner.
A year ago I received some correspondence, as I am sure other hon. members did, from some senior citizens.


Mr. Chambers:: Languishing in one of your dusty desk drawers?


Frank Howard: I have a copy of a letter written to me under date of January 4, 1960 by the secretary of the federated legislative committee of the elder citizens' associations of Vancouver, enclosing a copy of a brief dated December 18, 1959 submitted to the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet.
I shall not read all of the brief but it reads in part:
We feel that the present pension of $55 should be increased to $80, at age 65 without a means test.

Interim Supply
Since the last pension increase of $9 in 1957, many of our elder citizens were at once compelled to pay increased rents.
This is a fact. In the city of Vancouver rents went up immediately because of the increase in the pensions received by senior citizens. I continue:
The transport board at Ottawa-
I presume this is the board of transport commissioners, but the document refers to the transport board:
The transport board at Ottawa also permitted the B.C. Telephone Company to make two applications for increases in revenue within a period of six months in the same year, with the result that telephone rates in British Columbia were increased very substantially, and definitely meant a further hardship for the welfare of elderly people.
They make reference also to the so-called Clark report. This letter is dated December 18, 1959, and I use it only to substantiate the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has lost the Clark report somewhere in the bottom of a dusty drawer. He might finish the study of it to coincide with the next election.
I continue with the next paragraph:
We looked forward with hope and anticipation-[DOT]
The elderly citizens are talking to the government and the Prime Minister. I continue:
We looked forward with hope and anticipation for your government to establish their policy with respect to the Clark report. While this very important document was tabled in the House of Commons on March 5, 1959, we have not learned, or observed, any action being taken by your government with respect to this very important and expensive document.
These words are just as true today as they were on December 18, 1959. Since that time I am sure all hon. members and the government have received similar briefs, lettters and references from elderly citizens who are humbly requesting that the government take into account their needs and their requirements and forget about the political aspect of the matter.
In the first place, it took the socialist point of view, against the tremendous opposition of the Conservative party and the Liberal party -except when they found it was politically expedient-to bring about old age pensions. It took the socialist philosophy in the first place to get this federal parliament and government into the field of old age pensions in the 1920's.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Ridiculous.


Frank Howard: My hon. friend from Essex East says "ridiculous".


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is.


Frank Howard: I would say to him with just as much force that he looks ridiculous in saying that factually true statements are ridiculous, even though he may want to prevent the country from knowing the truth about his party and how, like Moses, it also wandered for 40 years in the wilderness before it came up with a national health scheme. It was socialist philosophy that took into account the dignity that should be afforded to old people. It is regrettable to us that those-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Your philosophy is gone with the wind.


Frank Howard: My friend says that our philosophy is gone with the wind. There are no more windy opponents of our philosophy in this house than the hon. member for Essex East and his colleagues. All they do is talk, talk, talk, and no action is taken unless it happens to be politically expedient to do so. This is one of the things that Mackenzie King was noted for over the years. He was noted for being able to move just enough at election time to get re-elected. The late Mackenzie King has a great follower in the present Prime Minister, who wants to emulate him at every turn. Political expediency is the order of the day rather than social justice. The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont agrees that the present Prime Minister is so like the late Mr. King that-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: No.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, it is difficult enough to deal with the interjections and comments from the other side of the house without at the same time having to keep an eye on those behind me.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Try to be accurate.


Frank Howard: My hon. friend says "Try to be accurate". In so far as my references to the Liberal party are concerned I have never been more accurate. We regret very much, Mr. Chairman, that people in their later years, who have contributed their talents, skills and ability to build up this nation and make it what it is today, should have to endure in some third floor cold-water flat a sort of meagre starvation existence from a small pension granted to them with great gusto only at election time and only when it will have some bearing on how the individuals may vote in that particular election. This has been the history of the Liberals and Tories; it makes no difference. I said, so far as the old age pensioners were concerned, the order of the day was political expediency and not social justice. With this the socialist element disagrees entirely.

We would welcome at any time, Mr. Chairman, the opportunity to deal with the Conservative party on the basis of socialist principles versus the so-called free enterpriser. The so-called free enterprisers, the merchant trading classes, were not in favour of old age pensions and are still not in favour of them. They have come to accept them in the same way the Liberal party and the Conservative party finally came to accept them, as a matter of social right and social justice.
The Minister of Finance is not with us today, but I am sure that his parliamentary secretary is equally capable in the field of administration in the Department of Finance as the minister, perhaps even more so. I am sure that if the hon. member for Carleton had the portfolio in his hands he would not make the bungling errors that the Minister of Finance has made. With the ability of the hon. member for Carleton, the parliamentary secretary, his knowledge of and intimacy with the intricacies of the Department of Finance, and the cabinet, he should be able to explain to the house what is government policy on old age pensions, whether the government are going to come along with an increase, and whether they do not think it is long overdue. Three and a half years is a long time for people to exist on a $9 increase, which was eaten up the next day by rent increases, increases in telephone rates and in the cost of living, and the like.
Does the hon member not think it is time this message was carried to the members of the cabinet, two of whom are with us today? Does the hon. member not think it is time they sort of probed the depths of their conscience and looked back upon the promises they made in 1957 with regard to the cost of living and brought them into account? Do not wait until the next election, and then be accused of playing political football with our elderly citizens. Does the hon. member not think our elderly citizens deserve a bit more justice and a bit fairer treatment than have been accorded to them since 1926?


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Peters:: Certainly this is too good an opportunity to miss. Unfortunately last year the C.C.F. were not able to get a vote on the motion of the hon. member for Skeena which would have forced the government to take a stand on this important matter of old age pensions.
I should like to refer to what I consider a disgusting situation. We are being asked to vote interim supply today. A great deal was said about our holding it up, and other things along that line, yet today we find the
Interim Supply
minister does not even do parliament the courtesy of being here. He said there was a great rush to have interim supply voted, yet the minister is not in the house.


Richard Albert Bell: I am sure the hon. member wants to be fair. He knows and the committee knows that the Minister of Finance is on a very important mission in Victoria today.


William Arnold Peters: I did not know that. If the minister was going to be away he should have had the courtesy to say so last night when the request was made to bring this legislation forward today. I think the Minister of Finance is vitally involved in this matter of old age security. I think the time has come for us to give further consideration to the method of making old age security payments and the method of raising the money for such payments. In my opinion this is a responsibility of the Minister of Finance, in conjunction with those other ministers having responsibility for health and welfare in this country.
It has been generally agreed that there is a limit to the amount of payments to old age pensioners under the method we are following, and it is also generally agreed that there will have to be some change in the pension plan we now have with respect to the basis of making payments to our old age pensioners. This was recognized by the Prime Minister when he appointed Dr. Clark to investigate the whole matter of pensions not only in Canada, but also in the United States and other countries throughout the world where there are much better social security schemes that provide greater benefits to old age pensioners.
The former minister of national health and welfare had something to say about this matter, and it was not surprising to us that he took exception to the statement that it was not his party that was interested in old age pensions in the first place. Old age pensions were provided because pressure was brought to bear. I hope the same kind of pressure will be brought to bear after the next election and will force a complete change in social security programs for the Canadian people. As the hon. member for Timmins said, in
1958-59 we paid $5.41 per person per day to maintain prisoners in federal penitentiaries, while at the same time we were only paying our old age pensioners $1.80 a day. It seems to me something is wrong when we are paying more to keep people in penal institutions than we are paying our old age pensioners for the service they have rendered to our country during their years of employment. In addition, if an old age pensioner wants hospital or medical care he must either pay

Interim Supply
the premiums tor such care out of his old age pension or be declared an indigent after signing a form setting forth that he is not able to make the necessary payments. By a means test he is then able to get medical and hospital care.
As I have said, this is a very opportune time to speak about this matter. There will shortly be an election. Old age pensioners have always been under the impression that the only time they can get an increase in their pensions is when there is an election, particularly so when the situation does not appear to be too favourable so far as the government in power is concerned. As we are going to have an election shortly, I think it is time the present government stated what they intend to do for the old age pensioners.
An hon. member says that it is time for a change, which is quite true. I suggest to the Canadian people that if they are going to make a change they should make a real one and elect a party that will do something about such matters as old age pensions; not on the basis of a hand-out but on the basis of the changing environment of our country, our changing needs and the changing attitude of our nation.
The Prime Minister received a petition from the national old age pensioners federation which reads as follows:
The national old age pensioners federation presents for your attention the following resolutions and respectfully requests that prompt and decisive action be taken by the federal government.
Whereas the high cost of necessities makes a decent, healthy living on the present pension impossible- m which the government appears to be in agreement-as shown by the raising of the civil servants- pensions, grants, wages, etc., thereby acknowledging the necessity but omitting the above group of senior citizens who have helped to make these raises possible.
The argument has been put forward that the country cannot afford to increase the pension, that in doing so the incentive for economy and thrift would be destroyed-this is not necessarily so, for every dollar paid out to these pensioners would be spent on goods and services, thereby creating a decent standard of living for the consumer. This is sound democracy and business economics which the federal government acknowledged in principle when the family allowance was established without any contributory scheme or means test.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: After I have finished reading this presentation of the old age pensioners.
I continue:
It would not be absolutely necessary to place added burden on the taxpayer. It could be just a matter of allotting more finances to help the great need of the senior citizens, who are entitled to a just and rightful reward for a lifetime of toil and hardship in building this country up to the high economic standard it now enjoys. With the wealth and rich resources of Canada these aged citizens should not have to be employed, as it
IMr. Peters.]
would greatly enhance the opportunities for advancement and employment for the younger generation.
Therefore we respectfully request that immediate attention be given by the government to alleviate this chronic situation and that the following brief be given prompt consideration.
1.	That federal action be taken to raise the pension to $75 per month payable without a means test to all citizens reaching the age of 65 years.
2.	That we urge the federal government to set up a national health and medical scheme, to include mental institutions and tuberculosis sanitoriums.
3.	That the government be requested to amend the regulations under the disabled persons allowance act to provide for payment of allowances to persons judged by a medical referee board to be physically incapable of gainful employment.
4.	That we request the federal and provincial governments to amend the Old Age Security Act and the Old Age Assistance Act to provide that those receiving the pensions be allowed to reside wherever they choose with no limit of time and still be eligible to receive such pension.
5.	That decent and appropriate housing facilities be made available to senior citizens by providing an adequate number of specially designed housing units and that special N.H.A. financing opportunities be made available to older citizens for the improvement of homes which they own and live in.
6.	That municipal, provincial and federal authorities be called upon to initiate programs for the social needs and personal security of senior citizens, including counselling, guidance and rehabilitation services and the development of adequate recreation and education facilities and services.
7.	To amend the Old Age Assistance Act to increase the allowable income to $2,000 for married pensioners and $1,600 for single pensioners.
Respectfully submitted,
National Old Age Pensioners Federation, Nathan W. Medd, president.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The question I was going to ask the hon. member is not as relevant now as it would have been at the time I rose to ask it. However, perhaps he would remind the committee what government was in office and what party was in power when family allowances were put on the statute books, and what government was in office and what party in power on the last occasion on which an increase was made in these benefits.


William Arnold Peters: Unfortunately no changes have been made in the legislation since, so it remains to the credit of the Liberal party that they put it on the statute books. I would also point out that I believe the measures they introduced were strongly supported by the party to which I belong, because they had been advocating them for many years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. member would permit another question. Has he ever looked at Hansard at the time family allowances were first proposed to see how enthusiastic the support of the party to which he belongs was. Because it was not very enthusiastic.


William Arnold Peters: I am not familiar with that, but I am of the opinion that the C.C.F. has at no time opposed anything that was of social advantage to the Canadian people. I think the family allowance was only introduced as an additional argument. The clergy have also been interested in this matter. In the Montreal Gazette of February 24, 1960 appeared an article headed "Father Ambrose Pleads for Elderly". This article reads in part as follows:
A need for increase of the old age pension was stressed last night by Rev. Patrick J. Ambrose, director of the Catholic welfare bureau, at the annual meeting of the organization.
More financial aid for private agencies, strengthening of family life by enforcement of juvenile and adult disciplines, elimination of substandard housing and controls of the abuse of alcohol were also called for by Father Ambrose.
Further along the article reads:
On pensions, Father Ambrose called for an increase to $75 a month from the present $55 (with a means test at 65 years of age and as a matter of social security at 70). "Present costs of living indicate that our recommendations are modest if elderly people are to live in frugal comfort. Even a pension such as recommended would not enable the dependent elderly person to have extra money for clothing, medical care and other essential needs," the director declared.
Dr. Clark was appointed to conduct a study into this matter, and according to an article appearing in the Gazette of March 6, 1959 reported that Canada cannot afford pensions on the scale of pensions in the United States. This is probably the reason the Conservatives have been so quiet about this matter. There has been very little said by them regarding what they intend to do about a long range solution to this problem.
I would like to read a letter which appeared in the Northern News of December 3, 1957, writen by a Conservative named Foster Rice. Mr. Rice wrote as follows:
Dear Sir,
In your issue of November 25, I was requested to state the policy of the Progressive Conservative party on the matter of pensions for miners.
I have not heard of pensions to miners or any other workers being included in the policies of any political party.
I would like to inform this committee that three political parties were asked to submit letters in this regard, and at least one did propose a national program for pensions. The letter continues as follows:
However, speaking recently in Toronto, Mr. Diefenbaker said "The concern of this government is for the welfare of the average Canadian."
The Progressive Conservative government realizes that manpower is becoming less and less essential as more and better machines are designed to do the job. In view of this they realize that not only must the work week become shorter in order to supply employment for all but the years one works must become less. Therefore, in order for all the people to enjoy the standard of living this country should warrant, more and more social
Interim, Supply
measures must be put into effect. Certainly, pensions, not only for miners, but for everyone will in time become a must, so the sooner they can be arranged the better.
Sincerely,
Foster Rice, Haileybury.
I presume that Mr. Rice had spoken to the Prime Minister. Mr. Rice is an honest man and was probably promised, as we all have been promised, many things by the Prime Minister including increased pensions, shorter hours of work and a shorter number of years of work during each individual's lifetime, but nothing has come of these promises as yet.
Members of the Liberal party today have made several interjections pointing out what they would have done, and perhaps some of those members will speak on this subject and bring out their suggestions. However, I am doubtful that they will. They have not said very much in this regard for a long time. I will read you what one Liberal senator had to say regarding pensions, as quoted in a news letter issued by the department of economic development, Canadian Chamber of Commerce, dated December, 1957. This article adds the following:
There is a vast reservoir of human experience and wisdom in the Senate of Canada.
I would quote other Liberal members as well if they had made any pronouncements in regard to this matter, but I have been unable to find any to date.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the hon. member referring to now when he speaks of other Liberals not making pronouncements?


William Arnold Peters: I am referring to old age pension increases.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the hon. member will take the trouble to look up the record he will find that many members of this party taking part in that debate did so because it is only natural in view of the fact that it has been the Liberal party that initiated whatever advances we have had in the field of old age pensions in this country.


Frank Howard: Only after you were forced into it.


William Arnold Peters: The last time this subject was brought to our attention was toward the end of the last session of parliament, and to the best of my personal knowledge there was no Liberal support given at that time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member need only look at the record to see.


Frank Howard: It was only political expediency.


William Arnold Peters: I am only stating now that our position is clear, and suggest that the

Interim Supply
attitude of a number of other people regarding increases to old age pensions is not clear. The article to which I referred, appearing in the news letter, reads as follows:
On November 20th, the Honourable T. A. Crerar, participating in the debate on the speech from the throne had a good deal to say about the Old Age Security Act which has been amended to increase the amount of pension to $55 per month from the $46 at which it was left by the previous administration. Mr. Crerar points out that by 1957, a new theory respecting old age pensions has developed. The theory is not that a pension is to aid elderly people to sustain themselves in comfort, but that they are entitled as of right to an amount sufficient to maintain them in comfort even though they have no resources of their own. Mr. Crerar points out that if we accept the principle that old age security payments should be based not on the need of older folk nor as an aid "but on the assumption that they are entitled to it as a right" then the incentive of people to work and save for themselves during their working years will be in large measure destroyed.
"The problem as I see it," said Senator Crerar, "is that we are steadily eroding away the desire on the part of individual citizens to make provision for their old age." He pointed out that in his view at least 75 per cent of the Canadian people are good, decent, hard working citizens who desire, above everything else, good, honest, economical government. It is the other 25 per cent to whom Canada's public men have been paying the most attention in the last ten or 15 years.
Mr. Crerar pointed to the fact that in 1939 he had an insurance policy which matured and which he left where it was. At present, he pointed out, the proceeds of that insurance policy would buy less than half of what it would have bought in 1939. His point was that there has been a steady erosion of the saving that hundreds of thousands of our people made over the years. "If we go on with these heavy expenditures and run into deficits, as we are almost certain to do, the Minister of Finance will have to show these when he brings down another budget. At all costs we should avoid feeding the fires of inflation. Nothing is more important than maintaining the integrity of our money. It may be a nice thing to give a pension on the theory that, well, we are helping the old people, but it is not going to be of any great value within two or three years if the pension is worn and eroded away by the inflationary process."
Some hon. members may not agree that old age pensions are of prime importance, but it is our national pension scheme at the present time, and is the sum total of our national social security. It seems to me that it is the right of those individuals who have supported this country over the years to have a decent standard of living now.
I would like to place on the record a C.C.F. plan regarding pensions that was adopted at the national convention. This plan is as follows:
The C.C.F. believes that the present $55 flat rate old age pension is totally inadequate to accommodate the needs of Canada's senior citizens under the economic and social conditions in which we live today. Higher prices for food, clothing and shelter, the increase in living essentials brought about by the changed living conditions of today, underline all too clearly the inability of the present old age pension system to meet the requirements of our retired elderly citizens.

The C.C.F. proposes:
A basic pension of $75 a month payable to all at age 65 without a means test;
A contributory old age insurance plan to provide pensions over and above the basic pension and thus prevent the drastic drop in living standards which many people now suffer on retirement. The main features of this plan are as follows:
1.	It would provide the vast majority of Canadians with a pension of approximately one half of their income on retirement;
2.	Contributions would be made by employees and employers, and the plan would be available to farmers and other self-employed people desiring coverage;
3.	Contributions would be based on, and the pension would be related to, individual incomes up to a reasonable maximum;
4.	Those now enlisted in existing superannuation schemes which meet the standards set by the national scheme would have the choice of remaining under those schemes or of transferring their equity to the national plan, and individuals could still insure for additional benefits under other pension plans;
5.	Pensions would be available at age 65, but an individual would have the right to defer taking his pension if he continued to work and benefits would be adjusted upward accordingly;
6.	In the case of death of the insured, benefits would be transferred to the surviving spouse, or children up to the age of 21;
7.	The plan would enable persons to move from job to job without loss of pension rights and would help to avoid discrimination in the hiring of older workers;
8.	Contributions into the national pension fund would provide one source of investment funds for carrying out public developments in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, two aspects of this matter are very important to the Canadian people. First, in this way we would establish a pension plan which would give the old age pensioner the right, not by gift or anything else, to receive a pension of $75 a month when he retires. Second, this plan would follow the social security schemes which are in use in most of the countries of Europe at the present time. It would allow an industrial employee to retire with a pension of at least half of the highest five-year average of his earnings during his working lifetime. This worker would be able to retire on a pension of half that income for the rest of his life. This plan would also provide a large fund, thus eliminating the problem that Canadian governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have faced in dealing with this matter.
I wish to refer to the action taken in connection with a booklet concerning vested pension rights. I think the action taken in this matter is a disgrace to the Canadian public.
I refer to a publication that was presented to the Canadian people in 1954. This publication was issued by the income tax department of this country under the then minister of national revenue, and it concerned a pension plan under the Income Tax Act. This document is not in the library and it is not in the

Department of National Revenue. Why? The answer is that it was withdrawn. It was found it was going to cost International Nickel upwards of approximately $300 million to establish vested rights, and this was embarrassing to the previous government.


George Clyde Nowlan: That statement is absolutely false and untrue.


William Arnold Peters: Could I ask the minister in what respect it is false?


George Clyde Nowlan: In every respect.


William Arnold Peters: This document is not available in the Department of National Revenue or the public library. I received the document from an hon. member who was a member of this house a number of years ago. It was widely distributed, and I should be happy to give a copy to any hon. member who may wish one. The Conservative party say this is not true. In 1959 they issued information bulletin No. 14. This has also been withdrawn because it contains the same fault. It means that the companies will have to establish vesting rights, which they do not want to establish. The minister's department has informed me that the only way this will ever be accomplished is for a national fund to be established where the government will take the responsibility of maintaining the fund, holding the money and acting as the vesting agency for the pension plans.
These other plans have not been successful because we have not been willing to bring them under national control and devise a national pension plan. Until we are interested in doing this we will have to exist with individual plans worked out by individual companies where the vested rights run from full rights to no rights at all, no matter what is the length of the pension plan.
It seems to me that the Canadian people have now reached a sufficient state of maturity in the operation of pension plans that the plan I have outlined should be put into effect. There are thousands and thousands of cases where people are willing, capable and able to implement a completely national, portable pension plan which will take into account complete vested rights and give these rights to the Canadian people. These provisions would apply to all people, including wives who are not in a position to earn an income, those employed in industry or those who are self-employed. If a national pension plan were put into effect, payments would be made by these people on a contributory basis and we would finally establish a completely national pension plan that would have all the benefits of portability and all the benefits of a minimum basic pension.
90205-6-210
Interim Supply


Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to delay the passing of this interim supply motion. I have listened with great interest to the display of the C.C.F. group and their intentions. They say they are going to approach the whole problem of pensions. I come from the province of Saskatchewan. We have a socialist government in that province, and I should like to say that the provincial government are paying approximately 16,000 people supplementary payments in addition to their old age pension cheques.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I must advise the hon. member that we are discussing federal payments and not provincial payments.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Chairman, what I am saying is in relation to pensions. I should like to point out that the C.C.F. group is suggesting higher payments, and so on, to old age pensioners. I should like to put on record that our socialist government in Saskatchewan are paying to approximately 16,000 people amounts that range from $2.50 to $20 a month; 7,000 people receive only $2.50 per month.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Lower supplementary payments than other provinces.


Reynold Rapp: Much lower. There are only 49 people who receive the full amount, namely $20 a month.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is socialism in action.


Reynold Rapp: I should also like to point out that only 1,261 people receive $5 a month in supplementary assistance.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I must once again remind the hon. member that we are discussing interim supply here and not provincial payments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, surely the hon. gentleman is justified in making these remarks. We are having a discussion on old age pensions and the C.C.F. party has taken a particular position. The hon. member is now trying to show that in the case of the only socialist government, the only C.C.F. government, in this country the pension payments are of such and such an order. I should think that if it were justifiable for hon. gentlemen to take up most of the time this morning-and I do not complain about that-in discussing pensions, an hon. member from Saskatchewan who knows the situation and who can tell us what the C.C.F. government is doing there should not be denied that opportunity.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to suggest that the point of order you have

Interim Supply
raised is well taken. With regard to the point mentioned by the hon. member for Essex East, if we were discussing labour relations, for example, I am sure he would object most strongly if his party's position were taken as being that outlined by the provincial premier of Newfoundland. I think if you are consistent in one place you have to be consistent in another, and that your ruling should therefore be supported.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A word on the point of order. This repudiation of the premier of Saskatchewan is most interesting.


Hazen Robert Argue: No repudiation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But my hon. friend from Humboldt-Melfort, who does not take the time of the house very often and usually has something to say when he does, is seeking to reply to a line of argument which Your Honour did not interrupt when another hon. member followed it. Just the other day, because the Leader of the Opposition made some passing reference to a sad event which took place in this city last week, hon. members were permitted to reply to that, and I suggest that my hon. friend from Humboldt-Melfort should be treated in exactly the same way.


Hazen Robert Argue: On that point of order-


Charles Edward Rea: The Chair has made up its mind. The Chair did not object to members talking about what certain parties did on a federal level, but the Chair does not wish to permit, and will not permit, the bringing in of provincial situations in this discussion. Hon. members can talk on the federal level as much as they wish, but not on the provincial level.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I speak on the point of order again? With great respect I suggest that Your Honour would wish to consider your ruling carefully. It is not possible to discuss old age pensions in this country without bringing in the provinces, because the old age assistance scheme depends on contributions made by the provincial governments as well as the federal government. We pay a large percentage of the cost of old age assistance. The provinces, including Saskatchewan, pay a minor part, and in respect to that scheme the provinces provide supplemental payments. All the hon. gentleman from Humboldt-Melfort is now doing is indicating that an analysis of supplemental payments paid by the provinces in western Canada shows that the supplemental allowances paid by the C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan are lower than those of any other western province.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order, the hon. member for Essex East has not only made a contribution on the point of order before you, Mr. Chairman, but he has endeavoured to challenge your ruling by speaking about the point of order after, I understood, that ruling had been made. I want to say that as far as I am concerned I would be quite happy if you would reverse your ruling and allow the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort to continue giving the house very important information as to the supplemental payments made in Saskatchewan on a very wide basis. Then some of us could point out that the record of Liberal provincial governments is the worst in Canada and has always been that way. If a Liberal provincial government pays a supplement-and I am not aware that one does-it is certainly something which has been done in very recent days, because the Liberals have held the record for many years of being the only governments at the provincial level which never make supplementary payments. I think it would then be only fair to point out the important health benefits now being paid in Saskatchewan-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: Senior citizens' housing, and so on.


Charles Edward Rea: The Chair is now more convinced than ever that the ruling made was correct. Shall the resolution carry?


An hon. Member:: No.


Charles Edward Rea: The Leader of the Opposition.


Hazen Robert Argue: If I could have the floor until one o'clock I should be obliged. I have another engagement at 2.30.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Unfortunately I am not at all sure whether I can be here either. I shall try to arrange to be here for this important debate. However, because of the fact that hon. gentlemen to my right have taken up practically all the morning on this important issue-


Hazen Robert Argue: We do not apologize for that. We are the people fighting for the pensioners. Just because the Liberal party has been asleep-


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is another example of the normal approach of hon. members in that socialist group. They have, of course, arrogated to themselves exclusive interest in, and concern and credit for, everything that has been done in this country in this field.


Hazen Robert Argue: Just the major things.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is their normal approach to matters of this kind. It is easy for them to take that approach because they have no expectation of ever being called to office and to a position where they would have to discharge in responsible action some of the words they utter in this house. That makes their statements not only exaggerated and unrealistic but very easy to make. They have been doing this for a long time over the years. We are accustomed to it, and we do not pay much attention to it.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is why you landed where you are.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The fact that hon. members of that group have again been expressing this attitude in words is perhaps the most important evidence that they are really not expecting to have to put into effect the words they utter.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition would permit me to ask a question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I think so, in view of the fact that the hon. member is unable to attend at 2.30.


Hazen Robert Argue: Does the Leader of the Opposition not realize that one of the main reasons he sits on this side of the house was the failure of the former minister of finance, Mr. Walter Harris, to do more than provide an increase of $6 a month; consequently he became known as "Six-buck Walter"?


Lester Bowles Pearson: One of the reasons only eight gentlemen sit in that corner is that the people of Canada saw through their wild and irresponsible statements. May I call it one o'clock?


George Clyde Nowlan: In view of the fact that this is only interim supply and it was understood that some progress would be made, might I ask if there would be any objection to our continuing for five or ten minutes and completing our consideration of this matter? The discussion would indicate that this, perhaps, would be a natural procedure.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are quite agreeable to doing that.


Frank Howard: Before we agree to some open ended thing, let us set five or ten minutes, otherwise we shall be here until 2.30.


George Clyde Nowlan: If we could agree to spend another five or ten minutes on this-


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am quite agreeable to concluding my remarks in ten minutes-


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
90205-6-210i
Interim Supply AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, at one o'clock I was dealing with some points made in connection with the pension matters raised by our hon. friends of the C.C.F. party, and I should like to say just a few more words on this subject. I do not intend to hold up this interim supply very long, but because this matter has been raised, and because of the terms in which it was raised, it is necessary for us to put ourselves on record in regard to such a vitally important matter as pensions.
The record of our party on this matter is not to be found so much in the words used in the House of Commons-though it may be found there, too-as in the legislation of this country over the last 25 years. That is more important than words.
I recognize that my hon. friend who preceded me attempted to point out-and this has been attempted many times-that the social security program which the Liberal party is proud to have carried out over the years had been forced on us. The answer to that rather ridiculous charge is to be found in the fact that this program was initiated long before there was a C.C.F. party in existence in this chamber. The hon. member for Timiskaming, of course, has attempted to disprove the record, and to throw some suspicion on our desire to continue this record and expand and enlarge it, by quoting from an hon. member of the Liberal party, namely Senator Crerar, who over the years has done a great deal for the party and for the country.
I have what I am sure the hon. member will consider to be an even more impressive authority to use against him in contradicting some of the things he said this morning because I could, if I so desired, use his own references to this matter last year when we were debating the principle of pensions and social security and when he said at that time, in contradiction to what he and his hon. friends have said this morning, that he was not wedded to any particular amount in regard to old age pensions and that he thought perhaps $75 a month at this time and in the present circumstances might be too high.
Those were the words used by the hon. member for Timiskaming when discussing this matter last year in this chamber, and if he reads Hansard of July 19, 1960 he will find a reference to that effect. I thought the hon. member at that time was adopting a very reasonable and responsible attitude reflecting a combination of economic reality and strong humanitarian considerations. It is that combination which characterizes the approach of the Liberal party to this question. We believe

Interim Supply
and have always believed-and we have shown our belief in action-that humanitarian considerations are to be given first priority in the field of social security but that these must always be reconciled to fiscal and economic considerations as well.
Perhaps I may be permitted to quote from a distinguished authority in this field, namely myself when I spoke in a debate on this subject on July 19, 1960 as reported at page 6510 of Hansard of that year-


George Clyde Nowlan: A natural modesty.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and when I said, referring to the Liberal party:
We also recognize, while keeping in mind economic and fiscal considerations, that there are social considerations which are equally important, indeed more important, than fiscal considerations. We know that pension schemes and pension levels and social security programs generally can never be fixed but that they have to be adjusted and changes made as conditions in the country change.
That quotation indicates our position on this important matter. My hon. friends opposite in the Conservative party before and during elections have been lavish in promises in the field of social security and more specifically on the question of old age pensions. The Prime Minister is on record-and he has not as far as I know denied the record-as saying, and I quote from the statement he made on April 19, 1957, that "old age pensions should be high enough to meet needs".
That is an important and categorical statement. It would be very interesting if we had time-and I do not propose to take up the time of the committee to do it-to relate that categorical statement that pensions should be high enough to meet needs to what actually has been done by the government since it has had responsibility in the field of old age security.
In dealing with this point we think particularly of the Clark report. We think of the promises of the government to introduce with a minimum of delay a scheme of contributors pensions for old age security. We think particularly of the appointment after the election of a commission to look into this matter and we think of the Prime Minister's instructions to the first chairman of that commission to have his report ready in four months. The chairman of that commission, unable to do this kind of job within four months, resigned and so great was the haste in this matter he was succeeded at once by another chairman, Professor Clark, who did make a report on this very important question in March, 1959.
Since that time we have been unable to secure any information in this committee about the implementation of that report or the government's intentions in that regard

except to get periodically, after questioning by my friend the hon. member for Essex East, a reply from the minister concerned to the effect that he is still studying the matter. The hon. gentleman has been studying the recommendations of this report since March,
1959.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He is a very studious fellow.


Lester Bowles Pearson: So much, then, for the progress made by the government in implementing its own promises in this field.
The position of the Liberal party on this matter has been made clear in this chamber on many occasions. It was made clear in the debate which took place on July 19, 1960. I do not think I can do better than put on the record the motion we moved at that time because it established our position then and it is our position today. This particular amendment to the motion to go into supply was repudiated, rejected and turned down by the majority in this house. Our amendment, which is found at page 6511 of Hansard, of 1960 reads as follows:
That in the opinion of this house the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation to provide, in co-operation with the provinces, for increases in the old age pensions to meet special hardships endured by the recipients of old age security and old age assistance; to extend old age assistance to unmarried women and widows at 60 years of age; for the vesting of benefits in industrial pensions plans; and for a national contributory pension scheme, co-ordinated with existing provisions for retirement and old age security based on federal government contributions, as well as on contributions of employees, employers, and self-employed.
This is definite and concrete, Mr. Chairman. I think it is a very progressive program in this field. We have laid the program down in the House of Commons. It has been rejected in the House of Commons by the government, but it remains our position. I do not think I need detain the committee any longer, except to repeat that this program remains our position in this field.


Hazen Robert Argue: We in the C.C.F.-New Party group have initiated this debate because we take the position that old age pensions are too low today and are a disgrace to the country; they should be increased. We have not had any reply from the government. We should like to have a reply as to their policy and what they intend to do about old age pensions because certainly it has beeen made crystal clear to the country that the Conservative party understands that old age pensions are too low but it has not yet decided to do anything about them. We would certainly be interested in learning of their stand.

We think that the problem, of old age pensions falls into two categories. First of all, there is need for an immediate increase in the pension that is now paid, one that will overcome some of the hardships that undoubtedly exist among old age pensioners in our country. Second, we believe a comprehensive social security system should be introduced to provide for retirement pensions based on the general average income and standard of living of Canadian people. We think that if such an old age security system were put into effect immediately it would have the advantage not only of providing much needed assistance to people on retirement but would do a great deal to stimulate the purchasing power of the Canadian nation. We suggest that such a plan is sound in every respect and that those people who are working today, those who are self-employed in small businesses and farmers should be permitted to pay into such a plan during the period of their income, and that at the retirement age they should receive a pension in keeping with the standard of living of other Canadians.
We believe that such a scheme should receive contributions from the ordinary citizen, the employee and the self-employed person. Contributions should be made by the employer-that is, by industry-and there should be contributions by the federal government. From contributions made to such a plan on a three-way basis would come the funds from which an adequate pension should be paid. I see no reason why such a plan could not pay to the beneficiaries concerned pensions of $100 to $200 a month. This would certainly not be high in relation to the average national income of the country. It should be sufficiently high so that the people who retire could look forward to a standard of living that was at least from 50 per cent to 75 per cent of the general income standards of working Canadians.
We think the time has come when further action should be taken in the social security field by providing increases in family allowances. After all, the family allowance legislation has been on the statute books since 1944. There has been a tremendous increase in the cost of living since that time. The index has risen from 75 to 126. To restore the purchasing power of the family allowance cheque, to say nothing about adding to its real value, would require an increase in the first category of payment of $6 a month to $10 a month, and in the category of $8 a month to $13 a month. Once the Canadian nation has decided that a given social security system shall be provided-in this instance, of family allowances it was decided back in 1944-parliament should not allow inflation to eat away and
Interim Supply
tear down the value of such payments. I repeat, to restore the value of family allowances increases of this size would be required. I think that initially family allowance legislation was on a sound basis. Its purpose was to enable the parents of families to be better able to care for their needs, and this is the kind of program that is of benefit to the Canadian nation as a whole. This change, together with the old age security system that I have been speaking about, would provide a vast improvement in our present social security legislation.
There is a crying need for a system of portable pensions in Canada. After all, the present system or lack of system whereby certain pensions are provided by certain industries-and the pensions vary from industry to industry and are tied to an industry- means that a person in middle life is very reluctant to transfer his employment even if he is certain that at that time he would get a definite increase in income. He is reluctant because very often he loses his pension rights. To a certain degree we have tied or bound employees to industries which provide pensions. By allowing this system to grow up without an over-all social security plan we have contributed to the immobility of labour because, if persons should decide to make a transfer, they have to suffer a very severe loss in their pension rights. To overcome these difficulties we are suggesting now that there should be such an old age security system.
We have listened with a great deal of interest to the Leader of the Opposition. He says his policy this year is the same as it was last year. You can read the policy of last year but you cannot tell what it means. They would have an increase for special hardship cases. They would put a means test on the existing means test where it exists.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He did not say
anything about that.


Hazen Robert Argue: They say special hardship cases can have another blood test. They would put them through the wringer. It took the members of the C.C.F. party in this house, fighting day in and day out over a long period of time, finally to convince the government of the day that they should, at least in a partial way, do away with the iniquitous means test. Apparently once again the Leader of the Opposition would impose the means test in what he calls special hardship cases. I have in my hand the evidence taken before the joint committee on old age security in 1950. At that time a very important witness had this to say about the scheme as it was then

Interim Supply
projected and the methods of financing it. I quote from page 1038 of the proceedings:
In conclusion, then, it seems evident that the tripartite scheme of financial social security-
The one we have.
-apart from its unethical nature, is in conflict with our post-war objectives of full employment.
That was a head-on assault against the Liberal scheme of the day. It was called a tripartite scheme of financial social security that was inadequate in nature and in conflict with our post-war objectives of full employment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Who was that? Was it the Minister of Finance?


Hazen Robert Argue: The man who made that statement was none other than Mr. Maurice La-montagne, professor of social economics, faculty of social science, Laval University, who since has gone to his reward and has been given the very eminent position of chief adviser to the official opposition.


An hon. Member:: A great man.


Hazen Robert Argue: Somebody among the Liberals says "a great man". That was certainly some advice. We would like to know from the Leader of the Opposition today if it is the stand of the Liberal party that the scheme introduced by that party was of an unethical nature, did not fit into the general scheme of our future fiscal policy and was in conflict with our postwar objectives of full employment. I do not know whether the money being raised in this unfair, unethical and discriminatory manner is a reason that has contributed finally to widespread unemployment. It would be very interesting to know Mr. Lamontagne's views on that question.
We have heard from the Leader of the Opposition and they have no policy. Our position today is clear that there should be an increase of $20 a month in old age pensions. Just a few days ago representatives from the city of Toronto came to Ottawa to ask that such an increase be provided. They pointed out to the federal government that people who have to exist on $55 a month and pay rent out of that sum are suffering from malnutrition and starvation in a very real sense.
We suggest that now is the time for action. Now is the time for the government to provide an increase in old age pensions. We are putting this suggestion forward before the mother budget is brought down at this session in the hope that there will be some reference in it to this very important issue. There is no question that the government realizes that there is a need. Here is the Clark report. The government knows that

something should be done about the old age security system. They established a royal commission and they have been studying the report of the commission for two years. One can only wonder whether the government are going to act or whether they are going to set up another royal commission to study the Clark report. I hear that is what is going to happen with respect to the railway issue. I hear that there is going to be a royal commission to look into the report of the conciliation board. I hope the government is not going to set up another royal commission to examine Robert M. Clark's report.
We are taking the opportunity at this time to raise by way of grievance a subject that we think is of great national importance and of great urgency. We are very much disappointed that we have not received assistance and support from the Liberal party in the simple, basic proposition that now is the time for an increase of $20 a month in old age pensions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the speech by the hon. member for Assiniboia to which we have just listened cannot be regarded as the most lucid statement he has made in this chamber. It was indeed very difficult to follow the hon. member as he moved with such uncertainty from subject to subject. He did not give evidence of an appreciation of his subject, as one would have thought would be the ease of a man and a party with such pretensions to protagonism for legislation in the field of social welfare. Indeed, the background to what he has said was provided this morning by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort who pointed out what the record is in the field of old age assistance in the only province with a C.C.F. government.


Hazen Robert Argue: Excellent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: So far as supplementary old age assistance payments by the provinces are concerned the fact is that the contribution of the C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan is less than that of any other western province.


Hazen Robert Argue: And more than any Liberal province.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The way for any
political party to show the good faith it attaches to its proposals is to indicate what it has done whenever that particular philosophy has been given an opportunity to produce. The hon. member in attacking the Leader of the Opposition today neglected to recall that whatever social security program we have in this country was placed on the statute books by a Liberal government. We owe the old age pensions of 1925 and the

eight different amendments since that date, with the exception of the amendment brought in by the present government three years ago-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Between two elections.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -to Liberal governments. We owe the establishment of old age assistance, blindness allowances, disability pensions, unemployment insurance, the veterans charter, hospital insurance and family allowances to governments that were Liberal in character, notably the governments of Mr. Mackenzie King and Mr. St. Laurent. Notwithstanding what the hon. member who has just spoken has said, the fact is that every single act of social welfare in this country on federal account has been placed there by Liberal governments. When we went out of office in 1957-


Frank Howard: The best thing that ever happened.


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: It will never happen to you because you will never have the opportunity to govern.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -we had produced a social welfare program which in its total dollar value represented a greater total percentage of the national budget than that of any other country in the western world save one. When hon. gentlemen talk about their protagonism for social welfare, let them not forget, as the Leader of the Opposition reminded us this morning, their hesitancy in the matter of family allowances. No one denies that Mr. J. S. Woodsworth was a great humanitarian. I sat with him in this house and knew him as well as any hon. member in the house. But that does not mean that because he had generous social views he is to be regarded, having sat in the opposition, as the author of any of these plans.
The fact is that when family allowances were first proposed in the industrial relations committee around 1926 Mr. Woodsworth was opposed to the concept. That is a matter of record. It is not to be forgotten too, of course, that the members of the Conservative party were opposed to the proposal of a system of family allowances.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A political bribe, they called it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: By a former leader of the party and one-time premier of Ontario it was referred to as a political bribe. So when hon. gentlemen talk about their views on social welfare, and when members of the government consider the contributions they have made in that field, and notably when one takes into account the kind of speech made by the Prime Minister last Friday at
Interim Supply
the Tory conclave, one can say that only by one's accomplishments can one appropriately be judged. In Canada it is the Liberal party which will lead the way in the field of responsible social reform in this country. The record is there to show this.
One can enter into competition as to what amount the pension should be. I think it is regrettable in our public life for any political party-men who have never held office but who look for the opportunity to do so-to promote a competitive race in the promotion of social benefits. I say that any political party that wants to be entrusted with the confidence of the Canadian people must demonstrate in its advocacy of particular social measures that it has a responsible appreciation of all that is involved. That is something that I regret I cannot say, has been done, having listened to the speech just made by the member for Assiniboia who aspires to be prime minister of this country.
As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out today, the fact is, that the Liberal party, having this record in the field of social welfare, recognizes that, with the existence and emergence of new problems in our industrial society, modifications have to be made, and increases have to be provided for in social benefits and in the field of old age pensions, family allowances and disability pensions; that new schemes have to be embarked on to meet new situations as they arise, and that these can be met possibly in the light of the nation's capacity to meet those obligations. One should not forget that all of these measures have to be provided for out of one source only; and that source, of course, is the hard work of the Canadian people. With that consideration in mind the Liberal party has put forward, as the Leader of the Opposition has reminded us, the program of the 1958 convention which continues to represent our position. The leader of the C.C.F. party failed to note what the Leader of the Opposition has said in that regard.
First of all, as to a further step in the implementation of health insurance against the hazards which can be provided for by medical care insurance, we do not believe that we should deal with this matter by way of a royal commission. Indeed, if we were going to do this by way of a royal commission we would not have taken three months to announce the personnel of it. The government announced the royal commission in the middle of November. All we have had from the Prime Minister or the government is the designation of a chairman, and no further progress has been made. One is left in doubt as to when this royal commission is going to be finally selected and when it is going to begin its operations.

Interim Supply
We also believe in extending unemployment insurance because of illness. We believe in the expansion of pensions for disabled persons to include the partially disabled. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, we believe in the extension of old age assistance to unmarried women and widows 60 years of age. We believe in the improvement of family allowances with special reference to family allowances to students until they have attained the age of 18 years. We believe in the introduction of new pension plans with provisions for early vesting of benefits so that if an employee changes his employment he will retain the advantage of pension contributions previously made by him and his employer, so that in effect the pension follows the man. The leader of the C.C.F. party is by no means the spokesman for the only group that believes in portable pensions. Because the provinces have jurisdiction in this matter, I would call my hon. friend's attention to the lead of the Ontario Liberal party with regard to portable pensions.
Finally, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, we believe in the immediate consideration of a national contributory pension scheme co-ordinated with the existing provisions for retirement of old age security, the pensions to begin at age 65 and based upon the federal government contributions as well as contributions of employees, employers and the self-employed.
I doubt very much if the hon. member for Assiniboia appreciated fully what he was talking about when he referred to a contributory plan. He first of all confused it with a means test. He gave one the impression that he had that uncertainty of touch in this field that he sometimes alleges I have in another one. I can only say this with regard to this scheme. Having in mind the fact that we now have a universal system, and having in mind the fact that the federal government of the day in 1951 embarked upon the only universal old age security system to be found anywhere, we believe the time now has arrived when, in the light of experience and practice in the United States, we might well give consideration to supplementing our existing universal system with a scheme of contributory pensions that will provide for amounts relating to the contribution that will far exceed anything like the present basic amount of the old age pension. I think it is important that we should understand what this scheme is. It is because the hon. member for Assiniboia obviously does not understand that I feel I should like to say something about this today.

First of all, as the Leader of the Opposition reminded us, the government did promise the Canadian people in 1958 that we were going to have a scheme of old age pensions based upon a full contributory principle, along the lines generally known to apply in the United States. The fact is that since the election the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who does not take part in this debate, has had in his control the recommendations and the assessment of this problem by Professor Clark, but the government refuses to give the house any indication of what its intentions are. The minister said only ten days ago, in answer to a question of mine, that he was continuing to study the Clark report. I called his attention to the fact that last June he told me that he had completed his study, but that the government had not yet decided upon a course of action based on that study and the recommendations which he would, at some stage, make to his colleagues. In the absence of action there can be no justification for the government of the day having authorized the expenditure of money that went into producing this report, and there can be no justification for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or for the Prime Minister not telling this house what the government policy is with regard to the adoption in Canada of a system similar to the old age survivors security system in the United States. Last Friday the Prime Minister promised that at the appropriate moment something would be done about pensions. What is the appropriate moment? Is the Prime Minister waiting until the eve of an election before announcing this? Is he hoping once again, notwithstanding the admitted need that now exists, to take advantage, during the course of an election, of a proposal in this field in order to enhance his own political position and that of his party? If that is the course being taken by the Prime Minister, I say that it is not a proper course, because if there was need in 1958 that need certainly exists today.
I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is not here today, what decision the government has arrived at and what decision the Minister of National Health and Welfare has arrived at. Is the minister now satisfied that the suggestion in the Clark report, that this would be too costly a scheme for Canada, really represents the government's policy? That is not the position this party takes.
It is to be noted that the proposal put forward and referred to today by the Leader of the Opposition is one that goes further than the old age security contributory system in the United States. That system in the United States is based exclusively on contributions from employee and employer. No

government contribution whatsoever is made under that system in the United States. However, because of our regard for the existing need we have included in our proposal contributions from the federal government also.
This problem of providing assistance for our senior citizens is one of the great problems facing us. Almost one million people in Canada, out of our 18 million people, are 70 years of age and over. Almost one million people are now in receipt of old age security universal pensions. Some 300,000 people between the ages of 65 and 70 are receiving old age assistance. Our population is ageing, and what is now a great problem in terms of numbers will continue to be a challenging problem. There is great need in the case of many of our people. This is one of the problems of this industrial age in which we live. We can meet it out of the present universal system by adding to the present cost of something like $600 million almost twice that amount in less than a decade.
Because of this consideration I think we must recognize the inevitability of superimposing on the existing old age universal system something that is in principle not unlike the system in the United States. I suggest that the government has been remiss in waiting all this time to take the house into its confidence with regard to its view on what should be done about the facts elicited in the Clark report. The government is certainly treating parliament with great disrespect and it is treating the people of Canada with very little respect when it causes a report to be prepared during the course of an election and keeps it under cover for two and a half years, giving no indication whatsoever as to what it proposes to do with it except to hint at political rallies what it might do as the time approaches for holding an election.
I think that for the Prime Minister and this government to play with the old people of our country in this way indicates the real concern the government has for their plight, particularly when we bear in mind what the Prime Minister said on February 12, 1958. This is what the present Prime Minister said, as reported in the Globe and Mail of February 13, 1958:
-Mr. Diefenbaker took his social security program one significant step further. Until now he has promised only a study of the U.S. social security system.
Tonight, he pledged: "We will bring about in Canada a rounded and effective contributory social security plan over and above-and I emphasize this-that which already exists".
Such a plan would provide Canadians with social security payments in addition to the $55 now paid under the old age pension plan.
Referring to the report his government has ordered, he said he had asked that it be made
Interim Supply
within the next few months so the government would be in a position to have parliament consider the expanded plan.
That was during the course of an election campaign. The Prime Minister led the people of Canada to believe that if they elected this government we would have in this country a system of old age security based upon and similar to the contributory system existing in the United States. That is what those words imply.
The article in the Globe and Mail continues:
He reviewed the social security accomplishments of the past few months-
The Prime Minister gave the impression that all the existing social welfare laws had been placed upon the statute books of this country by a Conservative government. Except in debate, we have no way of trying to persuade the government to fulfil its assurances. We have no way of trying to bring home to the government the importance of implementing its assurances other than by debate in this house. We cannot force the government to reply, but the Minister of National Health and Welfare should be replying to these questions today. The Prime Minister, who made these assurances, ought to reply to this matter today.


George Clyde Nowlan: Nonsense.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Someone says "Nonsense". I say that under our parliamentary system, when a prime minister goes to the people and makes a promise, he ought to indicate to the Canadian people and to parliament, certainly three years afterwards, why he has not implemented that promise.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A second-class promise.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend has said it is nonsense. Where is the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Why is he not here now to tell us exactly the results of the study that has been made with regard to this problem and this program that was projected before the Canadian people in the last federal election campaign?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was just an electior. promise.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have not been able to persuade the government to make any definite decision one way or the other in this field. I think we ought to clearly affirm, when the opportunity is given, our criticism of the government for not coming to any decision and that we ought to restate what we have done. We should again state our objectives in the field of social welfare.
We have stated our objectives today in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. We

Interim Supply
may not be able to realize all those objectives at once. These programs are very far-reaching in their consequences as related to situations which exist at the moment. If the Prime Minister had taken that kind of attitude during the election campaign and had said, "This is our objective; this is something we hope to do", that would have been understandable; but he should not have said, "This is something we are going to do very shortly", which I suggest is indicated in his statement. If the Prime Minister had said that, one would not have the same criticism to make.
The other day the mayor of Toronto came to this city to see the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The minister was quoted as saying that the kind of consideration being given to this question would involve the application of a system based upon eligibility, which in turn would be based upon need. That is nothing more than a means test. It should not be forgotten that in 1951 parliament decided to bring in a universal old age security system without a means test. It is interesting to note that the recommendation for that policy was made by a parliamentary committee whose chairman at that time was the present premier of the province of Quebec, Mr. Jean Lesage.
Parliament and the government accepted this report. I think it would be very difficult for the government to embark upon a new system that ran contrary to the attempt to eliminate a means test in the application of old age pensions in this country. If the government feels it cannot provide an extension to the existing universal system, then the provinces and the federal government ought to give consideration to the fact that something must be done immediately to meet the kind of case which was presented to the government by the mayor of Toronto. That could be done by the federal government in the interim along with the provinces. But over the long term, and as a basic program, I think we must recognize that it is desirable to adopt in this country the features of the old age survivor system in the United States, based, as it is, on a system of contributions from pensioners and employers with added contributions from the state.
If contributions from the state are not provided we shall encounter the same experience as that which was encountered in the United States when the scheme was first established there. It took 18 years before any real benefits were paid at all under the old age security system as conceived in the United States some 22 years ago. If we are to provide a system which gives immediate benefit to the people who will have made contributions, the only way in which that

could be done would be by adopting the course we pursue in the case of unemployment insurance where one third of the contribution is paid by the state.
In this industrial age there is no other course open to us than to provide these social welfare measures. Some call this welfare capitalism; some call this the welfare state; some call it a negation of the system of free enterprise. I prefer to recognize what has happened in the last half century. I prefer to recognize that our society has changed. It has changed gradually, and I hope it will continue to change gradually and under responsible direction. But our system cannot be maintained unless we recognize that in our effort to provide the maximum amount of private initiative, we must take provision at the same time for those classes in our community who do not have the necessary means in order to qualify for the assistance now made available in one form or another.
When we look at our heavy roll of unemployed today we might well ask ourselves: where would we be but for some of the social measures we brought in? Where would we be but for unemployment insurance? Well do I remember the criticism made of the Liberal government when it introduced unemployment insurance in 1941 and the suggestion that we were embarking on a form of state paternalism which would cause this country to become bankrupt. The same kind of criticism was levelled against Mr. Mackenzie King in 1925 when he introduced a system of old age pensions, only to have it turned down by a majority in the Senate which happened in that year to be made up for the most part of supporters of the Conservative party. The situation was the same when family allowances were introduced. It was said in criticism that we had become socialists, and that we had destroyed the private enterprise system. Let me say this to the Prime Minister and his colleagues on the benches opposite. The issue in the next election will not be the kind of issue he envisages. It will be the incompetence of this government and its failure to carry out its promises compared with the record which the Liberal government, when it was entrusted with office, was able to build up for the Canadian people and which included the provision of family allowances as well as these other social measures. Family allowances now provide almost three million families representing nearly 6,500,000 children every month with assistance in filling the gap between what a parent earns and what is needed to maintain these dependent children properly.
I have been aroused into making this speech by the suggestions of the hon. member for Assiniboia who holds himself up as the

only one who is interested in these matters, though the fact is that the Liberal party has led the way. The man who sits on my left is the leader of the party which has been first in the field of social welfare in Canada and the only party in this house which can legitimately criticize this government for having failed to carry out promises which greatly assisted it in being placed where it now sits, Mr. Chairman, to your right, but it will be for only a short time.


Frank Howard: I have one or two comments to make and I wish to attach some of them to the glowing tribute which the hon. member for Essex East paid himself a moment ago.


An hon. Member:: It is only what he deserves.


Frank Howard: It is twice as much as he will get. After listening to the hon. gentleman I came to the conclusion that anyone who was present in this house during the time he was minister would be reminded of his speeches then, because he has just made precisely the kind of speech he used to make when he sat on the treasury benches. It is an excellent indication of why he failed to be successful in his attempt at the national Liberal conclave in the winter of 1958-


An hon. Member:: Superman.


Frank Howard: Did you call him a superman?


An hon. Member:: I was talking about you.


Frank Howard: You should not talk about me in that way. I think it is regrettable indeed that the Liberal party, which sets itself up as the only one in a position legitimately to criticize the government in office, should be at the same time opposed to an increase in the old age pension to the amount we have suggested.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, the hon. member has no right to misrepresent the opposition. What the Leader of the Opposition and I have indicated is that we are in favour of increases for the old age pensioners of this country.


Frank Howard: But without the courage to mention a figure.


Lester Bowles Pearson: With enough responsibility not to do so.


Frank Howard: Fence sitters. He and his colleagues want to keep out of any controversy. A six-dollar party is what they were in 1957 and they are still a six-dollar party. They are afraid to come out and mention any figure at all because they will then be in the happy position of being able to agree with anybody about any suggested
Interim Supply
increase. They should know full well, having sat in office for so long, that it is necessary to establish a particular figure, even though that figure may be an arbitrary one, and to campaign for that figure or nothing will be done.
I did not participate in this movement because of age, but much of the progress which has been made in the provision of social welfare measures has been due to the stand taken in this house by members and former members of the C.C.F. party. One of the reasons we have a degree of social security today is that members of the C.C.F. had the courage to go out into the country against the objections of Liberals and Conservatives and other reactionary groups in the nation and campaign for a particular figure. They had the courage to demand increases in pensions, and adjustments in administration and to ask for a national health plan. They rallied support in the nation for these things. It is because of the courage of people like J. S. Woodsworth, Stanley Knowles, and Alistair Stewart that the Liberal party in office was forced into the position of having to put these increases and improvements into effect.
When the hon. member for Essex East spoke in glowing terms about what he and his party had accomplished in the past he was doing nothing more than apologizing for the lack of action on the part of the Liberal administration over the years. It is an indication of the right wing of the Liberal party coming up. Those people who have their roots in Newfoundland and support that element in the Liberal party are the ones we are hearing from today. The Liberals lack the courage to make known any figure in order to avoid any difficulty that may arise out of arguing for a particular amount. They want to be in the position of agreeing with anyone and everyone for the sake of political expediency.
The hon. member for Essex East spoke about the government hiding the Clark report and later on asserted that his party is the only one with any legitimate right to criticize the government. The Clark report is indeed a hidden document tucked away in a dusty file as I mentioned earlier, but the hon. member expressed a false point. He attempted to suggest that his party is the only one not only in this chamber but in Canada with a legitimate point of view. The hon. member was a top-ranking member of the cabinet in the Liberal government and he and his colleagues sitting alongside him participated in hiding many reports. They kept information from the public. I will not use such words as "corruption" or "dishonesty" in describing their actions but they did keep reports secret from the nation. What about the Currie report? What about the four-legged people

Interim Supply
on the payroll at Petawawa? How did that matter come to the attention of the public? It was not because the Liberals had the courage to face their responsibility. They tried to hide the report.
What about the report relating to flour milling combines, the report on price fixing and involving criminal actions? This was before there was a combines investigation branch. What happened? The report was kept secret and hidden from the public eye until sufficient time had elapsed that prosecutions could not be launched. Let my hon. friends in the Liberal party not take the position they do, attempting to sugar-coat it with a claim to legitimacy.
What about the report concerning the economic outlook which the Prime Minister unethically chose to wave around in this chamber in 1957? This was a hidden, secret document and something to which the Liberals paid no attention. They knew they should do so but they did not feel like it.
What about the advice of Mr. Lamontagne given 11 years ago to the effect that the old age pension scheme could easily lead the nation into unemployment? The Liberals paid no attention to it and then hired this same gentleman as a top adviser. Regardless of how much the hon. member for Essex East coats his phrases in emotional terms and regardless of how mellifluous he is-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That word is pronounced "mellifluous".


Frank Howard: -or no matter what he says, everyone in Canada knows how bleak and black is the record of the Liberal party over the years. It was a great day for the country, at least from one point of view-


Egan Chambers: Be careful now.


Frank Howard: -when they were summarily fired from office.


Lester Bowles Pearson: All but eight of the hon. gentleman's group were fired.


Frank Howard: It will be a sad day if the Liberals ever get back in again.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman will not be around to welcome us.


Frank Howard: That may be so, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this through you, Mr. Chairman. My approach and that of the C.C.F. with respect to elections is this. I do not care if I am ever again elected to parliament or if the C.C.F. ever forms the government of this country or of any province thereof so long as the things for which we campaign become the law of this nation and the people are treated justly, fairly and squarely. That is what I am concerned about

and I do not care whether the hon. member in any capacity is around to welcome the members of future parliaments. I am interested only in square shooting and in a fair deal for all Canadians including the old age pensioners about whom we are now speaking. They should have decent treatment and a proper income. I am not interested in political expediency which is the hallmark of the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Oh, do not be so self-virtuous.


Frank Howard: There is no self-virtue here. I started at the lower levels of the political ladder and have no desire or intention of going farther. The Leader of the Opposition started at the top and since then has come down a long way. He will slip farther down if he persists in pursuing the course he followed a moment ago of lifting statements out of the context of the record and distorting them to create a false picture. I will leave it to the hon. member for Timiskaming to deal with that matter.
It is our desire to promote discussion of old age pensions. We know that pensions should be increased and only we have the intestinal fortitude to suggest a specific amount. We are not like the Liberals who the other evening wanted to close off debate and go home. It is our intention to develop an argument about old age pensions. We have succeeded in bringing about such debate even though hon. members of the government have remained silent and even though latterly hon. members of the Liberal party have sought to tag along after sleeping all morning. The C.C.F. party has always had the courage and the intestinal fortitude to speak out on behalf of increases in old age pensions. My hon. friends look askance. They know how angry everyone in this chamber was at me the other evening because I wanted to call it six o'clock-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Everyone?


Frank Howard: -and when the Liberals wanted to give away the right to debate this question. If the government should increase old age pensions before the next election I will welcome that action even if it is taken because of political expediency. I am sure the Liberals will also welcome the increases and that the Conservatives will trumpet it around the nation that they introduced increases. I take some small personal satisfaction out of knowing that it was the C.C.F. again that wanted to bring these things to the forefront, to raise the issue, as the C.C.F. has done year after year on all sorts of issues affecting the rights and the dignity of the people of this nation and justice for them.


An hon. Member:: Hollywood.

Interim Supply


Frank Howard: My hon. friend says "Hollywood". I could tell him a story about Hollywood which would more nearly fit his party but this is not the proper place to do it.
(Translation) :


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Chairman, while listening to the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), I was reminded of a scene I have read about in the holy scriptures concerning the publican and the Pharisee. While would be most appropriate to report it here, I will merely suggest that he read it. If he does not recognize himself in the person of the Pharisee, he can come and see me and I shall be pleased to show him the analogy.
I also know a fable by La Fontaine entitled "The Wolf and the Lamb." The wolf used to spend his time bragging about his strength in the woods and in the fields. One day, he met a lamb grazing peacefully in a green meadow. The wolf, looking for an excuse to treat himself to a good meal by eating the lamb accuses the latter of grazing in his fields.
Mr. Chairman, this fable came to my mind when I heard the hon. member for Skeena state: "We are not like the Liberal party". We are not like them, we are the new messiahs, the new prophets in America. We are going to change everything in this world; it is going to be paradise on earth.
Mr. Chairman, as I have already said in this house, I believe in public men who try to eradicate all that is unsound in public administration; I have no faith in those who try to have the people believe that with them it will be the embodiment of purity. I am afraid of those who give themselves as being pure, because the pure do not need to broadcast it, it shows in their deeds.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know now whether the hon. member for Skeena is speaking on behalf of the C.C.F. or the new party. Of course it is quite hard these days, and it will be for months to come, to know to what group he belongs, but I am very anxious to see the designation that will be given to this new party which will be made up of old human natures such as our House of Commons is composed of. And, Mr. Chairman, we are not going to change human nature.
I much prefer to see a man, like my leader or like the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), state publicly in this house that he is in favour of improving social security measures, without starting a childish quarrel as to what should be the increase in the rate, 15 cents, $20 or $50. That point is unimportant. Personally I think that what is important is to make sure that all social security measures are adequate to meet the present needs. It depends how one sees it.
The hon. member for Skeena tells us that his colleagues and himself have the courage to announce that they will increase old age security by $20. I think the only courage he can boast of is the one needed to beg for votes. I am fed up with his lessons in humility.
Mr. Chairman, I was going to suggest to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) that he appoint a minister of humility, and that he select for the office the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton), since he possesses that quality to such a high degree. However, if they want to do a good deed and appoint one day someone who will really teach humility, by his words as well as by his deeds, I would suggest to the Prime Minister that he keep in mind the member for Skeena.
As was pointed out by the hon. member for Essex East, the Liberal party need not be ashamed of its accomplishments. If it is ashamed of its record, the people are a party to such a record, because they kept the Liberals in office for 22 years.
The Liberal party is not ashamed of its record. That is not to say that the Liberals never made a mistake. In fact the best evidence that they did is that they were removed to this side of the house in 1957. Like my leader, the hon. member for Essex East and may colleagues in the Liberal party, I feel that it is a good thing to sit in the opposition once in a while. It induces one to make reflections and it is better to be in the opposition after being in office because we then have a better understanding of public responsibilities.
It is for this reason, Mr. Chairman, that you will never hear us voicing such bitter and irresponsible statements as those which we heard prior to 1957, or as those which are made, on occasion, by those hon. members who, though they sit to our right, are, in their own view, far to the left.
I am, I repeat, extremely happy to belong to the Liberal party. It changes its name most infrequently. As you know we make no attempt to change our spots, to trade one suit of clothes for another, to put on a new mask. The Liberal party is a very old one indeed but-and this is what is so remarkable about it-it has always kept pace with the times and adapted itself to changing conditions. The matter of a name is a very secondary consideration indeed, Mr. Chairman.
Mind you, I have no difficulty in understanding that in the case of the C.C.F., or New Party, or what have you, there is some advantage in finding a new name, because, in spite of that, all we have here are the same old and unsuccessful faces. Understandably, to go before the people that group must, in every possible respect, change its

Interim Supply
external appearance while at the same time remaining faithful to its old, tired cliches and subject to the eternal frailties of human nature.
I look forward with great anticipation to the next election, Mr. Chairman, I have promised the fullest possible support to this new party so that it may remain in the position in which it finds itself today, in sole possession of Mr. Stanley Knowles' chair at the Canadian Congress of Labour.
(Text):


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I started off the debate on this subject this morning but, as happened last year, unfortunately hon. members seem to have taken off in all directions. There is one thing to be said about it, at least; the battle lines are being drawn for the next election. Of course, the Tories are coming out plump and plain for free enterprise, and down with everything socialistic. The C.C.F. is perfectly willing to accept the challenge. We believe that democratic socialism offers the only solution to these problems. The Liberal policy is the position where they profess both but will admit to neither.
Unfortunately, I missed the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. Nevertheless, I heard the speeches of two members of the Liberal party, one devoting 20 minutes to patting the Liberals on the back for past performances and 20 minutes to attacking the C.C.F. and the other devoting one half of the time available to attacking the New Party and the other half to patting the Liberals on the back.
As I mentioned before, last year we had 15 members from the government side, including two cabinet ministers, speak on this subject. This year we can find only one. Why the sudden loss of interest in this subject? Furthermore, although I did not hear it, I am given to understand that the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort, who is a government supporter, spoke on this subject. Unfortunately, if what I hear is true, he did not devote any of his time to the problem but rather directed his efforts toward attacking the provincial government of Saskatchewan.


Hazen Robert Argue: He is against an increase in old age pensions.


Reynold Rapp: No.


Hazen Robert Argue: This is true; the hon. member is against it.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker,-


Reynold Rapp: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I never mentioned anything of that sort in my speech. It is just the hon. member's
(Mr. Brassard (Lapointe).]
imagination. He does not like to hear anything unfavourable said about Saskatchewan. He is now saying that I am opposed to an increase in pensions or something along that line.


Hazen Robert Argue: You would not support our proposition. You talked about something else.


Reynold Rapp: I am definitely not opposed. All I am saying is that the provincial government- [DOT]


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: But you are against a federal increase.


Reynold Rapp: That is just your imagination.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: Be fair.


Mr. Ricard:: They have no sense of fairness.


Hazen Robert Argue: All the Tories are against an increase. They will not talk.


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Richard Albert Bell: We reserve our speeches for the proper time.


Charles Edward Rea: I am sorry, but the rules say that there may be only one speaker at a time. The hon. member for Timmins has the floor.


Murdo William Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must confess that I fail to see how an attack on a provincial government in the federal parliament is going to be of any assistance with respect to the plight in which old age pensioners find themselves today. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, in view of the comparison of the number of government speakers this year with the number last year, which was in the ratio of 15 to one, we can only be led to believe that the purpose last year was not to improve the lot of the old age pensioners but rather to avoid a vote. I do not know what other conclusion we can come to. Why have hon. members opposite lost interest in the period from July 19 last to now?
It may be that the idea of increasing old age pensions is too repugnant to the Prime Minister with his views on free enterprise. If the old age pension is too socialistic, then I suggest that the Prime Minister, or some other member of the cabinet or at least some member of his party should stand up in the house and tell us what the free enterprise solution is to the problem of our old age pensioners.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, before the resolution carries I should like to refer to something that was said by the Leader of the Opposition about what I had said. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition can afford to be fair and I am not quite sure that he was fair last year when dealing with this subject. At that time he was depending entirely on his

memory of something that had been said earlier in the debate. However, having had an opportunity to look at the record, he said today almost the same thing as he said then.
I pointed out at that time that old age pensions do not appear to me to lend themselves to great expansion as long as we neglect to bring in the large number of compulsory and voluntary pension plans found in the industrial sector of our economy. Therefore, it seems to me there is very little difference of opinion between the hon. member for Essex East and myself in this respect. He has indicated now that the Liberal party is pledged to put into effect an old age survivor assistance plan similar to that in the United States. He also implied that if we adopted a social security scheme such as that in the United States we would be able to implement the same benefits and thus place our elderly citizens in a much better position. I referred to bringing together industrial pension plans and the national old age security plan in order to provide a much better old age retirement fund than we now have. As found on page 6495 of Hansard for July 19 last I said:
We should pay our old age pensioners a reasonable amount based on the cost of living and the standard of living to which we are accustomed. It is not sufficient to provide old age pensioners with a roof over their heads and a subsistence diet consisting of bread, milk, butter and a small amount of meat. In arriving at a figure we should take into consideration the gross national product and the ability of Canadians to contribute to a plan that will enable our senior citizens to retire on decent standards. The time has come to consider this.
In my dealings with employees in various industries throughout the years I have never encountered any reluctance on their part to contribute to retirement funds, whether it be the old age pension scheme or a pension plan between the employee and employer. In every case, however, I found a great resentment on the part of the employee concerning those conditions that made it necessary for him to remain in the same job in the same plant under the same employer for a period of 25 years or more before receiving any benefit from the pension plan. These plans should be national in scope. People who retire should be granted a basic pension of $75 a month, and it would be advantageous for the Canadian economy and in the best interests of the security of our people if they could have a supplementary retirement pension equal to half the maximum salary they earned during their lifetime. Where the government contributed to the pension plan the $75 would be part of the retirement fund.
I went on to say this, and this is the part to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred:
I do not ask the government to adopt $75 as a fixed figure. It could be increased to this amount today, but within a month or six months if the Canadian dollar continued to decline it might be that $75 would be too much and the economy could not bear it. On the other hand, the rising cost of
Interim Supply
food, rent, clothing and medical care has made it imperative that the old age pensioner now receive $75.
Then I went on to recommend a study being made of the Clark report. What I was referring to there was the fact that at that time the Canadian dollar was dropping very rapidly and, having regard to the state of the economy generally, that it appeared to me that old age pensions should have some relationship to some standard or formula and not remain at a set figure. In the depths of a depression when the prices of goods fall markedly I can see that $75 a month might be regarded as a very large amount. However, I certainly stated that in terms of present conditions $75 a month was the minimum requirement and that it was likely that this figure would rise rather than fall. I suggested that the payments should be tied in with some formula, such as the gross national product or the cost of living as established by the bureau of statistics or some other formula which would provide flexibility and keep payments to old age pensioners in line with their needs.
There is nothing very difficult about understanding this matter. If our standard of living dropped very rapidly it might be that the Canadian economy could not afford to pay to old age pensioners any amount that would be out of line with the standard of living at such a time. On the other hand, under present circumstances I think we can now afford to pay old age pensioners more than $55 a month when the standard of living in the city of Toronto, for example, is such that the municipality must pay almost as much as the federal government to maintain a bare minimum standard for these people.
I do not understand why governments are reluctant to put into effect a national pension plan that would be based upon contributions by employees, employers and the government. I do not see any difficulty in establishing a pension plan such as that in Germany which will provide the worker with a pension half as large as his income in his highest five-year earning period. My hon. friend points out that the insurance companies will not allow it. I believe this is the reason why government annuity and superannuation provisions have not been developed to the extent of providing a national portable pension plan.
I would draw to the attention of the committee to the Department of National Revenue information bulletin No. 14 on pension plans for the purpose of the Income Tax Act. The Minister of Finance in his argument said that the reason that proposal had not been accepted or was no longer in effect was the

Interim Supply
same as that for which the so-called blue book had not been left in effect. He said that it was his opinion that vesting rights of pension plans must remain within the jurisdiction of provincial governments. I read his remarks at that time but I can see no reason why the Canadian government could not deal with vesting rights as it did with unemployment insurance. It will be remembered that it was considered that the responsibility for unemployment insurance was not within the jurisdiction of the federal government, but a change was made in the British North America Act allowing unemployment insurance to be implemented. With that fact in mind I would suggest that it would not be difficult to overcome the present problem. I suggest that the blue book sets out the principles and regulations regarding the method by which the pension plan should be introduced and operated.
I have had many inquiries from union members regarding this problem of vesting rights, and would bring to your attention that Mr. McCann suggested, in 1950 when he introduced this statement, how this matter should be treated. I should like to read the sections which those union members are interested in. Appearing at page 14 of the blue book under the heading "Part 10. Vesting" appears the following section:
(a)	The rights of the employees to the benefits provided under the plan must be stated. An employee must have an immediate vested right in contributions made by him.
(b)	The rights provided by employer contributions must vest in the employee within a determinable period, and particularly on the attainment by the employee of an age which would prejudice him in the event of severance from employment. Therefore vesting should be absolute upon attaining age 50, subject to a minimum period not exceeding 20 years of service or participation. There must be an absolute vesting upon attaining optional retirement age, subject to a reasonable period of service or participation.
(c)	Vesting of the employer benefits may be conditional upon the employee leaving in the plan his own contributions, or may be graduated by a stated percentage over a period of years. Vesting of the employer's contributions in the event of death prior to retirement is optional.
(d)	The terms of the plan may not subject the rights of employees under the plan to any claims by the employer or any other person. In particular, the funds available for employee benefits may not be held or used as security against any debt or defalcation.
(e)	If the number of employees covered under a plan is five or less, there must be an immediate vesting of all payments.
Many pension plans are being implemented across the country in many different categories, some not advantageous to the majority of employees in the plan. One plan was brought to my attention where the employer made all the contributions and therefore felt that until the employee, after long continuous

service with the company had reached retirement he had no vesting rights whatsoever. Other plans exist of course where the employee and the employer make contributions, but in those cases the employee, after a period of time, is given vesting rights in his contribution, but in most cases the employee is never given vesting rights until he has reached a specific age in regard to the contributions made by the employer. In many cases, the employee continues to feel, that the contributions made by himself and his employer is his own money because if these contributions were not made toward a pension plan he would be receiving the amount of money in the form of wages.
What does the term "vesting right" mean? It is my understanding that this term is interpreted to mean that after a three-year period of contribution to an insurance policy the subscriber has limited rights and at that time may in conjunction with his insurance company have a paid-up policy or may transfer the amount of his contribution to another type of insurance policy. It means he has certain rights in the funding of his pension plan and the right to take part in the decision as to whether it should be fully funded.
At page six of this Co-operative Commonwealth Federation letter to its council members, the following appears:
In discussing the subject of a national pension fund, the question immediately arises as to whether or not it should be fully funded. While this aspect of the subject will be discussed thoroughly at a later date, there are one or two observations that should be made here.
It is not at all necessary to place national superannuation on a fully funded basis. (The term "fully funded" means that if contributions ceased to be paid into a fund, there would still be enough money in the fund to pay up all benefit claims against it. Such a fund would have no deficit on capital account, or actuarial deficiency.)
In the case of private insurance schemes, there may be a good argument for maintaining the scheme on a fully funded basis, or avoiding a deficit on capital account. By nature a private company cannot be assumed to be a perpetual concern. A private company must also depend on its own, and therefore, limited resources. On the other hand, a compulsory national pension scheme is based upon a permanent body of contributors with unlimited life. There is no need to make provision against possible liquidation.
What would be required, however, is the assurance that the position of the national fund on current account be at all times sound.
This would mean ensuring that for a number of years ahead income was at least equivalent to expenditures by adjusting contributions whenever necessary. However, for a considerable number of years after the commencement of superannuation this problem would not exist. During this period income from contributions would greatly exceed benefits paid out.
While the primary importance of a national superannuation scheme is to provide adequate financial security in old age, it has also a national economic advantage. The accumulation of contributions under such a scheme would provide a substantial source

of investment funds for carrying out large-scale capital developments in Canada. This would be especially true for the first 20 to 25 years when contributions exceeded benefits paid out.
This matter of vesting rights is very important. It has been stated many times that only the Canadian government can carry out the full vesting of these pension plans. Many of the mines in the area from which I come cannot establish this type of pension plan because it would be impossible for them to put away the amount of money which would guarantee this pension to their employees. They could not do it on the basis of a portable plan; they could only do it on a limited scale pension plan where they have vesting for their employees only after ten years of employment.
This means that if a fund were established and the mine were closed down before the ten years had elapsed, those employees would not of course have been employed in the mine for the requisite number of years and would not have reached retirement age. There would be no way in which they could obtain this money after they had reached retirement age, because the company would be liquidated and would no longer exist. The Department of National Revenue could not guarantee that the contributions which had been made on behalf of these people would be available. The department would not be in a position to guarantee that the private company would have the money put away for this purpose. The money could easily be disposed of in the liquidation of the company.
For this reason it is very important that this matter of vesting be given very careful and immediate consideration. I suggest that when the former minister of national revenue, Mr. McCann, introduced this measure he was of the opinion that it would solve the problem that was self-evident in many of the plans his department was asked to approve.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A good, progressive move.


William Arnold Peters: Yes; I am sure it was a good, progressive move. I can inform the hon. member who has interrupted that the unions are still interested in this matter of vesting.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They will get it when we again have a Liberal government.


William Arnold Peters: They cannot get it from a Liberal government; it was a Liberal government that withdrew this plan. This book is not to be found in the public library; it is not available to unions or anyone because that minister, Mr. McCann, had to withdraw it because it was impossible to put it into effect. The Minister of National Revenue
Interim Supply
knows this. He tried it again in 1959. He did not make it quite as clear then, because he did not specify vesting rights in as simple a form. However, he also had to withdraw it for exactly the same reason. This has been withdrawn and disposed of because neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have yet found a way of dealing with this matter. The only way to do so is by putting into effect a national pension plan. A national pension plan is twofold in this respect. We will have to give the old age pensioner $75 a month, but we will have to look for methods of increasing this pension beyond $75 a month other than those which are being used at the present time.
We have mentioned several amendments that would allow us to meet a pension of $75 a month, but we have not solved the problem of establishing this plan. The Minister of Finance has said he cannot allow this vesting section in the Department of National Revenue's direction for the simple reason it contravenes what he considers to be provincial rights. The Minister of Finance says this matter comes within the jurisdiction of the provincial governments in connection with civil rights and liberties. There is no greater civil right or liberty than the matter of the old age pensioner being able to live out his last days enjoying those liberties and rights which should have been established for him during his many years of employment.
I think all that is involved here is a small amendment to the British North America Act. It may be that a former minister of the crown, now the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate, may be in a position later to do something about this matter. I do not know.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hear, hear.


Hazen Robert Argue: Never.


William Arnold Peters: I am not sure whether he will be in a position to do it. I hope this party will be in a position to do this.


Hazen Robert Argue: Hear, hear.


William Arnold Peters: I hope that what the hon. member has said is an indication that his party agrees to put into effect a national pension plan which will provide-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is in the Liberal program now.


William Arnold Peters: That does not mean anything. I have not heard the hon. member endorsing the resolutions which came from his party's convention. I have never seen a group of people so reluctant to talk about those proposals as are the hon. members of that political party. I understand that the only person who really sympathized with them was

Interim Supply
the leader of the party. I do not know why he did this, because I have not yet assessed his reason for supporting most of these things.
If what the Leader of the Opposition has said is true, it means he is pledged to support these resolutions. However, I am pleased to know that even from his seat the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate says he will change this section of the British North America Act in order to make it possible for this program to be effected.


Hazen Robert Argue: He will change it by a private member's bill.


William Arnold Peters: I hope they will do what was done with regard to the Unemployment Insurance Act, which was a very forward step. I hope we shall no longer do what the Conservative government has done, namely hide behind the skirts of the provincial governments of this country. I hope the federal government will give leadership in this matter of social security, even if it means amending the British North America Act.
When this measure was introduced in 1950 it became self-evident very soon afterwards that this step should be taken in order to make the program possible. The minister did not see fit to do this. He did not even see fit to come to parliament and explain why he did not do it. There has been a great deal of reluctance on the part of our governments to say why they are afraid to give consideration to a national pension plan on a contributory basis in order to supplement old age pensions.
The only minister who has given us any clue as to the reasons for this reluctance is the Minister of Finance. He gave an explanation, but only after one of the government members said, "We cannot increase old age pensions now. If we increase old age pensions to $75 a month it will give us a $200 million deficit. We cannot increase them because we already have a deficit".
This is what provoked the Minister of Finance to get into the argument. There may be another reason. I do not know everything; I have difficulty in learning what little I do know. However, if the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Revenue or their assistants say that what I have said is wrong, and they have found a way of doing this other than the way I have outlined, I hope the necessary steps will be taken, and I will support them to the limit.
I have worked in the industry of gold mining for 15 years. The gold mining industry has never had a lifetime of more than about 20 years. It is an industry in which very few people would ever be able to obtain a pension because they either do not live in

the industry long enough or the industry itself does not live long enough. We shall have to adopt a national pension scheme which will allow them to take the benefit of their contributions from one industry to another, and we shall need to supplement the payments made in order that they may be able to retire with reasonable comfort in their old age.
I am sympathetic toward part of the argument used by one of the Liberal spokesmen when he said we should give consideration to allowing the people themselves to help build a national pension scheme. However, employees in those sections of industry where there are no pension plans today have no alternative but to end their days under the old age security program. The only people who benefit are those in industries where unions are strong enough to force implementation of pension plans to which both employers and employees contribute. I do not think we should leave the situation as it is. I think we want to offer the opportunity to all Canadians to make contributions to pension plans and to help them to establish schemes which will return them at least half of their average wage in their best five years in order that they may be able to retire with respect, maintain the homes which they have taken a lifetime to buy, continue to run their cars and retain their position in society which they have been accustomed to hold.


George Clyde Nowlan: I have no desire to prolong this debate beyond the length of time it has already taken. However, in view of the fact that I suspect there may be an inordinate demand for Hansard of today's issue for distribution throughout the country, I think I should say one word about all this discussion, reminding the committee at the same time that this is only a motion to grant interim supply.
We have today discussed the Bank of Canada, the textile industry, unemployment, fiscal matters and monetary matters. We have discussed a national pension scheme, the old age pension scheme and, now, the vesting of pensions as well as half a dozen other subjects which no doubt have not occurred to me. In fact, the committee has skimmed very lightly over every subject in this category, running as fast as Eliza did in "Uncle Tom's Cabin" when she ran across the ice of the river, and probably just as frightened.
It has been a beautiful display of theatre, and the friendly arguments between the two groups on the other side of the house, as to which should eliminate the other before it is itself eliminated, were no doubt greatly appreciated by government supporters and others.

Once again I stress that this is a motion for the granting of interim supply. There will be other debates. There will be a budget debate. The estimates of practically all the departments with the exception of the department of immigration have yet to come before the committee, so there will be many opportunities for these matters to be discussed at length. I would suggest also, with respect, that these motions are not usually regarded as providing an occasion for a policy discussion. Certainly it has not been the practice of any government, as I recall it, to make announcements of policy during a debate such as this one.
If we became involved in a discussion of all the matters raised today the debate would probably need to be carried on for another two or three days. As I say, we shall have further opportunities to discuss these matters later. The committee has spent a reasonable length of time at least-and I think that is a conservative statement-in discussing these questions up to now; and if hon. members feel that they have had ample opportunity for raising these problems I hope they will agree to get on with this resolution and dispose of this matter before five o'clock when we shall be considering private members' bills. As hon. members know, it is necessary to dispose of this matter and others in the immediate future. Without desiring to limit debate in any way, I hope this objective can be achieved. I promise hon. members opposite who have raised the questions and sought answers from the government that at the right time those answers will be forthcoming. We are not proposing at this stage of debate to satisfy the wishes of the opposition in all those respects because, as I mentioned, this is a stage of debate which heretofore has gone through within a few minutes and has been regarded as merely a technical matter.
Since the debate has gone on for this length of time, I suggest that with the consent and approval of all members we might get on with the practical steps necessary to implement this measure before five o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the item carries,
I wonder whether the minister is prepared to give an unqualified assurance that there will be another budget. That is a serious question.


Hazen Robert Argue: We are disappointed that the Minister of National Revenue, the Acting Minister of Finance, should not have taken this opportunity to put forward the position of the government with regard to this very important question of an immediate increase in old age pensions.
Ways and Means
It is true that before 1956 it was not customary in dealing with interim supply to have a debate on questions of government policy. However, I think the practice has grown up since 1956 of making use of this stage of debate to put forward some of the proposals that may be in the minds of members. We regret very much that not a single member on the government side of the house has risen during this debate to speak in support of an increase in old age pensions though it is certainly clear to anyone who reads today's Hansard-and the minister referred to this matter-that it is very much in order during this discussion to talk about increases in old age pensions.
I should just like to make one further comment. It seems indicated that interim supply will be passed today. I was not certain at all that this would be the case. However, I think the government has arranged-I do not say deliberately; perhaps it is just one of those things which happen by coincidence-that the most controversial and, very often, the most vitriolic member of the house and of the cabinet, should not be in his place today to pilot this resolution through the house. There is no doubt in my mind that though this matter has taken a considerable time to deal with, the hon. gentleman's absence has expedited the discussion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.


George Clyde Nowlan: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.


George Clyde Nowlan: Resolved, that toward making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1962 the sum of $638,909,350.10 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before this resolution carries, I wonder whether the Minister of National Revenue can assure us that there is enough money in the treasury to meet these disbursements.


George Clyde Nowlan: We do not expect to have difficulty on that score.
The Depuiy Chairman: Shall the resolution carry?

Ways and Means


Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Chairman, let me say
one thing before the resolution carries. I am sorry that the hon. member for Assiniboia is not in his seat. I wish to express the greatest regret at the reference he made to the Minister of Finance. I thought it was a most unfair reference. I am sorry the hon. member is not in the chamber because I thought he himself might see it was unfair and withdraw it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Nowlan (for the Minister of Finance)
thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-78, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1962.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: When shall the bill be read a second time? By leave, now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: By leave.


George Clyde Nowlan: the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1.
Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, may I just indicate to the committee that the bill is in the standard form of the first interim appropriation bill and deals in its schedules only with those items which have been considered in the committee of supply and the committee of ways and means.


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Chairman, clause 4 of this bill allows the governor in council under the Financial Administration Act to borrow sums of money not exceeding in total the sum of $1 billion. I was just wondering why that is so. Why does the government need $1 billion for the purposes stated here, for public works and general purposes?


Richard Albert Bell: This has been the standard practice in the first appropriation bill, for a number of years. Authority is given to borrow $1 billion in the first interim appropriation bill. This is for public works as is indicated and for general purposes and covers, of course, the issue of treasury bills and the necessary financing that must be done as the government proceeds from month to month. This, as I say, is standard practice.


William Hector McMillan: It does not occur in subsequent appropriation bills?
[The Deputy Chairman.]


Richard Albert Bell: No, Mr. Chairman, except the final one. Perhaps the committee would be interested in what has been the position, previously. The authority granted by parliament in recent years has been as follows, in tabulated form:
1955-	56	
$	1 billion1956-	57	
$	1.5	"1957-	58	
$	1	"1958-	59	
$	2	"1959-	60	
$	15	"1960-	61	
$	1-5	"


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses Nos. 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules A to C inclusive agreed to.
On schedule D.
Mr. Herridge:: I wish to ask one question. Item No. 469 relating to the Canadian pension commission is a vote in the amount of $147,484,000. How does the parliamentary secretary relate that amount for the period mentioned to the total amount shown opposite that figure?


Thomas Miller Bell: The last figure to which the hon. member referred is the total for all the amounts in schedule D, I believe. The particular item of $147,484,000 is due to additional appropriations for the two items required to cover payments resulting from the increase in rates authorized by the recent revision of the Pension Act.
Schedule D agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
George Clyde Nowlan: the third reading of the bill.


Frank Howard: Before the bill is passed, I am sure the Acting Minister of Finance and the parliamentary secretary to the minister will be appreciative of the high degree of co-operation extended today.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.


[Stage Direction]
Administration branch-
1. Departmental administration, including advisory committee on agricultural services. $911,098.
Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Chairman, a great deal of discussion has taken place on these estimates and I shall attempt to avoid

repeating anything that has been said. The minister at an earlier date dealt with the various changes in his department. I do not intend to deal with those changes except to say I think they are good ones. I refer to the bringing of the wheat board and the board of grain commissioners under the Department of Agriculture. 1 think this action will result in better co-ordinated farm policy and will bring about a greater coordination in aid to farmers.
The endeavour to stress farm sales and find new markets is a commendable one. Perhaps to some extent it is directly as a result of the changes to which I referred, particularly the placing of the wheat board under the Department of Agriculture. Perhaps the board more fully realizes that the income of farmers depends on the board.
We all realize that the famine in China had something to do with sales of wheat in that country but similar circumstances were not evident in relation to sales to Czechoslovakia or Russia. I hope the Department of Agriculture will make every effort to regain and hold sales in our regular markets and that every effort will be made to make customers aware that our products are available to underdeveloped countries under the Colombo plan and through United Nations organizations.
Much has been said in this debate about farm income and cash income. In a way that would be clear to anyone who would take the time to study his figures the minister pointed out that cash income to farmers is moving in the right direction. I noticed recently that in the year 1960 the cash income was up 12 per cent. We are all glad to see this result.
The hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska quoted some figures that he said were from D.B.S. sources. Where he got them I am sure I do not know. I have some figures on my desk but they certainly do not correspond with those of the hon. member. He quoted prices at which products were sold, and said that they had decreased, but he did not refer to his own province at all. The index for that province is considerably higher than the index of prices in western Canada. He condemned to some extent the acreage payments to the western farmers. If he had referred to the index from which he quoted he would have seen that products sold on the prairies at prices considerably lower than those in eastern Canada, and particularly in his own province.
The hon. member for Beauce quoted from an article in Maclean's magazine, written by Peter C. Newman. He more or less pounced on the idea that the Minister of Agriculture
Supply-Agriculture
would never take the place of Johnny Apple-seed. He did not quote from the same article a paragraph that caught my eye. This paragraph is from the same article in Maclean's:
The Tories have ladled out nearly half a billion dollars to Canadian farmers since they took office. Their various programs and subsidies will this year amount to nearly four times as much as the farmers received during the last year of the Liberal administration.
He did not feel that this was worth putting on the record, but I do. The article goes on to refer to the great hope of the new Minister of Agriculture and suggests that he may take the place of Johnny Appleseed. Certainly, he is doing a tremendous job in selling agricultural products and in selling agriculture to Canada as a whole.
I do not intend to say too much about the C.C.F. party. Last night we heard a great deal about their aspirations, and perhaps today as well. For a long time the hon. member for Assiniboia has talked about what he would do for the farmers of western Canada. In considering how serious he and members of his party are, and how serious the official opposition are one must come back to the record in order to see whether it bears out their remarks. We have often reviewed what the Liberal government did during the 1940's, up until 1948. They would not lift the embargo on Canadian cattle going into the United States, much to the chagrin of the farmers in western Canada. They entered into an agreement with Great Britain which cost the Canadian farmer a great deal of money.
In looking back over the past record I notice that the socialists and the C.C.F. party supported this agreement and said that it was a good thing and that we should enter into it. Several members in the house at that time raised doubts and inquired whether some precautions should be taken in the consideration of this agreement. One of those members was the present Prime Minister and another was the then leader of the opposition, Mr. John Bracken. They both raised doubts with regard to this agreement, as to whether it was a good one and whether every consideration was taken in connection with the years ahead. One must realize that over the years the C.C.F. party has tried to climb onto anything that would bring them votes. This was evident in the farmers' march on Ottawa not so long ago. Another instance was the demand for deficiency payments. They raised this issue and blew it up as high as they could. They are now going to do the same thing with the feed mill question, blowing up out of all proportion the situation that actually exists.
I hold in my hand a clipping from the Kinistino Post dated Wednesday, May 27, 1959. The headline reads:

Supply-Agriculture
Minty Loptson declares:
C.C.F. sabotage of wheat board has cost farmers millions.
The article goes on to say that Mr. Loptson charged that the minister of municipal affairs for Saskatchewan made a speech in which he said that in 1951 the British people had already paid the Canadian producer $182 million more than they needed to pay on the contract for wheat delivered. The article goes on to say that Mr. Attlee was made aware of this view and, of course, when more money was asked for by the then government it was refused. Certainly no money was given. I do not like to quote this article. I am sorry that the hon. member for Assini-boia is not in the house, but I went to the trouble to look up the debates in the Saskatchewan legislature in order to see whether the Saskatchewan member had actually said that we had already received $182 million more than we should have received for our wheat. At the bottom of page 3 of the proceedings of the legislative assembly of Saskatchewan for February 14, 1951, I find that Mr. McIntosh said:
In other words, the British government paid to the Dominion of Canada $182 million in excess of the price quoted in the contract.
To me this was rather shocking. I came to the conclusion that one cannot take too seriously everything that is said in the House of Commons.
Last night the hon. member for Timis-kaming made a great speech on the feed mills. He went on at great length to say that wheat was selling now at 50 cents less than the price at which it should be selling. He said that the farmers producing beef in western Canada got the advantage of this 50 cents. He mentioned this 50 cents time and time again, and I pretty nearly reached out and caught it. Where he got it from I am still in doubt. His whole speech reminded me of the speech he made in the House of Commons a year ago on wheat board permits. The committee will remember that last year we discussed wheat board permits and the whole quota system for quite some time. I listened to the hon. member for Timiskam-ing for quite a while at that time. I spoke to him afterwards and I said, "Surely you did not grasp how the quota system works".
I went on at great length to explain it to him. He said, "Oh, I see how it works now but still, it does not matter; I had to fill in the time, anyway". I gathered from the remarks he made in his speech last evening-


William Arnold Peters: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is referring to a speech I made last year. I was not completely

aware of how the quota system worked. The hon. member who represented one of the ridings affected was good enough to explain to me at the time how it did work. I thanked him for it but I did not say that it did not make any difference and that I was filling in the time.


Charles Edward Rea: That is not a point of order. The hon. member can make his correction after the hon. member who has the floor has finished his speech.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Maybe the member does not recall, but after the hon. member had made his speech I thought that perhaps he was willing to learn something about our quota system. I listened to him very carefully. I was quite amazed to realize that a person could stand up and speak for as long as he spoke in this particular debate and know so little about his subject. I said to myself, "Perhaps I should go around to see him and inform him on how the quota system actually works". Perhaps the evening is clearer in my mind than it is in his, and also what happened at that time. I am just saying that his speech last night reminded me very much of that evening last year. He talked about feed mills and he quoted a statement made by Mr. McNamara to the committee on agriculture when it was conducting its feed mill inquiry. What did Mr. McNamara say when 400 Saskatchewan farmers visited him early this year? He said, as found in the Manitoba Co-operator:
Your interests are being directed into local problems and your support of the wheat board should be centred on us as a marketing agency.
The article from which I have quoted is headed, "McNamara Says Farmers Directed Away From Most Vital Issues". This is true of the whole feed mill question and, as I suggested earlier, the C.C.F. party seems to have seized upon it in the hope that it will attract some votes to them. Actually the hon. member for Timiskaming suggested in his speech-and this struck me as rather odd- that the whole feed mill problem should be sent to the standing committee on agriculture for study. I thought that this was a surprising suggestion because we have already studied the question. The committee had 12 or 13 meetings on this matter and heard nine briefs. I said to myself, "Surely he does not want this matter to go before that committee again", although I realize that the members in that comer are particularly anxious to have everything under the sun referred to the committee. However, when the time comes for the committee to meet some members of that group do very little work in

the committee. This was evident in the private bills committee when it was considering the bill to incorporate the Aurora Pipe Line Company.


William Arnold Peters: May I ask a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: My time is limited and if the hon. member simply -has a question I am going to continue. When the hon. member made these remarks last night I took the trouble to find out how many meetings of the committee on agriculture he attended when the committee was studying the feed mill question. He attended three meetings out of 12 or 13 and heard part of three of the nine briefs that were presented to the committee.
The hon. member for Assiniboia has talked at length about the feed mill question. How many committee meetings did he attend at that time? He attended three and heard part of three of the nine briefs presented to the committee. I only point this out in order to indicate that hon. members should not take too seriously suggestions from that corner about referring matters to a committee because some of their members do very little work in the committees.
It aggravated me to some extent to hear the hon. member for Timiskaming say that the feed mill regulations would put western farmers in a better position than eastern farmers with regard to feeding livestock. I could not understand this. As I mentioned earlier, he went on to talk about a figure of 50 cents and he referred to 50 cents so many times that one could almost visualize that 50-cent piece. Actually, however, under the feed mill regulations western farmers will be able to buy western grain no more cheaply than they have been able to buy it in the past. In fact, allowing the feed mills to come into the picture and handle feed grain will have a tendency to increase the price farmers are paying for feed grain because it will create a greater market for such grain. If anything, it will have a tendency to increase the price of feed grains sold to farmers.
Farmers who are feeding cattle in western Canada now will be in the same position as that in which they were in the past or perhaps will not be quite as well off from a financial point of view. They may be able to get a better concentration of feeds or a better mixing of feeds. I hope that will be so, but certainly there is no 50-cent piece in evidence as the hon. member for Timiskaming tried to indicate last night. This is borne out by the figures the Minister of Agriculture put on Hansard indicating what feed mills are paying for coarse grains. It appears to me that the hon. member is once again trying to create an issue that does not
Private Bills
exist. Rather than pay more attention to members from that corner, I think we should pay less.


Mr. Michaud:: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that it is one minute to five o'clock, may I call it five o'clock.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of public and private bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15 as provisionally amended.



INDUSTRY


Mr. R. C. Coates (Cumberland) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-23, to provide for the development of certain provinces by the distribution of industry and for the reduction of unemployment therein.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is twofold, first, to encourage the development of industry in the four Atlantic provinces and, second, to reduce the high level of unemployment in those areas where it persists. It has been my view that the Industrial Development Bank Act, which legislation has been made available to assist in the establishment of industries in Canada, has not had in the Atlantic area that beneficial effect that one would have expected from this legislation when it was placed on the statute books. It may be that statistics will emphasize the situation more forcibly to all members of the house.
In the six years from 1955 to 1960 inclusive the following numbers of loans through the industrial development bank were made available to industries in the Atlantic provinces:	Newfoundland, 21; Prince Edward
Island, 19; Nova Scotia, 114; and New Brunswick, 116 loans, or a total of 270 loans during this period. For the sake of comparison I point out that in the same period in the province of Ontario 937 loans were made available to industry and in the year 1960, 264 loans were made, only six less than were made available to the four Atlantic provinces in six years.
From a monetary standpoint the imbalance of this situation is still more significant, with the four Atlantic provinces receiving less than one tenth of the over-all amount lent to the 10 provinces, a matter of slightly more than $18 million compared with $192 million, or a percentage figure of less than 10 per cent.
When one compares the situation in existence here with the repeated comments of experts, that the prime need of the Atlantic

Private Bills
provinces is cheap investment capital which must of necessity come from outside our area because of the low level of the earning power in the maritimes-37 per cent on a per capita basis below the average for residents of the central or western provinces-one quickly realizes the need for bold and imaginative steps to rectify the situation. In recent times the Atlantic provinces have shown a very real interest in their own problems and have taken many steps on their own to remedy the situation wherever this is financially possible.
An example of this action in my province of Nova Scotia was the establishment by the Stanfield government of a crown corporation known as "Industrial Estates Limited". Another example was the appointment of A. K. Cairncross, an eminent British economist, to study and report on the economic situation in the Atlantic area. This report was made available to the provincial government in February of this year, and the conclusions reached by this economist will no doubt be of lasting benefit in correcting the situation wherever the provinces find this possible within their limited resources.
In this report Professor Cairncross indicates a number of methods whereby the federal government could assist our area in attracting new and expanding established industries.
As all members are aware, in the supplementary budget, this government took the first step that has ever been taken by any federal government in its efforts to assist areas with persistent unemployment in attracting new industries, through the principle of double depreciation. Some have said since this step was taken that the government has not gone far enough. Very recently Conservatives from across this country, in convention, passed a resolution requesting that tax incentives for new and expanding industry in our coal mining areas be provided on a scale more generous than presently proposed.
In recent days Mr. Frank Sobey, president of the Nova Scotia crown company, Industrial Estates Limited, when appearing before that legislature's industry committee, stated that this crown corporation could attract industries into depressed areas of Nova Scotia if it had additional help from the federal government enabling the crown corporation to offer tax concessions or start-up concessions, or other types of concessions of this nature that would make Nova Scotia locations attractive. The bill that I have before the house at the present time would do exactly what the president of Industrial Estates requests.
Its basic premise is the co-operation of the directors of the industrial development bank with the industrial estate corporations in the

Atlantic provinces. It would allow the industrial development bank to lend moneys to industrial estate companies to assist in providing premises for industrial enterprises. Further, it would allow the bank to make to such companies annual grants which could be used to make payments of interest on the moneys borrowed until such time as the said company or companies were in a financial position to do so from their earnings.
Further, in areas of persistent high level unemployment it would allow the bank, working in co-operation with the industrial estate companies, to go even further and consider ways and means of providing still further incentives to convince these investors they should locate in these areas. In this regard may I bring to the attention of members of this house an editorial recently published in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald which comments on Professor A. K. Cairncross' report which emphasizes a situation that is not usually given the consideration it merits. The article appeared on March 1, 1961, under the heading "An Epidemic Force" and reads as follows:
One particular piece of basic philosophy to be found in the report on the ills of the Atlantic provinces which has just been submitted by Professor A. K. Cairncross of Glasgow university should be necessary reading and re-reading for all those in governmental positions of responsibility for tackling ihis growing problem. It is this:-
The article then quotes from the report as follows:
"The mere existence of a chronic labour surplus is usually sufficient to generate obstacles to development in the habits and outlook of the population. The pace of work becomes slowed down where unemployment is a frequent recurrence. Why hurry towards idleness or work under pressure where others could lend a hand? Ambition is curbed, the response to economic incentives is blunted, mobility is reduced and hopes of a higher standard of living are stifled. Thus even the opportunities that plainly exist may be neglected and the failure of the community may be attributed to apathy, laziness or lack of enterprise."
This is the third year that I have placed this bill before the house, but I feel certain there never has been a time when its debate has been more appropriate than now. Very recently in my constituency of Cumberland the very fine citizens of Joggins were informed that the coal mine upon which the area depends for a livelihood is to be closed forthwith. This situation coupled with the one that has been in existence in the disaster scarred town of Springhill, indicates that new, realistic, bold, imaginative and immediate steps must be taken if they are to have the opportunity to secure new types of industry to employ the responsible, willing and able working force available to them.
The submission that I make which is included in this bill is not an unrealistic one

but one that has been tried and proven successful in Italy, Belgium and France, and in those areas of England, Scotland and Wales, where unemployment was persistent. It has been proven in Puerto Rico and now has been adopted in the United States. I see no reason why we cannot, and should not, go forward immediately and give to the Atlantic area that hope, which they must have and certainly deserve and which is inherent in this bill.
I know my constituency is not the only one in the Atlantic provinces that suffers from this dilemma at the present time. I am quite certain that it is not necessary for me to point out the problems of these other areas, for they have seated in this house able and energetic representatives who I am certain will be only too anxious to express their own opinion, if the time is available to them, under this particular bill.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to give my wholehearted support to the bill which has just been introduced by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates), an act to provide for the development of certain provinces by distribution of industries and by reduction of unemployment therein.
There is no need for me to repeat my view regarding this particular matter so far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned. I have spoken in this house on many occasions, and have brought forward the needs of the Atlantic provinces. Speaking on the last supply motion on Monday of this week I expressed the policy of the official opposition with regard to the development of the Atlantic provinces. I mentioned at the time that the double depreciation measure for depressed areas introduced by the government was insufficient and would not provide the remedy which is required to take care of the situation.
The situation in the Atlantic provinces at this time is certainly not the best. The latest unemployment figures which were released on Tuesday of this week show that in the middle of February we had 101,000 unemployed people in the Atlantic provinces. This figure represents an increase of 17,000 over and above the figures which were released for the month of January this year. This means that out of a total increase in unemployment of 26,000 persons for the whole of the country, 17,000 or 65 per cent of that increase came from the Atlantic provinces. It is no wonder that we on this side of the house are concerned about this problem, and we are pleased that for a change one of the government members agrees with us and 90205-6-211
Private Bills
admits that we need special measures and special incentives, to take care of this situation.
The bill introduced by the hon. member is in line with the policy which has been expressed by the official opposition. It is in line with the resolutions which were discussed at the Liberal rally held early in January.
I know that effective measures must be taken at once to take care of the situation, particularly in the Cape Breton area where coal mines will be closing almost regularly starting from the month of May and continuing for the balance of this year.
It is most unfortunate that the present government has not realized the seriousness of the situation before this time, when it is too late. The government should have realized the seriousness of the situation in 1958 when we of the official opposition disclosed the situation as we then saw it and as we felt it would become in the years to follow. As I have said, the action taken by the government has been insufficient and has not taken care of this situation. If the government are prepared to accept the provisions which are included in this bill, we are sure they would at least alleviate the situation.
It is most unfortunate that an area like the Atlantic provinces, with natural resources at their disposal, is being deprived of secondary industry and does not receive the share of industry which it deserves in order to maintain its economy in the same manner as the rest of Canada.
Under the present administration individual workers in rural areas-tradesmen such as carpenters and so on-who have been receiving unemployment insurance benefits in years past have this year been deprived of those benefits. A few moments ago I received a letter from an individual in my constituency who employed a carpenter last summer for a period of four and a half months. That man was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits-


Mr. MacLellan:: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, this is a very important bill which members from the maritimes would like to discuss. I think the hon. member for Gloucester should be confined to the point before the house and should not waste the short time which we have to discuss this very important matter.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, the bill now before us reads:
An act to provide for the development of certain provinces by the distribution of industry and for the reduction of unemployment therein.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the point of order is well taken. The application of the Unemployment Insurance Act has really nothing to do with this bill, the purpose of

Private Bills
which is related to the Atlantic provinces, whereas the Unemployment Insurance Act applies to the whole of the country.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I will abide by your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless I wish to repeat that the measures introduced so far, such as the double depreciation measure which was included in the baby budget, do not meet the needs of the Atlantic provinces. In the Atlantic provinces we need additional capital and tax incentives. This situation will not be remedied by allowing new industry double depreciation for one year. That measure will not improve the situation.
I wish to repeat what I said earlier. I completely support this bill. I agree with the hon. member for Cumberland, and I hope that this time all hon. members from the Atlantic provinces, whatever their political affiliations, will be in agreement and will support the measure.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I should first of all like to extend my heartiest congratulations to the dynamic hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) who has brought this very important bill before the house this afternoon. I think my greatest pleasure while serving in the House of Commons to date has been in my association with other hon. members from my province and indeed from the whole Atlantic area. These hon. members have always endeavoured to keep the problems of the Atlantic region before the government. One of the foremost leaders at all times in this effort has been the hon. member for Cumberland.
It is important to note that Bill No. C-23 introduced by the hon. member for Cumberland pinpoints one of the chief problems of the Atlantic area. Our chief problem is to develop further manufacturing industry in the area which will provide more employment. Indeed, I could not help but remark to myself, while the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) was speaking, how little had been done in all the years when the party of which he is a member was the government of this country. I also remarked how much the unemployment problem which we have in the Atlantic provinces today is due to the carelessness of that administration and the fact that in those days there were so few people to speak out for the Atlantic area.
It is particularly apt that this bill should come before the house at this time, when we are experiencing such great difficulty in the coal industry in Cape Breton. This is a difficulty which has been advancing over the years. It is paramount at this time because of the surplus fuel oil, residual oil, hydro power and natural gas upon the Montreal market

in particular. It is too bad that in the days when the hon. member for Gloucester was on the government side of the house he did not bring to the attention of the government of that day the effect upon the coal industry of the maritimes, of the completion of the natural gas pipe line to Montreal.
Indeed, one of the reasons for the problem we have today in the coal industry is the surplus gas being pumped to our traditional markets in Montreal and east. It is a shame that this fact was not brought to the attention of the former government which sponsored that pipe line prior to 1957.
Many of our industries in the Atlantic provinces are doing very well at the moment. Our tourist industry has grown very appreciably in the last few years. Much of the credit for that growth is due to the considerable expansion in our national parks and in the development of other tourist activities in our region. Much of it is due also to the new roads which have been constructed through the greatly increased grants made available to the Atlantic area since 1957.
As I am sure the hon. member for Gloucester will agree, the fishing industry is growing steadily in all Atlantic areas, and we look forward to an expanding market and to an increased sale of fish products in the years ahead. Our dragger fleets are growing, our fish plants are generally busier than in previous years and we can expect this resource industry of the Atlantic area to continue to expand. In Nova Scotia in particular there has also been a great increase in the market for pulpwood over recent years. At the moment I am proud to say that in my own riding at Point Tupper there is being built at a cost of about $40 million, a pulp mill which will almost double the demand for pulpwood in the province. In addition, there is an increased demand for pulp for export. Generally speaking, while we must grapple with the problems of our declining coal industry, we rejoice in the fact that a new door is opening and that the forest industries will provide increased employment.
Agriculture, too, stimulated by the new market for pulp, which means extra cash in the hands of the farmers, is increasing in importance. Certainly our problem is not one of surpluses but rather one of production. The effort being made in all the Atlantic provinces, but particularly in my province, to increase agricultural production is one of which we can all be proud and one which augurs well for the general economic future of the region.
However, I should like to point out that resource industries, such as fishing, agriculture and forestry are activities of a type

which do not effectively remove seasonal unemployment. This has been the case for many years and the situation can be cured only by an industrialization program of some kind which would mean more employment of that type in the Atlantic area. Some big strides have been made toward increasing manufacturing production in the Atlantic provinces. As the hon. member for Cumberland has mentioned, Industrial Estates, with the encouragement of the Stanfield government in Nova Scotia, has fostered the establishment of a substantial number of new industries and, the new mill at Point Tupper, about which I spoke a moment ago, is the first major manufacturing plant to be established in Nova Scotia since the Mersey pulp mill was established in 1925. In all these years between 1925 and 1960 no substantial new large industry was established in the province. It has been owing to the forwardlooking confidence and faith of the premier of Nova Scotia and the dynamism of his government that there has been a stimulation of industrial manufacturing and industrial settlement in the province and we all hope very much that this process will continue.
I spoke a moment ago of a number of our resource industries which are now doing very well, though we lack sufficient manufacturing plants. I might say also that the primary steel plant in Sydney which supplies much of the steel sold in Canada had a good year in 1960. It enlarged its markets. It is very efficient and it is able to compete with most other primary producers on this continent. The men who are employed in this industry are grateful in particular to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) for his help to the company when it was seeking out new orders in 1960.
However, the general problem of establishing industries in the Atlantic area has not been solved. What strides we are making, and I do not minimize them, have been against the tide that runs against the Atlantic provinces owing to our geographical position. We are a long distance from the markets which our manufactured goods must find in Ontario and Quebec. Manufacturing industries in the Atlantic provinces which sell goods in the central provinces are at a disadvantage. They have to bear the extra cost of maintaining a sales force far from home, and the lack of a large local market to help set up the primary source of sales which is so important particularly to infant industries.
An example of the difficulties under which industry labours in the Atlantic area is to be found in the experience we have encountered in trying to coax into Nova Scotia 90205-6-2 lli
Private Bills
the new rolling mill, which Dosco proposes to build on the St. Lawrence river east of Montreal. One of the most important markets for primary steel is that provided by the demand for cold rolled products. If Dosco's primary steel mill at Sydney is to enjoy stable markets in the future it is very important that the corporation build a cold rolling mill to process Sydney ingots. We from Nova Scotia have been pressing for the construction of the mill in Cape Breton Island. A new industry such as this would give a tremendous uplift to our economy.
However, Dosco insists that, to be economically successful, the mill must be located close to its potential market which would be in the Montreal area. It says that it is only one of several firms considering locating in Quebec and that if it does not move into the area, some other steel company will do so. Their position is that it would be of no advantage to Nova Scotia to have a cold rolling mill built in the province if in a few years Stelco or some other processor moved into Quebec, where it would be in a position to capture a large portion of the Quebec market. They also say that transportation difficulties are not the only problem since, while transportation subsidies might equalize prices for a company manufacturing in Nova Scotia, the company in Quebec, as a local industry with its headquarters in the area, would have a distinct selling advantage and be able to offer better delivery service and more convenient contact for custom and special work.
If there is any way in which these difficulties can be overcome, the construction of the proposed rolling mill in Cape Breton would go a long way towards solving our present coal industry crisis. But if the mill must, for economic factors beyond control be built at Contrecoeur or some site along the St. Lawrence, then it is vital that special transportation assistance be provided to carry primary steel from Sydney to the rolling plant, wherever it may be built.
The Atlantic provinces in general have been very pleased with the special help which has been provided since 1957. The Atlantic adjustment grants are in themselves an example of this. Over-all grants to the Atlantic provinces, conditional and unconditional, have doubled since 1957. Moreover, other provisions of this government, although not specifically designed for the Atlantic area, will be of great benefit to my province. I refer to such projects as the vocational training program. Only the other day the premier of Nova Scotia announced the building of a vocational training school on Cape Breton Island. It is a school in connection with which

Private Bills
there will be no need for assistance from the municipalities. This will be of great help in training men in the eastern part of Nova Scotia. However, in order to strike at the root of the problem of seasonal unemployment in Nova Scotia we need more than anything else to develop more manufacturing industry. Only manufacturing can provide us with the steady year-round employment which we need in order to give stability to our economy.
We can have manufacturing industry if in some way we are able to equalize the profits that an entrepreneur can earn in Nova Scotia, or any other province in the Atlantic area, and those available to him in the other provinces. Regardless of transportation subsidies which we must have and regardless of other aid which may be made available to the Atlantic area, unless we can provide as great a profit to a manufacturer in the Atlantic area as he can find in the more populous areas of Canada then we will have a difficult time in establishing industry there.
As was pointed out by the hon. member for Cumberland we need special assistance to help us in the financing of industries in the Atlantic area. It is not as easy to provide financing for manufacturing there as it is in other areas. We should like to have that special help in a manner suggested in the bill presented by the hon. member for Cumberland. We also need tax concessions to help us equalize profit opportunities in the area. Because of transportation and other difficulties it is not possible to earn the same ratio of profit. Therefore it does not seem fair to me that a company in the Atlantic area faced with all the obstacles involved in manufacturing there should have to pay as high a corporation tax as do manufacturing companies elsewhere in Canada. If we could say to the owner of a company that might locate in the Atlantic area that even though his profits might be lower, he would have a lower rate of corporation income tax to pay over the period he would be in the area, I am sure this inducement would mean the difference between his company locating in our area as against a more populous or more geographically-favoured region of the country.
I feel it is only through the establishment of industry in that area with the help of transportation subsidies and the availability of industrial credit and above all of tax concessions to equalize profit opportunities that we can overcome the far-reaching problems of the Atlantic area in relation to the attraction and development of manufacturing industry.
As I have said, we from the province of Nova Scotia and from other parts of the

Atlantic area are grateful for the consideration that has been given to our problems by the government to date. It is certainly quite a change from the attitude that existed in the period of which I spoke from 1925 to 1955 when so little progress was made in terms of providing new employment sources or potential in the Atlantic area. However, I suggest to the government that in taking further steps to help us become self-sufficient, and to help us earn our way in this great and expanding nation, nothing is more important than to encourage the development of manufacturing industry to provide employment in Nova Scotia and the Atlantic area. At this particular time when we in Nova Scotia are faced with the dire threat of mine closures it is more important now than at any other time that the government give all possible consideration to such concessions as will induce manufacturing industry to settle in the Atlantic area.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, while this bill is addressed to a particular section of the country from which I, like so many other hon. members of this house, do not come, all our interests are so interdependent that there could be nothing but encouragement for participation in this debate by hon. members who come from sections of Canada other than the maritime provinces.
I rise to speak in support of the principle and indeed much of the content of this bill because if there is any section of our country that needs the kind of assistance envisaged in this bill, it is the Atlantic provinces area. I refer to the four Atlantic provinces and particularly, perhaps, those on the mainland. I well recall the speech made in this house on Monday last by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) who outlined the economic conditions prevailing in the maritime provinces and indeed the remedies which he proposed encompassed many of the provisions of this bill. The discussion we had on that occasion had to do with a matter which in principle involved the recommendations contained in the operative parts of this bill.
We have heard from the hon. member who has just taken his seat and from various other hon. members who participated in the discussion on the previous occasion and from the hon. member for Gloucester today about the background of economic and social conditions in the maritimes at the present time which warrant our support of this measure. These matters should serve as notice to the government of not only the desirability but the vital urgency for the government to take measures more formidable than those now before us, not only to correct the situation in that section of the country but to deal with similar

conditions that prevail to a greater or lesser degree in every part of our nation.
The facts of the situation in the Atlantic provinces are these. Eighteen per cent of the labour force in the Atlantic provinces is out of work, according to the latest figures given to this house officially on Wednesday last.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: May I ask
the hon. gentleman a question? Does that figure not incude a high percentage of fishermen?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In reply to my hon. friend let me say first of all that fishermen are not included in the figures. That was as a result of a decision taken by this government two years ago. In addition to that whether or not they are included, I do not know why my hon. friend in particular should regard fishermen as being less deserving of remedial legislation in the matter of unemployment than any other segment of the working force.


William Joseph Browne: I do not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The point is that on the basis of the last available figures 18 per cent of the working force in the maritime area is out of work. That percentage is so much greater than the national average of 11.3 per cent as to give any hon. member of this house cause to be greatly concerned about conditions in the Atlantic provinces. There was an increase in the last reported figure of some 23,000 more Canadians out of work than in the previous reported period and of that 23,000 no less than 17,000 come from the Atlantic area. Those are alarming facts.
It seems to me this bill, which I should like to see receive immediate passage, is one which if implemented by the government would not immediately but would in the foreseeable future provide the kind of encouragement for the relocation of industry that might materially assist the maritime provinces. The immediate problem in the Atlantic area, however, is not covered by this bill. The immediate problem is that 2,800 miners will be out of work as a result of the shutdown of mines at the end of May. That is a matter of grave concern to everybody in the maritime provinces and particularly to people in places like Glace Bay, Sydney Mines and Waterford. It is a matter of serious concern to all people of Canada that at the end of May the mines will be shut down and at least 2,800 miners will be out of work in adition to those miners who are already unemployed.
When we realize the problem in regard to the relationship between the lack of certain
Private Bills
skills and the availability of employment, we can well appreciate what this is going to mean in human terms to so many people in the Atlantic provinces and indirectly, on that account, to Canada as a whole. While this bill is commendable and touches upon the type of thing we have been advocating in our criticism of the government's program of double depreciation designed to assist areas of chronic unemployment, I should hasten to say this. The measure now before us will not solve the immediate problem that confronts the coal miners in the Atlantic provinces and in particular in the areas I have mentioned.
Of course, this bill is worthy of support because it highlights the weakness of the program announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) in his baby budget speech on December 20. In his only reference to unemployment the minister said that the government was going to try to meet the national emergency by a system of accelerated depreciation, particularly described as double depreciation, in order to assist industries in relocating and to encourage industries already established in areas of chronic unemployment to stay there. We have criticized the government's program of double depreciation because of its limited extent. A program of double depreciation that is to be in force for only one year is, of course, of no great consequence. I have made the statement-and it has not been challenged by the Minister of Finance-that the program will not bring one industry to one community in Canada. That being so-and it is supported by the evidence of those who have no political interest in making comments on the government's depreciation program-it reveals that the government is lacking in its approach to the whole problem of unemployment.
If the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) would come forward with a bill or an announcement based upon section 11 of the Income Tax Act, which would incorporate some of the provision, in this bill, we would not have the same substantial grounds for criticism of that measure as we have had, because in this bill the hon. member proposes a form of accelerated depreciation, but he also proposes loans to assist enterprises in reducing high unemployment. He proposes that there should be bank grants to acceptable persons or companies to be used in the establishment of or assistance to industrial enterprises. Bank loans and development loans are the things that are now being tackled and are part of

Private Bills
the crash program being undertaken in the United States in its program of accelerated depreciation.
This bill is valuable not only for what it proposes but for what it exposes, namely the weaknesses in the government's declared policy to meet the situation not only in the maritime provinces but throughout Canada generally. I could go on commending this bill, pointing out its good features and comparing them with the weaknesses and the wants of the government's own program; but so anxious am I, as are other hon. members in this party, to see this bill pass so that it can be used as a sanction on the government to take a more vigorous step to do something about this serious problem of unemployment that now obtains in the maritime provinces that I will not do so. These figures cannot be scoffed at; they cannot be ignored. When 18 per cent of the working force of the maritime provinces is out of work it is a matter of the gravest concern not only to that area but to everyone in this house. The government of the day, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) and other ministers in the house today, along with the minister without portfolio from Newfoundland should rise in their places-


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, may I draw to the hon. gentleman's attention that I have been promoted to the office of Solicitor General?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did the minister a great injustice.


Mr. Lambert:: What about the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) ?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wish the Minister of National Health and Welfare had been here when we were discussing old age pensions earlier this afternoon.


An hon. Member:: He was here.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, he was not
here. I invited him to take part in the debate. I want to say to the hon. member I regret I referred to him as the minister without portfolio. Of course, I knew he was Solicitor General. It was only because one is tired at the end of a long week that one makes these errors. I wish to say that the hon. gentleman deserves a much more effective and important post than that of Solicitor General. I would have hoped that the government would recognize the maritime provinces by using not only the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) from that area but also the productive capacities of the Solicitor General who could add to his general legal knowledge, his knowledge of the maritimes and of Newfoundland and push this slow-moving government into action. I hope the Solicitor 
General will take part in this debate for one minute, because we want this bill to pass today. I hope he will give it his support and urge on his colleagues the adoption of policies that have been proposed by private members of the Conservative party based upon recommendations made by Liberal members of parliament from the maritime provinces.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the mover of this bill, but we should like to draw to the attention of the hon. member the fact that this bill should apply not only to the four maritime provinces but to all of Canada. The need is as great in a number of other mining areas as it is in the maritimes. I presume the maritimes are generous enough to give us the opportunity of receiving the benefits that they and other parts of Canada also need very badly.
I hope we shall have the opportunity of amending this bill when the appropriate time comes.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to talk out this bill because it is a very important one. I see the time is getting short, but I do want to indicate my support of this measure and to make one or two observations with regard to my own province. There is nothing in this bill that has not been proposed on many occasions in the past. If we are to put this bill into effect we must realize that, however desirable it is to attract industry to the maritime provinces, the economic laws cannot be completely ignored. In my opinion, a rational program will first of all utilize the resources that are available in any particular area. In my own province, of course, the main industry is fishing and I think a great deal could be done to modernize this industry, to improve marketing and to reduce the cost of operations.
As far as manufacturing industries are concerned, of necessity they must be on a small scale. There again, they should utilize the skills and materials that are available there. I should like to recall to the house that in the early days the great industry in the maritimes was shipbuilding. We have a great tradition in the building of ships, and great skills not only in building them but in managing them and sailing them. A great deal of our prosperity in days gone by was based on that fact alone. We need a shipbuilding industry in Canada, and I think that is one thing that should be given much more encouragement than is the case at present. It is all right to concentrate the shipbuilding industry in one or two places but this is something that the maritime provinces can

do as well as or even better than other parts of Canada. I should like to see a special shipbuilding program introduced particularly for the benefit of the maritime provinces.
I am going to take only another minute to say that whatever are the industries we establish in the maritime provinces and in my own province in particular, they will not survive unless something is done about transportation because over the years every industry that we have managed to get started has foundered on transportation costs. 1 am speaking from memory but I do not believe that the bill makes provision for any special concessions for industries in the maritimes with regard to freight rates. That is an absolute "must" if we are going to do anything of a concrete nature.
I think it is shortsightedness on the part of big business in other parts of Canada not to realize that a nation cannot exist, as our deputy minister of economic development said a short while ago, half rich and half poor. It is in the interests of the richer provinces to spend some of their money in developing industries in those provinces which are not so well off, thus raising the standards in those provinces. In my own little province of Newfoundland we already constitute a market with a value of some $250 million for the central provinces. This could be expanded to a billion dollar market if industries were developed in our province even to a small extent. I do not want to take any more time. I hope that the government will take the bill seriously and that it will be given swift passage through the house.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) was good enough to suggest that I make a few observations with regard to the bill.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Don't talk it out.


William Joseph Browne: He asked me to avail myself of a minute at least in order to say something but I could not in a minute or even in an hour do justice to the valuable contributions which the government has already made to the Atlantic provinces in the three and one half years we have been in office.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us pass this bill first.


William Joseph Browne: The hon. member for Essex East was a member of a government that ruled this country for 22 years. It has been said that in the short time we have been in office we have done far more beneficial things for the Atlantic provinces than the Liberal government did in all the time they were in office. Let me mention
Private Bills
three or four of the salient things that have been done by parliament on the recommendation of the government since 1957. The hon. member will recall distinctly the dominion-provincial conference which was called in November of that year.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us has to do with the distribution of industry.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It seems to me that one might put forward an argument for or against the bill on the basis of whatever measures the government has or has not adopted. The hon. member will also appreciate that he discussed the problem of double depreciation as having a relation to the bill. It seems to me that the minister may also draw an argument from other measures.


William Joseph Browne: I would
point out that I believe these things are very important so far as the discussion of the bill is concerned. I was going on to say that we gave the Atlantic provinces $25 million a year for four years; and at the recent dominion-provincial conference it was arranged that this amount would be increased by $10 million which will enable the Atlantic provinces to do things they could not possibly do otherwise. This grant to the Atlantic provinces provided a tremendous lift when it was given. We also gave them loans to assist in the construction of transmission lines for electricity and for the development of electricity through the use of coal and the construction of interconnecting lines. I have in mind a statement I have quoted before by the president of the Atlantic provinces economic council to the effect that this action saved millions of dollars. He referred to a figure of $60 million. This action was of tremendous value to the Atlantic provinces.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Will the minister permit a question? What is the government going to do about the 2,800 miners who are going to be laid off?


William Joseph Browne: I cannot deal with everything in a minute. I promised to speak for only a minute or two. With regard to my own province of Newfoundland, the federal government offered to assist the government of Newfoundland in the construction of a transmission line from Bay d'Espoir on the south coast of Newfoundland to Grand Falls and Corner Brook which would cost $13 million and was prepared to give the government of Newfoundland 40 years in which to pay for it at a low rate of interest of a little over 5 per cent. If that
tiOUSE OF COMMONS
Private Bills
is not offering assistance to the Atlantic provinces and enabling them to establish industries which they could not otherwise establish without access to such a valuable source of electrical power, I do not know what is.
The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) comes from New Brunswick and he knows that the former government which he supported would not assist the government of New Brunswick by way of loans to help them in the construction of the Beechwood project.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Give us a chance to pass the bill.


William Joseph Browne: This government has assisted the province of New Brunswick.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Don't let the minister talk out the bill.


William Joseph Browne: I should also like to point out-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Don't talk it out.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I see it is six o'clock.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A cabinet minister has talked out the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would there be any disposition to carry on for a while in order to pass the bill?


George Clyde Nowlan: The same disposition that you showed at noon today.


William Joseph Browne: I do not
think I should carry on because it would take me a long time to speak about all the things I might mention.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have heard hon. members call it six o'clock.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Pass the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hédard-J. Robichaud: Will the minister give us the business for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, last night the house leader gave the order of business for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, possibly subject to some slight change. That has been the usual procedure, and there is no change from the order of business which he announced last night.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:


Mr. Argue: 1. In 1959, did the Department of National Defence contribute in any way to the cost of paving approximately one mile of the main road through the village of Parent, Laviolette county, Quebec, including the raising of several manholes of existing sewers?
2.	If so: (a) for what reason? (b) what was the cost involved to the Department of National Defence? (c) who was responsible for the work carried out in regard to (i) planning (ii) supervision (iii) actually doing the work? (d) in the event that the Department of National Defence was responsible for any item under (c), why was the department thus responsible?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of
National Defence):
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) To improve the road access to R.C.A.F. station Parent.
(b)	$42,792.92 with the village of Parent committed by an agreement, dated June 17, 1958, to contribute 25 per cent of this amount.
(c)	(i) Department of National Defence.
(ii)	Defence Construction Limited.
(iii)	Paquin Construction Company, Val D'Or, P.Q.
(d)	The requirements for suitable road service to station Parent could not be met by the resources of the local municipal authority. Recognizing a measure of responsibility for the condition of the street and in the interests of economy and efficiency, the Department of National Defence by agreement with the village of Parent undertook the rebuilding and surfacing of that portion of the village street which forms part of the access road to station Parent.



AUTOMATIC CROSSING PROTECTION, EDINBURGH DRIVE, MONCTON

Mr. Creaghan: 1. Did the board of transport commissioners for Canada receive an application from the Department of Public Works of the province of New Brunswick for the installation of automatic protection of the railway level crossing at Edinburgh drive in the greater Moncton area?
Questions
2.	If so, when was the request received, and what is the present status of the same?
3.	If a grade separation was requested instead of automatic protection, to what extent would the board authorize a grant from the railway grade crossing fund, and how would the balance of the cost be apportioned, including future maintenance?
Answer by: Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of
Transport):
The board of transport commissioners for Canada advise as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	The New Brunswick department of public works submitted a letter to the board dated February 3, 1961 requesting that automatic protection be installed at the level crossing across the Canadian National Railways at Edinburgh drive in greater Moncton area and by letter dated February 23, 1961 withdrew its request for protection at this crossing, advising that the department proposes to make an application for a grade separation at this location.
3.	The board may authorize a grant from the railway grade crossing fund to the extent of 80 per cent of the cost of constructing a grade separation which will eliminate an existing level crossing which has been in existence for at least three years not to exceed, however, the sum of $500,000. If the total cost of constructing a grade separation does not exceed $625,000 and if a grant is authorized from the railway grade crossing fund to the extent of 80 per cent of the cost of construction, the railway company is required to pay 5 per cent and the highway authority having jurisdiction over the highway is required to pay 15 per cent, all in accordance with section 9 of the board's general order 848. If the total cost of a grade separation is in excess of $625,000, the board may authorize a grant from the railway grade crossing fund, not to exceed $500,000, with the balance of the cost to be borne and paid by the railway company and the highway authority in accordance with agreement reached between the railway company and the highway authority, or as the board may direct. The cost of future maintenance of such grade separation would be borne by the highway authority in the case of an overhead bridge and by the railway company in the case of a subway.
90205-6-212




Monday, March 27, 1961