1963-10-08

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Maurice Sauve (Iles-de-la-Madeleine)
presented the second report of the special committee on defence, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Motions-Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of the Secretary of State:
That, until the proceedings on the interim supply resolution, now before the house, and on the supply bill to be based thereon have been disposed of, the provisions of section 3 of standing order 6 concerning the time of evening adjournment shall be suspended: and that, in order to allow for several readings of the said supply bill in any sitting, the provisions of standing order 75 shall be suspended in relation thereto:
Provided that, if any other government order is taken in any such sitting, the terms of this order shall not be operative.
Hon. J. W, Pickersgill (Secretary of Slate):
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether there would be unanimous agreement in the house to have the motion standing in my name dropped in view of the passage of time.
Mr. Pugh:: As long as you go with it.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to the request of the Secretary of State that his motion be dropped?


Mr. Nowlan:: As amended.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise the house that this morning I had discussions with representatives of the longshoremen concerning the dispute involving dock operations in Montreal, Three Rivers and Quebec
city. These representatives were gravely concerned with respect to misleading and erroneous reports to the effect that the government was holding the club of compulsory arbitration over the heads of the parties to the dispute, and that the government had decided to impose compulsory arbitration to effect a settlement of the dispute.
Here and now, Mr. Speaker, and in the strongest possible terms I wish to state that the government has made no threats of compulsory arbitration directly or indirectly and, further, that the government has made no decision with respect to imposing compulsory arbitration by legislation. We have appointed a mediator who is engaged in a sustained and intensive effort to settle the dispute on a voluntary basis, and I am in full agreement with the representatives of the longshoremen that innocent or malicious speculation regarding the imposition of arbitration can have nothing but an inhibiting effect on the efforts of Judge Lippe. I have received tributes to the skill and patience of Judge Lippe in this difficult situation.
Finally, I would refer members of the house to my statement last Friday. Both parties in this dispute have complied fully with our labour law and are free now to engage in other processes available to them under that law. We have gone beyond our usual efforts to assist the parties because of the national importance of a resumption of the dock operations. The government expects the parties, by voluntary methods and with the able assistance of the mediator, to work out their economic affairs in good faith, and I hope this statement will assist them to that end. Meanwhile Judge Lippe is continuing his efforts and will discuss with the parties this afternoon, as he did to the early hours of this morning, proposals for the settlement of the dispute.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES WINNIPEG    TRANSFER OF OVERHAUL AND MAINTENANCE BASE

Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement concerning Trans-Canada Air Lines overhaul and maintenance facilities at Winnipeg, the Dixon-Speas study and matters arising out of it.
On the basis of full and confidential information involving T.C.A.'s forward planning

Trans-Canada Air Lines of its operations for the next 10 years, the consultants think that the most economic course for T.C.A. would be to close the Winnipeg facilities.
Both T.C.A. and the government recognize that, while this is indeed an important consideration, there are other factors which have to be considered too. T.C.A., therefore, stands by its previous decision to maintain the Winnipeg facilities until 1966.
Now that the Dixon-Speas report has provided full information on one aspect of the problem, the government will consider this in relation to other aspects, the general shape of national aviation policy and policies for regional economic development and manpower adjustment. The decision as to whether the Winnipeg facilities should be adapted for use beyond 1966 will be based on all these considerations, as the Prime Minister has promised it would be. The government appreciates the importance to the people affected, of an early decision. Therefore, complex though the problem is, it expects to come to a conclusion by the end of the year.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: We have been waiting with a great deal of interest and some impatience for a report by the minister. We had hoped that he would have given the house and the country a decision by the government right now. He has not given us any additional information. We have been aware that the recent technical report dealt with the economic factors. We have been aware also that the government, through the Prime Minister and others, has made commitments to the people of Winnipeg and the employees of T.C.A. that other factors would be considered.
There is nothing new, therefore, in what the minister has now stated except that other matters are going to be decided upon before the decision is reached. He mentioned, I believe, a policy with regard to regional industrial development and aviation policy; and his colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs was reported somewhat earlier to the effect that there was a third policy, job displacement and regional manpower adjustment. These three policies have to be formulated and implemented, according to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, before a decision is reached concerning T.C.A. overhaul and maintenance base.
This means a great deal of unnecessary delay, in our opinion, and is very frustrating indeed to the employees of T.C.A. in Winnipeg and to the general economy of that great city.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: I am
certain that the statement made by the minister today will be a great disappointment to

everybody in the greater Winnipeg area. This is a subject which has received unanimous support from all sectors of the province, labour, management, business and provincial and municipal governments. The Prime Minister, the minister and other members of the government met a large delegation here last May, and the Prime Minister made it clear that the economic effect of this move on T.C.A. would not be the only consideration which would be looked at by the government. In other words, something besides the mere saving of money by T.C.A. would be considered.
We are all disappointed that the report to which the minister referred has been kept secret and has not been made available to the interested parties. It is our understanding that the only thing the report says is that T.C.A. would save money. There is nothing in the report which changes the original contention of the parties that the move would be a real blow to the province of Manitoba and to the greater Winnipeg area, and a tremendous hardship on the people who work for T.C.A. in Winnipeg who would be forced to move to Montreal.
There is nothing in the minister's statement which would at all allay these fears, and I certainly join with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre in expressing disappointment that the people of Winnipeg will again have to wait, this time until the end of 1963. On the basis of past experience with T.C.A. in this problem, at the end of 1963 we will probably hear that it will take until the end of 1964.
What we are worried about, aside from this delay, is that while this is going on T.C.A. will continue the process of the last 10 years of chipping away the whole position of T.C.A. in Winnipeg. Despite all the assurances of T.C.A. and ministers of transport, there has been a continuous drop in T.C.A. jobs at Winnipeg, and I hope the minister would at least make it clear to T.C.A. that there should be no reduction of jobs in Winnipeg, and no transfers from Winnipeg to Montreal, until the government has enunciated its policy much more clearly than the minister did today.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND BULGARIA

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that on behalf of the government of Canada I have just signed a three year trade agreement between Canada and the People's Republic of Bulgaria. In connection with the negotiation of the agreement it has been my pleasure to welcome to

Ottawa Mr. I. Boudinov, Bulgarian minister of foreign trade, who is in the gallery today witnessing our proceedings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Boudinov signed the agreement on behalf of the government of his country. The agreement provides for an exchange of most favoured nation treatment between our two countries, and a commitment by the People's Republic of Bulgaria to purchase a minimum of 100,000 metric tons of wheat in each of the three years of the agreement. However, Bulgaria will purchase an additional 150,000 metric tons of Canadian wheat, subject to the Canadian supply position, during the current crop year, and the way is open for both parties to negotiate for even greater quantities in the future. At buyer's option, all or part of the above mentioned quantities of wheat may be taken in flour equivalent.
The agreement provides for consultation between representatives of the two governments respecting implementation of the agreement, should this be required. In addition, it has been agreed that trade offices may be opened both in Canada and Bulgaria for the purposes of market exploration and trade promotion. The conclusion of successful negotiations followed preliminary talks which have taken place between representatives of the two countries over several months.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, the house and the country will be very well pleased to hear that the minister is taking advantage of the tremendous demand for products of this country in countries behind the iron curtain. There was no secret about the fact that over the last two or three years this demand was rising and these countries were in the market for long term agreements for our products, and that we in return would have to make them some concessions in order to get into our markets here. I only hope the most favoured nation treatment that has been granted to Bulgaria today will result in considerable trade between our two countries, and I hope the government keeps up this program of dealing with countries behind the iron curtain.
I would like to mention this specifically. On August 3 last I gave a list of countries which I think would be interested in receiving the same type of treatment. If the minister would go to Hungary, for example, I think he could probably make an agreement for 300,000 tons a year. I think this could be done by giving them most favoured nation treatment.
I would like to congratulate the government for its wisdom in following the sound policies already well established.
28902-5-211
Trade Agreement with Bulgaria


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the announcement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce respecting both the specified quantities of wheat that have been sold to Bulgaria and also the fact that most favoured nation trade arrangements have been set up with that republic. I think it is going to tax our transportation facilities in Canada to the maximum to deliver all the wheat involved in the commitments we have made for the balance of this crop year. I therefore hope there will be a very high degree of co-operation among the Department of Transport, the labour unions and others involved in order that we are able to meet the delivery commitments. I would like to commend the government for continuing, if you want to call it that, or initiating, if you prefer that, the expansion of trade in this area.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians will welcome the announcement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the effect that a trade agreement has been entered into with the government of Bulgaria, that this will involve sales of Canadian wheat over the next three years, and that in return we will be extending to Bulgaria the most favoured nation provisions.
I think the government is wise in recognizing two basic principles; first, that we ought to be prepared to sell food and other non-strategic materials to any country which is willing to pay for them either in cash or on a credit basis. I think the second principle which is recognized, and I hope they will continue to recognize it, is that if we are to sell export commodities like wheat we must be prepared to accept some of the goods of other countries in exchange. We cannot have one way trade; trade is a two way proposition. Certainly the government is wise in exploring the whole field of what goods from these other countries we can accept so as to enable them to earn the necessary Canadian dollars with which to pay for the wheat.
I would like to say one other word; that some of the ministers who have been advising western farmers that they had better get out of wheat will probably now have to reverse this advice. I am convinced that the wheat acreage on the prairies could be greatly expanded and that there will be no difficulty in increasing the production of wheat if that is necessary to meet these further orders.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF NATIONAL POLICY

Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I wish today

National Power Policy to announce on behalf of the government a national power policy. I do not think I have to emphasize the vital role the power industry is playing and must continue to play in the development of our nation. The story of the electric power industry of today is one of constant evolution as it strives successfully to reduce costs. Canada must provide the climate in which we can take advantage of these technical breakthroughs.
Our policy places particular emphasis on (a) the desirability of Canada taking fullest advantage of the evolutionary changes that have taken place in the nature of the power industry, including technological improvements in generating and transmission facilities, and the reduced costs of power associated with these; (b) the provision of abundant supplies of electrical energy to consumers throughout Canada at the lowest possible cost to encourage and accelerate economic development and growth; (c) the need for Canada to have a flexible export policy which, inter alia, would permit the export of large blocks of power to the United States for a relatively long period of years to assist in the immediate development of certain large scale Canadian power projects, particularly undeveloped hydro resources which might not be viable in the near future unless provision were made for the marketing in the United States of a significant portion of their output; and (d) the strengthening of our balance of payments position through the export of power surplus to our own needs.
The policy now being announced reflects important changes which have taken place in the circumstances affecting export of power. The government is fully aware of the body of public opinion that has been opposed to export of power, in the first instance because of events which occurred over 50 years ago.
The National Energy Board Act now provides that all exports of power must be licensed by the national energy board with the approval of the governor in council. Licences may not be issued for a term in excess of 25 years. The national energy board is required to certify that the power to be exported does not exceed the surplus remaining after due allowance has been made for the reasonably foreseeable requirements for use in Canada, and this has been interpreted to mean surplus to Canadian requirements which can be supplied economically from the generating facilities producing the power for export. Further, the board must satisfy itself that the export price of the power is just and reasonable in relation to the public interest.
From 1907 until the coming into force in 1959 of the National Energy Board Act, the

export of power was subject to licence under the Exportation of Power and Fluids and Importation of Gas Act. By regulation under that act the term of a licence was limited to one year. This was intended to prevent permanent alienation of Canadian power capacity which, though surplus when installed would be required in Canada as time went on. It was realized that if an industry or a community in the United States became dependant on a Canadian power supply it would be difficult, if not impossible, to withdraw that supply.
Such difficulties as have occurred in respect of the recapture of power exports arose in part because over 50 years ago long term contracts-up to 85 years-were made by Canadian power producers with specific industries in the United States. The contracts contained no provisions for the repatriation of the power. The Canadian supplier, in effect, had taken on within the United States the responsibility of a public utility to maintain continuity of supply for its customers. As a result, the protection of the one year limitation on licences was illusory.
The nature of the power industry today is very different from what it was in 1907 and in most of the intervening years. It is now unusual for the capacity of a large, modern electric plant to be dedicated to a single industry, or for a large utility to be dependant on one source of power supply. We are entering the era of large private and public electrical utilities, interlinked with high voltage lines and operated pursuant to interconnection agreements designed to take advantage of the new technological improvements and the economies of scale.
A public utility, whether in Canada or the United States, now takes it as a matter of course that it must contract for or instal capacity to replace a portion of its total power supply when the contract covering that portion runs out. The old aphorism that an export sale, once established, cannot be terminated without hardship in the export market and danger of international friction is no longer valid if the export contract is made with a public utility in the United States under reasonable terms and conditions.
When the National Energy Board Act came into effect in 1959, power export licences which had been issued under the Exportation of Power and Fluids and Importation of Gas Act were continued in effect for some time, so that the board might apply to each case with minor exceptions the procedure of application, public hearing, detailed analysis and recommendation to the governor in council.
In 1959 actual total exports, as distinguished from licensed authorizations, were 4,582 mil-

lion kilowatt hours. In 1962 export had declined to 89 per cent of the 1959 total. In 1962 Canada produced 117 billion kilowatt hours, including 11.4 per cent from thermoelectric plants. Of the total production, only 0.47 per cent was exported as firm energy and 2.8 per cent as interruptible energy. Of the latter, 86 per cent was interchanged with United States utilities, having been returned to Canada at the same time over other circuits, or over the same circuits at other times.
In the light of the circumstances I have outlined the government has decided to develop and carry forward effective policies embracing two essential concepts; first, encouraging development of large low cost power sources and the distribution of the benefits thereof as widely as possible through interconnection between power systems within Canada; second, encouraging power exports and interconnections between Canadian and United States power systems where such induce early development of Canadian power resources.
More specifically, our policy is as follows. The government, having due regard to the rights of the provinces with respect to the development and distribution of power, and keeping in mind its own responsibilities in this field, desires to encourage interconnection agreements and maximum utilization of intertie facilities between electrical systems, both publicly and privately owned. The government, in co-operation with the provinces, has already undertaken studies to investigate the possibility of interconnecting power systems across the country. It realizes that the complete interconnection may not be economically feasible for some years to come. Nevertheless, it would appear that by establishment of interconnection facilities between utilities in adjacent regions, wherever practical, a national system might be developed by a succession of stages, each valuable in itself.
The government believes that it would be beneficial to Canada and to the United States, and not prejudicial to the national interest, to encourage interconnection agreements and interties between utilities in the respective countries in cases where the interconnection agreements suitably protect the Canadian interest. In cases in which Canadian utilities enter into appropriate interconnection agreements with United States utilities, the government will be prepared, upon recommendation of the national energy board, to give favourable consideration to the authorization of export of power to United States utilities for purposes including the following. First, to provide stand-by service in the case of emergencies, thus making possible the reduction of reserve generating capacity otherwise required by the utilities; second, to provide 28902-5-211i
National Power Policy for economy flows between plants or systems; third, to provide for sales of surplus interruptible energy; fourth, to provide for exchange of power and energy to take advantage of load, watershed or other diversities; and fifth, to provide for exports of firm power for limited periods to make possible the step by step construction of the most economical generating facilities on either side of the boundary.
The government also believes that it would be in the national interest, in suitable cases, to license the export of large blocks of firm power to United States utilities to permit the development of large scale remote hydro or other power projects which would not be viable unless supported by the export for long periods of a significant proportion of the power generated. The National Energy Board Act permits such exports for periods of up to 25 years. Provision would have to be made for the recapture of such exported power over a period of years, in stages commensurate with the need or ability of the Canadian market to absorb it, and upon notice adequate to enable the importing utility to arrange for replacements. The provisions of the National Energy Board Act would, of course, apply to any case of this nature, as to any export of power.
The government will, upon recommendation of the national energy board, continue to authorize the export of relatively small amounts of power and energy to border areas in the United States where, for geographical reasons, Canada is the economic source of supply.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the long disquisition by the Minister of Trade and Commerce was summarized in about two lines in the speech from the throne in 1962 presented by the government of which I had the honour to be the head.
The minister went back to 1907 and dealt with the statute of that time which denied the export of power, and he left the impression that this announcement today was something that represented cogitation and consideration by the present government. I would point out this fact; that three years ago we took the stand that the rules which had heretofore been in effect denying export should be removed, and that export of power surplus over and above foreseeable needs could be made to the United States. In addition, at the same time or somewhat earlier we established the national energy board in order to bring about power development in Canada which would assure our future needs and we gave that board the power to recommend the export of power subject to the

National Power Policy
agreement of the governor in council. All these things were done under the previous government.
The announcement made today adds thereto the establishment of a national grid. This was part and parcel of our policy, a policy for which we received little support from those who now sit opposite. Much is made of the fact that consideration is now being given to preserving and maintaining provincial rights in this connection. That, too, is a welcome change on the part of the government. We had negotiations under way for the establishment of a national grid. In short, this announcement was made by us several years ago-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: However, in the words of a familiar quotation, while the lamp holds out to burn the wandering sinner may return, and we are glad to see that hon. gentlemen opposite have repented of their former attitude.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: I rise only to say I am very pleased indeed with the announcement which has been made this afternoon in connection with power policy. For some time now there has been a dire need for changes to be made in the policy of the federal government relating to power and power distribution in Canada.
I may say I am not interested in the pot calling the kettle black or in the skunk saying "I smell something", if that is a better term. I am not interested in recriminations of that kind. I am interested in the progress that is being made, whether it began with the Conservative party or with the Liberal party; and I think if they are honest hon. members in all parties will be bound to admit that the difference between the two parties is very slight.
However, I know the province of British Columbia in particular will welcome this announcement. I can see that it is likely to have a direct effect on the plans which that government has for the development of the Peace river and of the Columbia river basin. This is of importance to the people of Canada as a whole, as was pointed out in the statement which the minister made, inasmuch as it concerns the arrangements made for the exchange of power between this country and the United States.
In conclusion I should like to renew a plea to the government that they give serious consideration to the establishment of a department of federal-provincial affairs. The circumstances surrounding this announcement provide one more illustration of the need for setting up such a department. As I say, we welcome the announcement and I am sure it

will go a long way toward making possible the development which is to take place in the province of British Columbia, a development which will create markets for the manufacturing centres of eastern Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is much too important and complex a matter to be dealt with on motions on the orders of the day, and it seems to me some early opportunity should be given for a full debate on the subject by this parliament. This is a matter of far reaching importance to the people of Canada, and I hope the government will find an opportunity to arrange for a fuller discussion at an early date.
There are two aspects of the minister's statement upon which I should like to comment. The first has to do with the establishment of a national power grid. This is a project which has interested many of us for a number of years. Some progress has been made by utilities concerned, both public and private, as well as by the provincial governments in their discussions over the past few years, but I should like to say this to the minister. In our view the public and private power utilities of Canada do not merely require assistance in conducting studies. A good many studies have already been conducted, and I think the companies are able to undertake such studies without any great measure of assistance. The real problem which the power utilities face is the heavy capital expenditure which will have to be made if a national power grid is to be established.
New techniques have now made it possible to transmit power over long distances without a heavy line loss. In Sweden they are now transmitting power some 1500 miles without serious power loss and, I learned from engineers there, that in the Soviet union they are carrying power over distances even greater than this. But these developments require heavy capital expenditure, and if the government really wishes to help develop a national power grid it will, I believe, have to be prepared to make loans available to the public and private utilities so that construction may be undertaken with the result that wherever there is cheap power available in our part of Canada, it may be made available in other parts of the country. This would avoid part of our present deficit on our balance of payments account, because at the present time we are spending large sums on the purchase of United States coal for central Canada to provide power through thermal units.
The second point I have to make concerns the export of power. I would say that if the government now proposes to agree to the export of power there are two conditions

which ought to be laid down in order to safeguard the interests of the Canadian people. First, no power should be exported if it can be used to advantage in Canada. We should not be exporting Canadian power if it can be used near the point of production or transmitted to a part of Canada which could use it economically.
I do not know whether the government made this announcement today as a prelude to some decision with reference to the Columbia river development, but I think before any final agreement is signed with the province of British Columbia the whole question of that development should be submitted to the committee of external affairs of this house in order that the entire subject may be reviewed, and witnesses like General MacNaughton called, in order that hon. members may be fully aware of the situation. I say this because we are dealing here not only with the export of power but with the release of all the water of the fifth largest river on the North American continent. It is a most important matter and I hope it will not be referred to the committee on external affairs only after an agreement is signed and the house is faced with a fait accompli.
The second thing I wish to say about the export of power is that agreements for the export of firm blocks of power-arrangements for stand-by or emergency power are another matter-should be permitted only if there is provision for the progressive withdrawal of that power in blocks over a period of years in order to meet the growing needs of Canada. Power demand is increasing at an amazingly rapid rate, and we could easily sign long term commitments for power which we ourselves would need in the course of the next ten, 20 or 30 years.
I hope that the energy board will be instructed by the minister to see that in any export permits which are granted, there is adequate provision that this power can be restored to Canada as our demand load grows.

On the orders of the day:


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of his statement on power. Now that the new government has adopted the power policy of the former government, is the minister in a position to make a progress report on the Nelson river power study that was launched last year in co-operation with the province of Manitoba?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for expressing his general accord
Inquiries of the Ministry with the statement I made on power. On the particular question of the Nelson river, I am not in a position today to make such a statement, but if he would like a progress report I will get one for him.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which is directed to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who knows that I have been trying since June to get an interim report on the national transmission grid study that is being carried out, without which information we cannot make any sort of decision on any policy as to export. I wonder whether the minister, in view of the statement of last June 11 in which he mentioned that there would be meetings in August and September of this year, would now tell the house whether he is prepared to make some sort of interim progress report on what is happening in regard to this very important matter.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think I informed the hon. member for Qu'Appelle at that time that we expected a report early in September. We have been told by the professional firm that is undertaking this work for us that there is a greater amount of work involved than they expected, and now we do not expect the report until early in December. I think it would be premature on our part to make an interim report of any kind until we see the entire report.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Following that answer, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask a" question, which is not facetious but is meant very seriously. Is the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in close consultation with the Minister of Trade and Commerce in regard to any potential export of power, to keep him in touch with the findings of any committee that is studying the advantages of a transmission grid to move the power east and west rather than north and south?


Arthur Laing: 1 am quite certain, Mr. Speaker, that in connection with matters of policy in the export of power the opinions of my department go to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In regard to the statement the minister made today, I am in complete concurrence with it in its spirit and its eventual execution. I am quite certain that the good of all the people of Canada will be borne in mind in the attempts of this department to maximize the use of Canadian water and at the same time do the best we can for development in Canada by making possible certain exports.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If I may be permitted to ask another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, does the minister now appreciate the significance of my question on the relationship between the national power grid and the Columbia river?


Mr. Chevrier:: Order.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I was not unappreciative of its significance the first time the hon. member asked the question.
{Later:]


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the problem which you have been having, but I might say that I have been seeking to catch your eye since the beginning of the question period, but have been badly obscured most of the time. My question, addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, arises out of the statement he made today, and I feel it pertinent in view of the exchange between the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and the minister for northern affairs. I should like to ask the minister whether he will refer to a standing or a special committee of this house the statement on power policy which he gave the house today so that we may have the advantage of expert testimony in assessing and evaluating the policy announced?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I say two things about this question. First of all, I should not have made this statement had it not appeared to the people of the country that some clarification of power policy was desirable, notwithstanding what has been said on the other side. Second, I put this statement on the record in full, so that it would be available to any committee, private citizen or group that wanted to have the relevant information.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, can the minister of Labour say what the present position is regarding the bringing in of legislation to provide for a trusteeship; and second, whether within the last two or three days a Canadian ship in Chicago has been denied loading? What has been done in that connection? Have representations been made to the United States against this continued lawlessness that denies to Canadians the right to the use of the facilities of the great lakes?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the position with respect to the introduction of the trusteeship legislation is

somewhat as follows. The search has been for an arrangement between the Canadian Labour Congress and the A.F. of L.-C.I.O. in the first instance to provide a method of dealing with the situation. The executive council of the Canadian Labour Congress is meeting in Ottawa today, and I have decided to wait until I get a formal communication from the congress as to their final disposition of the matter. Just as soon as that is received I think I can make an announcement quite quickly.
I am aware that the John Ericsson has not been loaded in Chicago, and while I cannot report for the Secretary of State for External Affairs I am also aware that this matter has been discussed with representatives of the United States government.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the minister in a position to say whether he made any representations, and what the reaction was?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have discussed this
matter with the officials of the labour department, to my recollection, and I have an indication of certain knowledge that the Canadian ambassador discussed this matter yesterday in the United States. I can only report that the reaction to these representations has been that the United States authorities will fully comply with United States law with respect to this situation.
As the right hon. gentleman knows, the case of the Howard L. Shaw was before the courts, and Judge Parsons dealt with the situation by levying fines for non-compliance with the non-boycott order, so to speak. To my knowledge similar legal action has not taken place yet with respect to the Ericsson.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that those most directly concerned with the problem of shipping on the great lakes are the seamen, is the government taking steps at the present time to enforce section 157 of the Canada Shipping Act prohibiting the operation of hiring halls by unions, as recommended by Mr. Justice Norris in his recent report?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the establishment of a trusteeship itself would take into account this particular problem of hiring halls, and once a decision has been announced with respect to the date of bringing the legislation forward I think an opportunity will be provided to deal with that particular point.


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question. Not only is it our seamen but our farmers

and the Canadian people at large who are suffering from this situation.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Robert Norman Thompson: Can the minister assure us there is going to be some immediate action in regard to the trusteeship, or how long is the situation going to continue as it is?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition, it is my expectation that today I will be receiving a formal communication from the Canadian Labour Congress as to their disposition with respect to the private arrangement. When I have received that formal communication 1 will then be in a position to proceed with the public trusteeship legislation, I would expect.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I might tell the house and the Leader of the Opposition that I have received an indication from the Canadian Labour Congress that efforts to secure a voluntary solution to the lakes problem have been unsuccessful.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the statement by the Minister of Labour to the effect that the Canadian Labour Congress has notified him that there is no disposition to proceed with a private trusteeship plan, may I ask the hon. gentleman how soon we may expect him to proceed with the introduction of legislation for public trusteeship?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe the government is in a position to move at the earliest possible moment. The exact date will depend on arrangements made by the leader of the house and on the consultation he holds.



WHITE PASS AND YUKON RAILROAD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the international complications of a strike of the craft and shop workers on the White Pass and Yukon Route railroad, I wonder whether the minister has caused any assistance to be given by his officials to those negotiators who are trying to settle this strike, which is very seriously affecting the economy of the Pacific northwest?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. gentleman's question as notice and report to him tomorrow.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question to ask the minister of northern affairs with respect to the railroad strike in
Inquiries of the Ministry the Yukon, British Columbia and Alaska, of which he is aware. In view of the answer which he gave to my question to him concerning discussions which were being held with officials of the government of the state of Alaska, could he now clarify his answer as reported on page 3208 of Hansard and inform the house whether or not any such discussions have taken place, in view of the fact that it may be coming increasingly important to keep this road open all winter?


Arthur Laing: As the hon. member knows, there are a great number of considerations to be borne in mind in dealing with transportation there-considerations of tremendous consequence to Canada. As I have informed him, some five senior officials of various departments who have been charged with holding conversations, not with making policy, have been in the area. Until they report, and until some action is taken by the government, the situation remains unchanged. In other words, these men were sent up there to have conversations and make a report to the government, out of which policy may come. But they cannot create policy.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the note by the editor appended to a letter to the editor in one of our newspapers correct when it says that the Ottawa government is seeking the necessary provincial co-operation to raise blind and disabled pensions at the same time as the $10 increase in old age pensions?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend was present in the house last week when I answered a similar question and advised that this matter is under consultation with the provincial governments at the moment.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question. Along with this, is the government prepared to grant the request made on behalf of the blind for a specific allowance of at least $25 per month free of means test to help to cover the extra costs arising from blindness?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am sure my hon. friend will understand that while matters are under consultation with provincial governments I should not comment further.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. From

Inquiries of the Ministry how many provinces has the minister received a favourable reply with regard to an increase in blind pensions, disabled pensions and old age assistance pensions?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I do not remember offhand. This was discussed, of course, at the last conference dealing with pensions, and it may be on the agenda for the November meeting. I am not sure whether this has been decided yet.


Michael Starr: A further supplementary question. Is it the intention of the government to put into effect the increase to the disabled and the blind at the same time as the $10 increase to old age pensioners?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. In the event of there being some delay until the federal-provincial conference is held, will it be understood that the increase will be retroactive to the 1st of October?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that that has happened in the past. I have not looked into it.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) has advised me that he wanted to rise on a question of privilege. Consequently, he now has the floor.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, it will not be very long. It is about an interjection during the speech I made last night. The interjection came from the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Cote) and the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), and it had to do with the word "tripotage". They insinuated that I had used that word wrongly and they were not even sure it was in the dictionary.
I used the word "tripotage" in the sense of "speculating". According to the Petit Larousse, here is the meaning of "tripotage": unclean or foul tasting mixture. F.: embezzlement, cheating, scheming, influence trading.
Therefore, I would suggest to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm that he speak up only when he knows what he is talking about.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say I do not see any immediate urgency in that so-called question of privilege. Perhaps it is an explanation that could be requested later, but there is no reason to interrupt the orders of the day.



MR. RICARD    ALLEGED INCORRECT ANSWER TO QUESTION ON ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege.
In the order paper under date of October 2 last, there appeared the following question in my name:
Since the establishment of the agricultural prices stabilization board and up to March 31, 1963, what has been paid as a grant of 25 cents per hundredweight of milk to the operators of each of the following factories:
And the list of various factories follows: I insist on the word "operator" of the factories.
The answer read as follows:
The agricultural stabilization board does not make grants of 25 cents per hundredweight for milk to the operator of any processing plant.
Plants are reimbursed for payments made to individual producers on behalf of the agricultural stabilization board.
The reason I raise the question of privilege is this: it seems that the answer to the question was based on the English version as printed in the English order paper. The word "operator" of a factory is clear for all those who know what a processing plant is. For them, the word "operator" means the producer.
I feel that the answer is not accurate and I would ask my question be automatically put back on the order paper so that it may be answered.


Mr. Speaker:: The matter raised by the hon. member seems to me more in the nature of a complaint than a question of privilege. However, it is within the hon. member's power, jurisdiction and right to replace his question on the order paper.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, is it automatically replaced on the order paper, or do I have to do that?


Mr.   Speaksr@: I suggest that the hon. member do it himself.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I will be doing the work of somebody else because somebody made a mistake.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister but in his absence may

I direct it to the Minister of Justice, who I assume is leading the government side of the house. Is the government of Canada giving any consideration to offering assistance to Haiti and Cuba which have sufEered very grievous damage as the result of tornadoes in the past few days?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has the matter under consideration at the moment.



VIET NAM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, my question was meant for the Secretary of State for External Affairs but, since he is absent, I shall direct it to the Acting Prime Minister.
Now that Washington has decided to discontinue its financial aid to Viet Nam, could the minister give us some information about the present diplomatic relations of Canada with the Vietnamese government?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the question as notice and bring the matter to my colleague's attention.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the Russian-Canadian trade agreement has been signed for over three weeks, would he consider following the example of the minister of trade and commerce in 1960 by tabling in the house that agreement and all the documents that go along with it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes. It had been my intention to table it today, but I became engaged in these signing ceremonies with the Bulgarian delegation and I did not bring my documents with me. They will be tabled immediately.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: May I
ask a supplementary question. Are transcripts of the negotiations between the Canadian wheat board and the Russian negotiators available relating in particular to the possibility of shipping wheat through Churchill? Will the minister make these available for examination?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: I intend to table, probably tomorrow, copies of the trade agreement between the Soviet union and Canada and copies of the undertakings in respect of the purchase of wheat. Contracts between the Canadian wheat board and other countries are privileged documents which have never been revealed, and I do not intend to reveal them now.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: May I ask a supplementary question. I know it is not customary to divulge any secret documents. However, I should like to ask whether, under the agreement made with the Russians, the Russians have the right to susbtitute other purchasers of wheat if there is any amount of our grain overdue. In other words have they a clause in the contract or an understanding with the government that if the strike continues they can divert their purchases to another country?


Mitchell William Sharp: My understanding is that there is in this contract, as there is in all wheat board contracts, a strike clause. I do not think there is any reference to diverting purchases to another country.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: May I ask
a supplementary question. Can the minister tell the house whether those who negotiated the recent trade agreement on behalf of Bulgaria were made fully aware of the tremendous advantages of shipping through the port of Churchill?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that partly as a result of the efforts of my hon. friend and partly as a result of the efforts of others of us on this side of the house, the virtues of Churchill are very well known. In so far as these particular negotiations that were concluded today are concerned, the particular points of purchase or the particular ports through which the wheat would be shipped have not yet been discussed. I can assure him that the wheat board, as usual, will make the advantages of shipping through Churchill known to the Bulgarians.


Stanley James Korchinski: May I ask a supplementary question. Has the minister any intention of abandoning the port of Churchill, since it is obvious the government has no intention of telling anybody of its advantages?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I said to one hon. gentleman on the other side the other day, I expect the movement of wheat through Churchill will be at a record this season, greater than ever before in history even when my hon. friend's party was in power.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: May I ask a supplementary question?


Robert Simpson: May I ask a supplementary question?
3308	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I must point out that supplementary questions are not in fact recognized according to standing orders. They are building up through customary recognition in this house. When we have six, seven or eight supplementary questions, then I believe it is becoming a technique for asking for information when a question should be asked directly. May I suggest to hon. members that they ask questions directly and not use the supplementary question technique.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that my question is a valid supplementary question arising directly out of the reply the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave. He mentioned that he was not going to reveal the details of the agreement between the Canadian wheat board and the Russian negotiators. I should like to ask him, therefore, if Russia has the privilege of refusing to accept wheat deliveries outstanding if the Soviet union is dissatisfied with the Canadian evaluation of Russian exports to Canada, as was reported in the Globe and Mail a few days ago.


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, I saw the report to which my hon. friend is referring, and I was puzzled as to what the writer was talking about. As I see the situation it is open to both countries to denounce the treaty at any time; that is a right that both countries have. Of course if the Soviet union want to denounce the trade agreement they can do it, and so can we. This is the situation and always has been in respect of any treaty signed by any two countries.


Robert Simpson: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The hon. gentleman has referred to the record year of grain shipments out of Churchill. I assure him we are always pleased to hear this, as we have been in the last five or six years. Is the minister aware, however, that despite the fact that insurance regulations covering shipping out of Churchill do not expire until October 20, there will be no further grain shipments this month due to a lack of further shipping orders?


Mitchell William Sharp: I thank the hon. member for the information he has given me on this occasion.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, now that we have talked about wheat, we will go on to something else.

I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fine statements of policy which he made yesterday before the chambers of commerce gathered in Quebec city, and with which I fully agree, could the Minister of National Defence tell us what steps he intends to suggest and take in order that Canada can maintain its political independence, its economic independence and its military independence?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I am sure that the answer to this question will become obvious as time passes.


Mr. H. F. Jones (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the hon. member for Trinity-not in his role as Minister of National Defence but rather as incipient finance minister-does his recent excursion into economic affairs last night at Quebec, wherein he represented as an antidote to American takeover-


Mr. Speaker:: Please pose your question.


Henry Frank Jones: I am putting my question.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, I submit, on a point of order, that Your Honour's predecessors have ruled on many occasions that ministers may only be questioned on orders of the day about their departmental responsibilities, and it is contrary to the rules of the house to ask ministers questions on extraneous matters.
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition): In connection with the point of order I am sure that the statement made by the hon. gentleman is not in accordance with the facts, because yesterday the Minister of National Defence gave this country the benefit of his wisdom, and what is being asked is whether what he said represents government opinion, decision, or intention. Surely the house has the right to have the benefit of the wisdom this hon. gentleman made available to all of us.


Henry Frank Jones: Well, Mr. Speaker, to continue with the question-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker-


Henry Frank Jones: I am speaking on the point of order raised by the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then I apologize to the hon. gentleman.


Henry Frank Jones: The hon. member for Trinity made a statement yesterday to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce wherein he recommended certain policies which he said were

designed to increase the savings available for investment in this country. That policy is completely contrary to the effects of the Pearson pension plan-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I know the hon. member himself is a student of procedure, and I was hoping he would rephrase his question. But, as a matter of fact, it is well established in this house that ministers may be questioned with regard to their administrative duties, but if a question concerns policy then that is a matter for the government to answer.


Henry Frank Jones: The simple question I am asking the minister is whether this is a departure in government policy, or is the government adhering to its announced policy as set forth in the Pearson pension plan? This is a very simple question, and a very vital and urgent one for the voters of the country to have answered.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a further word on the point of order, because it seems to me that while the question is a simple one, the point at issue is a very important one as we would never get business of the house done if members could be asked questions about anything that came into someone's mind.
I recall very well an occasion when I was sitting on the other side of the house when I sought to ask Hon. Mr. Browne, who was then a minister without portfolio, a question about a speech he had made with reference to matters of importance in Newfoundland. Exception was taken by the government of the day on the ground that it was not a part of his administrative responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker Michener sustained the government on that occasion, and my question was ruled out of order. I submitted at once to His Honour's decision on the matter, and I submit that that is the proper practice of the house and should be sustained on this occasion.


Henry Frank Jones: Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to submit at once wholeheartedly to your ruling, and direct the question to the Acting Prime Minister. Do the views as expressed by the Minister of National Defence yesterday in Quebec represent government policy, or are the views as expressed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in relation to the Pearson pension plan the views of the government?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, there are two things I would like to say in reply to that question. First, I doubt very much, notwithstanding what has
Inquiries of the Ministry been said from the other side, whether the question is in order; and second, the speech speaks for itself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Bell:: Cabinet solidarity.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: intended to address this question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in his absence I shall address it to his proxy. My question is based on information concerning the Columbia river treaty which I have received from the United States, because we cannot get any here.
In view of the statement by Mr. Earl Coe, director of the Washington department of conservation, that the prospects for Canadian ratification of the Columbia river treaty have been dimmed by the re-election of Premier W. A. Bennett, would the minister inform the house whether the government is still as optimistic about the progress to be made with this treaty as indicated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on previous occasions?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs all I can do is draw this question to his attention.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the Acting Prime Minister inform-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but if the hon. member wishes to pose another question, let him do so. In view of the reply of the minister I do not see how he can originate a supplementary out of it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to pose another question. In view of reports from Washington in my possession that United States negotiators are proposing to drop the high Arrow from the Columbia river treaty, can the Acting Prime Minister substantiate this information?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not in a position to do that. I have not seen the report. As I said in reply to the main question, since the hon. member considers this a supplementary question, I shall draw it to the attention of my colleague.

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



EXTENSION OF BILINGUAL POLICY TO CROWN CORPORATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Could he tell us whether the government intends to have other crown corporations and the various departments of the federal administration take up and put into effect the plan devised in the C.N.R. by Mr. Donald Gordon for the recruiting and promotion of French speaking employees, as well as the methods used by that crown corporation to promote bilingualism on a practical and rational basis?


Lionel Chevrier: I am glad to learn that the hon. member for Three Rivers approves the policy initiated by the C.N.R. concerning bilingualism. With regard to this policy being applied to other crown corporations, I may tell him right away that the matter is under review.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temiscamin-gue):: Does the program include the appoint-of French speaking vice presidents?


Lionel Chevrier: I imagine that the question of the hon. member refers to crown corporations. If such is the case, crown corporations have only appointed presidents up to now and very few vice presidents. If the hon. member refers to C.N.R. vice presidents, I am convinced that C.N.R. authorities intend to increase the number of those vice presidents.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melforl-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Could the minister inform the house whether the government intends giving consideration during the present session to having the Unemployment Insurace Act amended so that unemployment insurance coverage can also be provided for agricultural employees, in accordance with the recommendations of the Gill report?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it the Gill committee recommended the inclusion of farm workers under the Unemployment Insurance Act, provided certain administrative difficulties were cleared up. This matter

naturally is being given very careful consideration, as are any proposals before presentation to parliament.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As
a supplementary question, would the minister inform the house whether consideration is also being given to including the employees of tree farmers in any amendment to the legislation, because tree farming is allied to agriculture?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the review of the act will include consideration of all possible classes of employees that might be brought under coverage, and that would apply to this particular category.



INQUIRY AS TO IMPLEMENTATION OF GILL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the statement made by Mr. C. A. L. Murchison, commissioner of the unemployment insurance commission, at Quebec yesterday, that if certain recommendations of the Gill report were implemented the unemployment insurance fund would be lifted out of the red, can the minister state what are the reasons for the delay in the government implementing such recommendations?
Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour)
Mr. Speaker, there is no delay whatever in implementing the Gill committee report. As my hon. friend knows, it is a very important document that affects the welfare of all insurable employees in Canada, and naturally very careful consideration must be given to it before introducing a measure that would have far reaching effects.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Would the minister convey that information to his commissioner, Mr. Murchison?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. My question arises out of the minister's answers to my questions of September 30 and October 1 concerning the designation of Brantford as a depressed area. I wonder has the minister given this very serious matter further consideration, and is he now prepared to make a statement?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minisier of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, this matter is continuing to receive consideration, and I have nothing to add at the moment to what has already been said.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister received a request from the national federation of Canadian university students seeking a government statement regarding on-campus security investigations and, if so, will the government make a statement to parliament on this problem?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that I did see a report in the press of a discussion that had taken place at a meeting of the federation of students, but so far as I am concerned I have received no representations from them at this time.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquetie (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can he tell the house whether he is aware of a certain rumour to the effect that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II would preside at the official opening of the world exhibition in 1967?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have heard many rumours until now about the world exhibition, but this is a new one. However, I shall report the matter to the authorities of the exhibition.



INQUIRY AS TO REPLACEMENT OF DIRECTOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliefie-L'Assomplion-
Montcalm): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is it the intention of the government to soon replace Mr. Claude Robillard, who resigned as managing director of the world fair?
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Claude Robillard has been replaced, I shall make an announcement in the house.
Inquiries of the Ministry



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Will the minister, when he makes the statement which he promised for tomorrow on the conference recently held in Tokyo regarding the extension of the north Pacific fisheries treaty, consider tabling the joint communique which was issued when that meeting adjourned, with a view to having it printed in Hansard'!


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, as I informed the house on Friday last I expect to make a complete statement tomorrow. The chairman of the Canadian delegation is expected to arrive in Ottawa this evening, and I want to discuss the situation with him. I will take into consideration the question of tabling the joint statement that was made following the meeting in Tokyo.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
Since in 1960 chartered banks had practically ceased granting the usual housing loans provided for in the National Housing Act-they authorized only four such loans in 1962-does the minister know if they now have a more liberal policy in this field?


Hon. J. R. Garland (Minisier of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the National Housing Act has no jurisdiction over the interest rate on loans by the chartered banks of this country. This is controlled by the Bank Act, which limits their interest to 6 per cent, as against the National Housing Act ceiling of 6] per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out to hon. members that it is now four o'clock, and I have a line-up-I use that word advisedly-of at least 15 questions, some of them from hon. members who have already asked two or three questions. May I suggest to hon. members that if we are to accomplish any work at all today perhaps some of these questions could and should be put on the order paper, and the others might be delayed until tomorrow.

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario): Mr. Speaker, in view of your statement and your having brought to the attention of hon. members the matter of questions, may I point out that Your Honour did not bring to the attention of the house the fact that the ministers took up one hour in the statements they made in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Now that Canada and Bulgaria have signed a most favoured nation trade treaty, I am wondering whether the minister will assist the entry into Canada of citizens of Bulgaria who are prevented by administrative procedures from coming to Canada at the present time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very appropriate question for the order paper.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Compion-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Could he give us information as to the position the government intends to take concerning the recent statement made by Mr. William Hildred, the general manager of the international air transport association in Rome, to the effect that tariff reduction would solve air transport problems?


Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take this question as notice.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance regarding a statement in respect of the imbalance of trade and payments between the United States and

Canada. The statement I refer to is a Canadian Press news article headed "U.S. charge denied by Gordon". May I preface this question with a few remarks taken from the article:
Gordon became concerned by a New York Times report published Monday-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, with the
greatest respect to those wolves who are trying to howl me down, I did say that I wanted to preface this question, which I think is important, with a short quotation, and I should have thought that I could be heard. I should like to preface the question with a short remark.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is a remark made by the Minister of Finance. He said:
"We are not trying to eliminate the deficit with the U.S. altogether," Gordon said. "We are not trying to resolve our payments deficit on a bilateral basis only. We believe in multilateralism as strenuously as always".
Is that the policy of the government and, if so, how does he reconcile that policy with the statement made by Robert Roosa, the under secretary of the United States treasury?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, that is the policy of the government, and I do not have to reconcile it with anybody else's statement.



CANADA COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielie-L'Assomplion-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, in his capacity of Acting Prime Minister. Could the minister tell the house if Dr. Trueman, chairman of the Canada Council, was accurate when he told the Rotary club of Toronto that the government plans to grant important scholarships to students wishing to obtain their B.A. or B.Sc. degrees?


Lionel Chevrier: With all due deference to my hon. friend, it seems to me that the question is not pressing, and should be placed on the order paper.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On a point of order. I have great regard for the opinion of the Minister of Justice, but here I find myself at variance with him.



NATIONAL MUSEUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Port Arthur asked me a question concerning resignations from the museum staff. I have prepared a statement, but as it is about two pages in length I wonder whether he would agree, and if I could obtain consent, to have it printed in Hansard?


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreeable to the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the printing of statements in Hansard, the contents of which are unknown to the house, would establish a precedent which I think should not be established at this time. If it is an official document, then that is a different thing; it can be put in as an appendix. But if it is just an answer to a question, then it should be tabled so that it is there available for the hon. member who asked the question. It should not be printed in Hansard.


Arthur Laing: That being the case, Mr. Speaker, I will read the statement.
Over the past months letters of resignation have been received from four senior officers, including the director of the natural history branch. In resigning, two of these officers indicated that they wished to return to university teaching, another to take up a particularly attractive research appointment in Mexico, and the director to accept a professorship at the University of Toronto and a senior appointment at the Royal Ontario museum. There was not, in short, any common purpose in the resignations. While I regret the departure of these gifted scientists, I think it is a healthy thing that there is a frequent interchange of senior personnel between the museum and the universities, which are both part of the academic community. I would like to acknowledge publicly the important contributions which Dr. Russell, Dr. MacNeish, Dr. McFeat and Dr. Oschinsky have made to the scholarly work of the museum, and to wish them every success in their future careers.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR OF HUMAN HISTORY BRANCH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Arthur Laing: At this time, Mr. Speaker, and as part of the interchange
Inquiries of the Ministry I mentioned earlier, I would like to announce the appointment of Dr. Richard Glover, professor of history at the University of Manitoba, as director of the human history branch of the museum. Dr. Glover, who will take up his appointment at the beginning of the new year, will be responsible for the development of the museum of Canadian history as a new component of the national museum.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES REQUEST FOR REDUCED RATES FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport in connection with a request which was submitted to T.C.A. by Canadian servicemen. Could the latter benefit from reduced fares when they are on leave? [Text]


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that this question be put on the order paper.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State, as the minister responsible for the civil service commission in the house.
A competition poster published by the civil service commission concerning a position in Ottawa states that the applicants must live in Ontario. That actually eliminates all people from Hull and the vicinity. Therefore, I would ask the Secretary of State to kindly inform the civil service commission that that sort of thing was done away with a long time ago and should not be brought back.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the civil service commission will take account of the observations just made by my hon. friend from Hull.



INQUIRY AS TO FRENCH REPORTING AND TRANSLATION STAFFS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns you directly, but may I have it relayed through

Old Age Security
the Secretary of State. In view of the problems which have been arising in the last days in various parliamentary committees, would it be possible to consider having the house provided with its own complete staff of translators and reporters, instead of depending on the bureau for translations on the one hand, and on the division of French debates reporters on the other hand?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am well aware of the difficulties to which the hon. gentleman has referred, and I am seeking to do everything that can possibly be done to meet them. I hope to be able to make a statement to the house very shortly.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources relating to the so-called Haines cut-off. Is it the hon. gentleman's intention to institute a system of tolls on this road to cover the cost of keeping it open on a year round basis?


Arthur Laing: No consideration has been given to such a proposal.



OLD AGE SECURITY


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: the second reading of Bill No. C-98, to amend the Old Age Security Act.


Mr. Monteith:: I wonder whether the minister has a statement of any kind to make at this time?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I made a statement at the resolution stage. The bill is now before the house, as it has been for several days. It consists of only two clauses, the first giving the increase and the second dealing with the method of financing, and I suggest that in order to leave sufficient time to allow hon. members opposite to say whatever they wish to say about the bill there is no necessity for me to make a further statement on this occasion.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I agree with the minister's comment that this is a brief bill containing only two clauses, the first indicating the increase in the amount as of October 1 and the second providing the means by which this increase is to be financed.

I feel I cannot let the occasion pass without repeating a statement I made at an earlier stage to the effect that we, on this side of the house, had advocated this particular move -the bringing in of this bill separately-as far back as July 18. I repeat, also, that if this had been done at that time, and if our advice had been followed, the recipients of old age security benefits would have received this $10 increase considerably earlier. We are pleased to see that the government has now adopted our proposal and dissociated this part of the pension plan from the over-all Pearson plan, something which should have been done in the first place.
This is something which was promised by the government during the election campaign.
I am convinced it is being put into effect, now, only because of prompting from this side of the house. In my opinion this whole question has been mishandled in much the same way as was the budget. First of all, the government came out with a grand scheme in a hurry, and then it backtracked under pressure. I accuse the minister of doing the same thing now.
Clause 2 of the bill deals with the financing of this proposal-the levying of 4 per cent of a taxpayer's taxable income for the year to a maximum of $120. In speaking on the resolution stage, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) said the total deficit in the fund as at March 31, 1964 would be $106 million. He went on to point out that in the year 1964-65 there would probably be receipts from the new tax amounting to some $93 million and that about $116 million would be paid out. However, some increase in revenue from the sales tax on building materials and supplies would probably wipe out any deficit in that year. Thus, it seems to me that for a year and a half hence, at least, taking the figures of the parliamentary secretary as accurate, there will be a deficit in this fund of $106 million. The hon. gentleman gave estimates of certain increases in revenue and I ask him whether he had taken into consideration the natural increase to be expected in the numbers of those over 70 who would be receiving old age security payments a year and a half or two years from now. My main criticism is simply this. The government said they were going to increase old age security payments without any increase in taxes. This is not so.


Mr. Graffiey:: Broken promises.


Jay Waldo Monteith: They are increasing taxes $93 million, according to the parliamentary secretary's own estimate, in the year 196465 and roughly $100 million a year thereafter. They no sooner got into power than they clamped a sales tax on building materials

and supplies and now we have a 1 per cent increase in personal income tax up to a maximum of $120. This may not be the time to do it, but with all these increases in taxes I certainly must predict an over-all record budgetary deficit. However, that can be discussed at some time in the future.
We are anxious to get this legislation through, and we have been ever since it came before the house. We are more than happy to support the bill. I suggest very forcefully that if it had not been for the actions of the Leader of the Opposition on July 18 the older citizens of Canada would not be receiving this increase even as of the late date of October 1, 1963.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just spoken seems to wish to leave the impression with the House of Commons and the people of Canada that certain statements made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) are the reason that the $10 increase is now being proposed-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Made in this house.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -although it was originally linked with the Canada pension plan introduced earlier this year. I should like to suggest that perhaps some of the problems encountered by the government in their negotiations with the provincial governments may have had a great bearing on bringing in this increase separately. I think that some of the very real problems they did have in discussing the over-all pension plan with the provinces should have been anticipated and that negotiations should have been carried on long before the resolution was even introduced in the house.
We know, of course, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh), along with her colleagues, got caught in their 60 days of decision propaganda, if you want to call it that. Because of the 60 days of decision, as they prefer to call them, I think there was undue haste in bringing in the over-all Canada pension plan. I believe they have now come to realize that the pension plan is of such magnitude it is absolutely necessary that some agreement be reached with the provinces rather than bringing it in in an ill-conceived way, and this realization should give them some kind of guidance in trying to convince the electorate these things can be done quickly.
We support the bringing in of the $10 increase separately, and while it may be another violation of Liberal election propaganda I personally think it is desirable that the amount of additional taxes necessary to pay for it should be fastened right to the
Old Age Security
bill. I say that because I think there is growing concern in Canada that political parties have on a number of occasions tried to outbid each other in offering benefits without bothering to tell the people how much it is going to cost them. Now that we have legislation before us offering increased benefits, with the bill for these benefits attached to it, perhaps this will sober the response of the electorate to those political parties who offer benefits, and then worry about paying for them with deficits such as we have seen in the last four or five years.
I do not wish to take a great deal of time. I believe that all parties in the house can support the bill and I do not think there is going to be any division, because members voting for it will also have to assume the responsibility of making provision for the collecting of the money to pay for these benefits.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly on second reading of the bill, not to repeat the arguments that were advanced at the resolution stage but to develop a point of principle which was touched on but not elaborated upon by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I do not refer to the principle embodied in clause 1 of the bill. This clause, as members realize, provides for an increase in the pension to $75 a month. With that proposal we and all other members of the house, I understand, are heartily in accord. We have expressed as clearly as we can our approval of this move. It is our view that this matter should be separated from the complexities of the Canada pension plan and dealt with promptly. Indeed, we think it should have been dealt with earlier than it has been.
However, Mr. Speaker, it is the principle involved in clause 2 of the bill that I wish to discuss. I wish to say that in our view the principle in clause 2 is wrong and ought to be changed. That clause deals with the question of how the additional moneys required for the increased pension should be raised.
It is our opinion that the method proposed in clause 2 of the bill is wrong in principle, regressive, and fails to take advantage of the possibility of giving a dynamic stimulus to the economy which is inherent in the proposed pension increase. The proposal in clause 2, as members will realize in reading the bill, is to increase the rate of tax on all taxable income to 4 per cent instead of the present rate of 3 per cent, and to raise the ceiling on the tax to $120 in place of the $90 under the present act.
We say that, assuming the decision of the government not to add to the prospective

Old Age Security
deficit, the proper way to raise the funds necessary to finance the increase, assuming as the government does the necessity of doing so, would be to remove the ceiling and leave the tax at the same rate of 3 per cent. By removing the ceiling, now $90, and $120 in the proposal, roughly enough money would be raised-I have inquired into this-to pay the whole of the increase without any other addition to taxes.
If our plan were adopted the effect would be that the increase would be paid by taxpayers whose taxable income exceeds $3,000 a year or whose actual income, to take an average case, is in the neighbourhood of $5,000 a year. Our proposal would relieve income taxpayers below that figure of any additional burden. We believe this solution would be economically wise and socially just.
When this measure was first introduced in the house in 1951 by a previous administration the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the same hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who sits in the house today, made these remarks. I am not going to quote extensively from what he said, but as found on page 397 of Hansard, second session, 1951, he said:
I refer in particular to his statement-
The statement by the minister of finance. -that this 2 per cent personal income tax is to have a ceiling of $60 a year. That means that anyone who has taxable income-and I emphasize the words "taxable income": that is, income over and above his personal and family exemptions-of more than $3,000 a year, will pay no old age security tax on the portion of his income that is above that $3,000. I regard that situation as grossly unfair. It means that the bulk of the burden of financing the old age security plan will be met through the sales tax on everybody, including those who cannot afford to pay it, and through the income tax on the middle income group, those in the brackets where they have taxable income of between $2,000 and $3,000 a year.
Later on page 398 of Hansard, the hon. member is reported as saying:
The Minister of Finance comes along today and tells us that the principle of excluding upper income has been included in this plan, with the result, as I say, that people who have over $3,000 of taxable income will not pay any old age security tax on that portion of their income above $3,000 a year. I think that is socially and economically wrong. I think it is completely indefensible, and for my part it will have to be fought as hard as we can fight it when we get to that part of the bill.
I venture to repeat what the hon. member then said made good sense. If it made good sense then, it makes even better sense today, and for this reason. Placing the burden of this additional and necessary tax on the lower and middle income groups and relieving the upper income groups by maintaining the $120 ceiling is a regressive and uneconomic measure. The increase in old age pensions is not only a belated measure of justice to older people who are in need, it is also needed to

give a fillip to the economy. This $10 will be spent largely by old age pensioners on consumer goods in small retail stores. This will be a dynamic impetus to a stagnating economy. Typical of this government, what they give with one hand they take away with the other. The imposition of the additional 1 per cent tax and the maintenance of the ceiling means that, in effect, the tax burden will be borne entirely by the people in the lower and middle income brackets. The taxpayers in the higher income brackets will go free. It is the people in the lower and middle income brackets, Mr. Speaker, who, it can be assumed, would spend their income in purchasing consumer goods. The effect of this tax, as proposed by the government, will be to reduce the purchasing power of this lower and middle income group, thereby undoing the good that is done, economically speaking, by the increasing of the old age pension.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this difference between the government and the members of this party represents a fundamental cleavage of opinion on principle. Apparently the Liberal party does not see the power of taxation as we do, as an instrument of social justice for the redistribution of income. We believe that social advances, such as increased and more adequate old age pensions and a national health plan are not only important in themselves, they are also a means for allowing the well-to-do to contribute their proportionate share to the provision of essential services for those who cannot afford to pay for them themselves. In other words, measures of social security should be financed in accordance with ability to pay. It should not be a principle, as we have it embodied in this particular act, that the well-to-do should be relieved of the burden and those in the lower brackets should be asked to assume that burden. In our opinion this is contrary to sound, fundamental principles.
To put the matter as simply as I can, the proposal which we make would put the burden of supplying the $115 million which is required upon those whose taxable income exceeds $3,000 a year and whose actual income, in most cases, would be in excess of $5,000 a year. The government proposal, on the other hand, is that the burden shall be borne by the taxpayers below the taxable income level of $3,000 or below the average income of $5,000. I have taken the trouble to ascertain that the proposal which I make, namely of removing the ceiling altogether and keeping the tax at the same rate would, financially speaking, produce roughly the same result.
I should like to illustrate the point I am making by referring to hon. members of this

house. Under the government's proposal, their contribution to this increase in the old age pension, or their total payment towards old age pensions, would be $120 because they would be able to take advantage of the ceiling proposed. Assuming they are married and without other dependants, under the proposal I make members of this house, with $12,000 of income and assuming $2,000 of deductions, would have to pay 3 per cent or $300. I merely give this as an illustration of the fact that those in the upper income brackets could well afford to assume this burden. Is there any member in this house who does not think it would be fairer if the increased tax required for this increase in old age pensions were paid by those who, like the members of this house, are in a position to have a higher income rather than that it should be paid by their constituents who, under similar circumstances, would have incomes of under $5,000 a year?
In conclusion, may I repeat that we in this party warmly and enthusiastically support that part of the bill which gives the overdue $10 to old age pensioners. However, we regret, and we will oppose, the method of paying for the increase proposed by this government. I refer, in other words, to the method which puts the burden on the lower and middle income taxpayers. We will oppose the exemption of the higher level of income from the burden of this tax. We say the method is economically indefensible and socially unjustifiable. If it is not too late, I appeal to the government to reconsider the method of financing this particular increase.


Mr, Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at great length this afternoon but I should like to direct a question to the minister.
The other day I asked the same question but without any success. Yet, I am sure all hon. members are interested.
When will the hon. lady give a frank and direct reply to my question, which is really very simple?
When, on July 18 last, the minister introduced a plan here to establish a universal pension, was she or was she not aware of the plans of the Quebec premier, Mr. Lesage?
In my opinion, it is important that the house should get a straightforward answer from the minister today.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, many things have been said about this legislation amending the Old Age Security Act. I think that to reiterate that we are happy to see that the government intends to increase old age pensions, would be just a repetition of what everybody said before.
Old Age Security
Moreover, to state again that, on the other hand, we are much less happy, and even disagreeably surprised at the government's tax increase, would also be mere repetition.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this bill brings up the old age pension from $65 to $75, but we may wonder whether the tax which is increased at the same time as the old age pension, will help that whole group of people who are not yet 70 and who will have to pay it all their lives?
We are helping a group of people over 70, but those who are working hard to earn their living will have their taxes increased under the same legislation.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, why this government did not find the opportunity, or did not think it advisable to introduce two bills, that is one to increase old age pensions and the other to increase taxes. Then, we would have been able to let the first one pass and to fight the other. But, under the circumstances, the government puts us more or less before the alternative of either rejecting the old age pension increase or accepting higher taxes. We have to choose the package deal; we cannot agree to the first proposal and reject the other.
Mr. Speaker, I think that this is a regular practice with the system under which we live. When there is a question of helping, of taking steps that are called for, we also find rising taxes and measures being taken which the people can only disapprove.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) should have this bill amended, more particularly because taxes have risen so considerably of late, and see that they are not increased again following the other bills which will be passed.
I also appeal to the Minister of National Health and Welfare to withdraw clause 2 of this bill so as not to increase taxes at the same time.
You may wonder how to finance the bill. Mr. Speaker, all our legislation is connected with one and the same matter, how to finance social legislation passed by the house? At this time, as always before, it is done by increasing taxes.
We will have an amendment to move to clause 2. Amendments were made before to other clauses on other bills. As far as this one is concerned, we want to explain it right now. It might perhaps be easier to accept for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon).
It concerns another amount of $57 million or $307 million, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare said the other day. We ask that it be financed by the Bank of Canada and not by taxing the small wage earners,

Old Age Security
workers, farmers, etc. We think it can be done. Thus a worker would not be taxed more between 20 and 70, that is during 50 years of his life, taking the chance that he might or might not draw the old age pension.
Mr. Speaker, we want to amend article 2 in such a way because we believe that, even if our social legislation is being improved on the one hand, on the other our whole economic system has to bear the consequences because taxes and prices go up, which brings inflation to our country.
Mr. Speaker, we want to say that although we are in favour of increasing the old age pension we object to a tax increase at the same time. We are disappointed that the minister did not deem it advisable to consider the suggestions made in the house the other day. Votes were taken and a large number of members voted to make the old age pension retroactive to last April 8; others voted to lower the age limit to 65 and 60. We would have liked the Minister of National Health and Welfare to take those suggestions into consideration. We hope that she will do so before long and agree to improve that legislation by lowering the age limit to 65 and 60 for all, without any means test.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, there is a question I should like to ask before the house goes into committee.
I would appreciate it if the minister were to give it a perfectly direct answer, and I would remind her that everything here in this house is taken down, so that her reply will not be subject to a different interpretation.
Why do the government and the minister refuse to increase pensions from the age of 65? Why does the government also refuse to increase pensions for the blind and the disabled?
I feel that amounts to discrimination on the part of the government and its leader, who are wholly responsible for it.
I would ask the minister to tell us why such discrimination is being resorted to by the government toward the other government pensioners.


Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, with respect to-


Mr. Aiken:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; before the minister speaks I think it should be pointed out that she will close the debate.
[Mr. Gregoire.)


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the Minister of
Finance wished to secure the floor.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I just wish to say a brief word in reply to the points made by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). I thought his main point was that there should be a steeper progression in the rates of personal income taxes, and this should be introduced in so far as this particular item is concerned. I do not mean to put words into his mouth that perhaps he did not intend, but I think he suggested that in this particular case the ceiling should be removed, which would have the result of a steeper rate of progression.


Francis Andrew Brewin: No, the same rate all the way.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Well, the net result would be-


Frank Howard: Better consult your advisers again.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: This is something I think I can handle myself, thank you. The net result in this case would be that it would have the effect of changing the amount of taxes at all levels.
I fully appreciate that there are arguments in favour of a steeper progression in the rate of personal income taxes, but as all hon. members know, there are also arguments being advanced each day of the week before the royal commission on taxation in favour of a smoother rate of progression, and it is argued that the present rates are a deterrent to expansion and incentive. I agree with my hon. friend from Greenwood regarding the ability to pay of those in the higher income brackets, although some people in those brackets feel they are now taxed as high as they would like to be.
I am not arguing the point; I am merely saying that there are two points of view, and I am not prepared to say at this stage whether I agree with one argument or the other. I would not wish to reach a conclusion until the royal commission has made its report, and I might say that the sooner the royal commission reports, the better pleased we will all be.
I am not at all sure, and I will go further than that and say I do not believe that, with regard to this particular item, it would be wise to make a change along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Greenwood. If there is a case that can be made for changes in the present progression of personal income taxes, then I think that should be done in connection with the whole structure of personal income tax rates, and not with this particular item which deals with old age security.

Old Age Security
I have some reservations as to whether over a long period of years this particular segregation between the old age security fund and the consolidated revenue fund is necessarily the best arrangement for all time. However, I did not think this was the time to make a change. I think it is reasonable to expect that people who will be asked to pay in this period roughly the equivalent of this particular increase in the old age security benefit will inevitably relate the additional tax they will have to pay, or some of them will, to the additional benefits they will receive from this measure.
As I say, there may be a good case for a complete review of the whole personal income tax structure and all the other tax structures that are now in effect. But I would not like to see this particular measure used in a way which in my opinion could easily provoke a feeling of opposition by those people who would be inclined to relate what they were asked to pay, in terms of additional taxes, to what they will expect to receive some day in the form of an increased payment under the Old Age Security Act. As the hon. member for Greenwood pointed out, a man with a gross income of $12,000, who under this bill would be paying an additional $30, or a total of $120, would under the proposal made by the hon. member pay $300. So he would be paying an extra $180.


Francis Andrew Brewin: He could afford it.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: He could probably afford to pay four or five times that much, but I am not arguing that point. I am saying that some people would relate one thing to the other, and for the benefit of getting an extra $10 a month at age 70 he would be being asked to pay $15 a month from now on. I think this would not sit too well with some people who might not relate it to the whole structure of the income tax rates. Because I do not think it would be wise to restructure the income tax rates on this particular point, I do not think it would be wise to accept the hon. member's proposal.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister a question? Does he not think that the people who would object would be a relatively small and perhaps rather selfish minority?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think they would be a minority. Whether they would be small or selfish, I am not prepared to say.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Try.


Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief in my remarks because I am sure all hon. members are anxious to have the bill pass. I would like to
Sweepstakes
ask the minister, and through her the government, whether she would consider making an additional allowance to widows, widowers, spinsters, bachelors and those who are living in homes where only one person is drawing assistance. I think we are all aware of the fact that whether people are renting or own their own homes, the taxes or the rent amount to about the same figure. They pay taxes or rent, hydro, maintenance, insurance and the many other expenses involved in living, and these amount to at least $50 a month. Therefore these people are left with $15 or $25 a month with which to buy groceries and the other necessities of life.
I think we all agree, also, that although two cannot live as cheaply as one, two can buy more economically than one.


Mr. Ian Granl Wahn (Si. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all of us welcome the unusual harmony and agreement prevailing amongst all hon. members of the house on the proposed $10 increase in the universal old age pension. We have been told that the cost annually of this increase will be in the neighbourhood of $116 million. Because this is a large sum of money perhaps I will be excused if I take just a few minutes to review the principles which justify this increase and also the record of old age pensions since their inception in 1950.


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member a question? Would the hon. member be so kind as to keep his eye on the clock?


Ian Grant Wahn: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could call it five o'clock and continue after the private members' hour.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the minister? I think he has time.


Ian Grant Wahn: I would not wish the debate to be closed off, Mr. Speaker, until I have had an opportunity to continue my remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock the house will proceed with the business on the order paper, namely private members' bills.



SWEEPSTAKES


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-24, to provide for the establishment of a hospital sweepstakes board.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this bill I follow in the footsteps of many hon. members before me, some of whom in the past did a great deal of work and undertook a great deal of research on the subject of

Sweepstakes
lotteries and sweepstakes. This bill is somewhat similar to the one introduced a year ago by the then hon. member for Calgary South. The main purpose of this bill is to establish in Canada a national sweepstakes board to manage, run and control sweepstakes in Canada. I added the words "to manage and control sweepstakes in Canada'' because in many facets of our life in Canada today we have, although they might not be called sweepstakes, what are certainly huge lotteries, gambling by tickets, and so on. One has only to look around to realize that this is a fact. In fact, Mr. Speaker, you can now play bingo when sitting at home watching the television. This is an interesting form of gambling, to some extent.
Throughout Canada I think there is a wide demand that the federal government establish once and for all a sweepstakes board and that the function of this board be to set up a national sweepstake in Canada. One could go back and read all the press clippings of responsible groups which are in favour of such a board being established. I have here a newspaper clipping which states that the federation of Canadian mayors and municipalities passed a resolution in favour of a national lottery. From time to time Gallup polls on this question have been taken. A recent one showed that 82 per cent of Canadians were in favour of a national sweepstake. A poll taken by a well-known paper in the province of Quebec, La Presse, showed that of 98,000 people polled only 149 were against the establishment of a sweepstake. Two years ago, I think it was, a group of women took it upon themselves to campaign across Canada in order to determine whether or not a national sweepstake had universal appeal. They covered an area of something like 12,000 miles, talked to a huge number of people, received some 300,000 signatures, and at no time met anyone who was strongly opposed to the establishment of a national sweepstake. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has passed resolutions endorsing the principle outlined in this bill. Nearly all the Canadian labour unions have also endorsed the establishment of a national sweepstake.
We hear from time to time that too much gambling is a bad thing and will ruin the moral fibre of the people. What bothers me about this is actually the converse-a continuation of gambling, raffles and bingos which, according to the Criminal Code, are directly contrary to law enacted by this house. Yet raffles, bingos and ticket draws go on. People more or less come to regard the law relating to gambling as something to pay no attention to, because there is no meaning to it and it would not be enforced in any case. We also see from time to time, as we have

this fall, a crackdown on Irish sweepstake tickets, and a certain number of people are arrested for selling them. But the moral fibre of the nation is receiving more harm from the continual disregard of this problem by the law enforcement officers of the country and the attorneys general of the various provinces. And we are not changing the law. We are letting young people grow up to disregard the laws of the land. We are bringing them up in an environment which teaches them how to disregard the law. And no one will do anything to correct it. To me this is a matter of prime importance. We here, as legislators, should be prepared, if that is the case, either to enforce the laws or to change them, and I firmly believe that this particular law should be changed. I could use the old saying that 100,000 people cannot be wrong, because nearly every person in Canada gambles in one form or another. The wide appeal of raffles, the wide appeal of bingos-


Eric Alfred Winkler: They certainly gambled when they elected this government.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Sweepstakes
be improved because they would grow up having respect for the laws of the nation, not learning to disrespect them. The people of Canada, by their willingness to purchase lottery tickets, have shown that they are in favour of this method of raising money, one might say, for worthy purposes. Perhaps it would be in order if I added this, too: we were dealing at five o'clock with a 1 per cent increase in our taxation to cover the cost of an additional $10 pension. I believe it is appropriate to mention that here is one way of raising money which the government might well examine closely with a view to taking the initial step of setting up a sweepstake board through which a sweepstake could be managed, run and controlled for the benefit of Canadians all across this country.


Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew South):: We must all be struck by the similarity of thought shown in this bill as compared with the bill brought in on Thursday of last week by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon). I think I was able to point out to the house at that time that this was not an original idea. A politician or financier bankrupt of any other ideas as to how to raise funds might, naturally, turn to this method of doing so which was conceived originally by one Casanova in France. At the time the original bill was brought in by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm I envisaged that this measure, as so often happens, might come to be popularly known by the name of its author. Indeed, it might come to be known as the Casanova bill and I had in mind that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, as its sponsor, might soon be known as the Casanova of the House of Commons. It would have been a worthy title, in view of the fact that the hon. gentleman had subscribed to this bill and to the same type of thinking as Casanova subscribed to in an earlier age. It is, in my view, appropriate-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order. While I respect the hon. member's right and willingness to speak, I should like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, that we are now dealing with Bill C-24 which is to some extent different from the one brought in by the hon. member of whom he was speaking.


John James Greene: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think, with respect, that to consider two bills presented in two subsequent weeks-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point is well taken. We are not considering today a bill which was discussed in the house on another occasion. We are considering the particular

bill which was introduced by the hon. member for Acadia and I would respectfully suggest to the hon. member who has the floor that he should limit his remarks to the scope of that bill which is now before the house.


John James Greene: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, though I respectfully suggest that we are permitted to draw analogies between this bill an another one which was brought before the house, and to consider the advantages or disadvantages of this particular approach as compared with some other approach.
But to continue with regard to the antecedents of this bill, I was surprised to see the hon. member for Acadia bringing in a measure of this kind because, while I am able to see some affinity between the mover of the bill last week and Casanova, the hon. member for Acadia is a rugged western type of hon. member and I would not think he had any affinity with Casanova. Therefore I thought it was peculiar that he should be subscribing to the same type of proposal. However, it may well be that within this honourable house there is room for a western Casanova bill and a western Casanova. This being a bilingual and bicultural house it might be altogether fitting that we should have a Casanova of either tongue, one from the east and one from the west.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A really high level of debate the hon. member is engaging in, worthy of his remuneration.


John James Greene: Apart from the historical background or antecedents of the bill, I think the first thing the house should consider is the question of its constitutionality. It may be that technically it is constitutional. However, in view of all the fuss and furor we have had in the last few months and the loud proclamations we hear from day to day as to provincial rights, even though according to the strict letter of the law the bill may come within the ambit of federal powers, namely, criminal justice as envisioned by the sections now in the Criminal Code, nevertheless we have apparently reached the stage in confederation where any matter affecting provincial rights under the British North America Act and which in any way comes close to section 92 of that act should not be legislated upon by this house without very careful consultation with and agreement by the provinces.
Who have been more righteous and more indignant in their protestations in this regard than the members of the party to which the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) belongs? Yet he brings before the house a bill which patently, on its face and in its essence, will

affect private property, civil rights and taxation in the provinces. To the best of my knowledge, and I have listened very carefully-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Are you for or against lotteries? Quit the guff.


John James Greene: If my hon. friend would listen for a while to these pearls of wisdom I am bringing forth-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: These pearls of wisdom.


John James Greene: -he might find out my subjective as well as my objective views on the matter. Quite apart from the implications of this matter with regard to provincial rights, I think it is one on which we have had so many fulminations by so many people in the past that the people of the provinces individually as well as their elected representatives are vitally interested in the subject. If ever there was a subject which should not be legislated upon without consultation, it is a matter such as this.
Without referring specifically to any prior bill, I would say that an approach whereby the provinces are given rights over subject matters such as these might be preferable to federal legislation, or certainly preferable at least to federal legislation without consultation such as we have before us. I do not know whether the hon. member for Acadia has consulted with Mr. Lesage on this bill or whether the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), who is so fond of telling the house that nothing should be done without consulting with Mr. Lesage-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Lesage has done so many times. May I ask a question of the hon. member?

May I ask the hon. member a question? Does the hon. member know about the ultimatum of the Quebec premier through which he asked the federal government to amend the Criminal Code in order to set up lotteries in the province of Quebec?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the premier of the province of Quebec never asked the house to pass such a bill.

In this regard I reiterate that I believe there should be consultation and that no bill of this nature should be brought before the house either the joint authority of the federal government and the provinces or consultation with the provinces. Having regard to the manner in which this particular bill is drawn, 28902-5-212
Sweepstakes
I suggest again that there may be some question as to its constitutional validity, apart from the political wisdom of bringing it forward without consultation.
The bill does not present a new idea. It has been mooted and talked about in the house many times. I would point out that as late as 1956, I believe it was, a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons considered the idea of a national lottery, at which time there was a most excellent government in power and a fine majority in the other place. In their wisdom that joint committee decided that a national lottery was not in the national interest. Whether or not times have changed to any degree since 1956 I do not know.
There are also certain things we should take cognizance of. We are not necessarily bound by them, but I think they should be drawn to the attention of hon. members. It is my understanding that the national bodies of the Anglican Church, the United Church and the Canadian council of churches have legislated against any form of national lotteries. Again I say that the views of these bodies are not binding or necessarily enforceable in this house, but I do think we should take cognizance of them. Surely the views and ideas of these strong Protestant bodies should be borne in mind before we decide to legislate in a manner contrary to their precepts.
Apparently the proponent of the bill also has the thought in mind that lottery revenues will be such as to lessen the tax burden to a substantial degree in some way. If we are going to consider such bills, then I suggest we should consider the facts as they are and not as we would like them to be. The hon. member for Acadia referred to statistics from New Zealand which would indicate that, having regard to the large amounts of money put into lotteries, the amount available for beneficial work on the part of the state, be it hospitals or otherwise, is very little. I think this has been the experience with lotteries. It may appear as though there is a great deal of money going into them, and a great deal does; but the returns to the state are not as great as we would expect from the turnover of money involved. Possibly this is because of administrative expenses or the fact that if people are handling gambling money in an enterprise of this kind they are not as careful with it as they are in handling general tax revenues, and therefore the expenses are greater.
The hon. member for Acadia indicated he was anxious to have some of the smaller and poorer provinces share in the benefits that would flow from this bill. I do not think

Sweepstakes
he would want his province to become the Nevada of Canada. I do not think we want a Las Vegas here. These things are a matter oi degree, and judging by the New Zealand experience in particular I do not believe that the returns from this kind of investment warrant a new form of taxation at the present time.
I quite agree with my hon. friend that on this topic, like so many other controversial topics, the majority of the people of Canada should have the right to speak. It may be that this is the type of matter that could be put before the public by way of plebiscite. It may be sufficiently important to do so. I feel there is one aspect we should consider in connection with this matter. Of late years, this type of suggestion has been very popular. I believe we should give some thought as to why, all of a sudden, this type of painless taxation, as it is supposed to be, has come to the forefront and has won the approval of so many members and of so many segments of the public. It may be that this is a symptom of the age. There has been a thought in the minds of people, probably more in this country than elsewhere in the past few years, that in some magic way, by some waving of a magic wand, revenues can be raised to do all those things we wish to do for our people without paying, without effort and without digging in as we used to do.
Evidently the attitude is that this is the easiest method. It is painless. It is fun. Everybody has a good time. We raise the revenues we need for the things we want to do. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner), who sponsored this bill, spoke of the moral fibre. Taking his argument to its logical conclusion, this would mean that the people with the toughest moral fibre would be the inhabitants of Las Vegas because they gamble more than anybody else. I do not believe this is necessarily a proper conclusion. Even if lotteries would do no harm, even if they might raise some revenue painlessly, I still have some qualms about this suggestion. I think that to propagate a national philosophy at this time that there is an easy way, that there is something for nothing, that we can have a higher standard of living in this land by some easy and painless method, that we can have more social benefits for our people without paying the price for those social benefits, is dangerous.
We have seen how well the people of Germany and Japan, those lands that were decimated by the war, have re-established themselves since the end of the war. No doubt this has been the result of the help the allies gave, to some considerable measure. However, I think we must pause for a moment and reflect upon the way Germany and Japan in

particular have come back. This has resulted, to a very large degree, from the fact that the people were willing to work, to make sacrifices, I do not believe they expected great social benefits. The unions held the line in wages, and I think capital held the line in dividends. These people pulled together as a nation and, because of the decimation of the war, they were willing to do so. They had something for which they were willing to work, to rebuild their countries, and they have done so to a large degree. People who have been to Europe and Japan during the past few years tell us that there is no unemployment, that there is an increasing standard of living. There is this national philosophy, apparently, that the people of the country must work hard and pull together if they are to achieve the things they wish.
The politicians here have certainly been guilty of propagating the idea of getting something for nothing. Vote for A or vote for B or vote for party one or party two, and you can have all these things that you would like to have without any national effort. I feel this is a very dangerous thing in our Canadian political thinking. This is a great land of boundless opportunity. Our people can have all the things they would like to have, but they cannot have them through the use of any magic formula or in any easy way.


Mr, Depuiy Speaker:: Order. I regret that I must interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, here is another matter which carries a full range of arguments. We shall add to it, if possible.
Arguments on grounds of moral, ethics and religion are put forward against lotteries. However, hardly a Sunday goes by without a Canadian minister or priest asking his flock to make a donation to such and such organization by buying a raffle ticket. So, I fail to see how a national or provincial lottery could be such a sin when it is not in the case of the charities recommended by those priests and ministers.
If we take a look at the newspapers for a knowledge of the public opinion, we see-as has already been said here-that the newspaper La Presse, a few years ago, made a survey on that matter which revealed that out of 100,000 people only 149 were against the setting up of a lottery. The Toronto Telegram, in a survey on the same subject which it carried out also a few years ago, received 8,990 answers in favour of lotteries against 814 opposed to them; and about 700 people admitted having bought in the past lottery tickets from various organizations.

On the other hand, the most convincing argument for the adoption of such legislation is to keep Canadian money in Canada. As far as I know, nobody has ever objected to the stock exchange transactions. Nobody has ever objected to the hazards of life. In a certain sense, aren't both of them a gamble? And yet who would consider prohibiting them?
The lack of money therefore remains a temptation for our rulers to encourage lotteries. If you look at a number of countries in the world, you notice that during the past few years, many countries have adopted that solution.
Australia has organized five annual lotteries and a newspaperman stated that lotteries are a means of survival in that country thanks to the profits brought in to the public, the government, the hospitals and charitable institutions.
As was said earlier, New Zealand established in 1961 a lottery called "The Golden Kiwi". It has been so successful that they even wondered for a time how to distribute the profits.
France keeps 40 per cent of the proceeds of its lottery, which does not prevent that country from awarding a $100,000 prize to the winner. West Germany has its lottery since 1955. Austria established a lottery in 1813. Italy has four big lotteries every year which are held by means of horse races, car races or even popular songs.
Switzerland, Portugal, Spain and most Latin American countries hold private or public lotteries, not to mention countries behind the iron curtain, such as East Germany, Poland and Soviet Russia, which also have their own lotteries.
Israel, where any form of gambling is prohibited, including horse racing, has nevertheless established a state lottery which yields $8 million a year. The money is used to build schools and hospitals. And yet, this is a country where all types of gambling are prohibited.
It is common knowledge that horse racing is organized in Canada.
Whether you are listening to the radio, looking at television or reading a newspaper, everywhere you are offered a premium of some kind or another with the purchase of a product. If that is not a lottery, I feel the principle is the same.
Moreover, the state of New Hampshire legalized lotteries recently. That will be the first legal lottery in the history of the United States since 1894. It will be held twice a year in connection with a race and tickets will be $3 each. Prizes will total $200,000 and the state will build schools with the $4 million it expects to get every year from its lotteries. In my opinion, those surveys prove beyond 28902-5-2124
Sweepstakes
doubt that the great majority of Canadians are now in favour of lotteries and I hope that the Criminal Code will soon be amended to make them legal.
At any rate, the province of Quebec has been waiting to hold a lottery for a long time. I understand that under our system of government the views of each and every province have to be respected. That is why I feel that the law should be amended so that each province may set up its own lottery if-but I doubt it very much-there are still in Canada provinces which are against lotteries.
Let there be a serious survey, let the people discuss the idea and I feel that it will soon be obvious that everybody is in favour of such a move.
Mr. Speaker, the newspaper La Presse, in its February 28, 1962 issue, published an article written by Mr. Vincent Prince. The article was entitled: Mr. Fulton must say "yes". I quote:
Premier Lesage has attempted for months to have the federal government amend section 179 of the penal code. That section, as everyone knows, has always been the obstacle which prevented the province of Quebec from fulfilling its legitimate wish to institute a provincial lottery.
Twice in the past, in 1934 and in 1950, the Quebec legislature approved measures for the institution of such lotteries, so as to give assistance to our hospitals and educational establishments. Each time, our legislators' will was frustrated by Ottawa's refusal to amend its legislation on games of chance. Indeed, it was the coming into force of that same penal code, in 1893, that put an end to the only lottery which Quebec ever had and which goes back to the days of cure Labelle.
Mr. Lesage is quite right to urge the federal Minister of Justice along, and the whole population of the province supports him. In February 1961, C.K.A.C. radio station and La Presse organized a poll, the results of which were quite revealing. One hundred thousand Quebecers answered a very precisely worded questionnaire, and barely 149 people opposed the idea of a provincial lottery. That allows us to assert that the feeling is unanimous on the subject in Quebec, as the sampling was broad enough to lead to valid conclusions.
One could naturally contemplate a nation-wide sweepstake, and actually the idea has been put forward. In the past, several resolutions have been presented to that effect in the house, but in spite of the sympathetic attitude of the Senate, none of these resolutions were concurred in. It appears clearly that there is a cleavage of Canadian opinion on that point, and many years could go by before all hon. members are in complete agreement.
That the federal government is not ready to use that type of tax, surely a direct tax, does not seem to me a worthy reason to stand in the way of the provinces which have decided to enter that field. Indeed, Mr. Lesage does not request an exclusive privilege for his province. So much the worse if the other areas of this country do not want of it.
There are still people-and I respect their opinion -who maintain that the state should not favour unrestrained gambling. And yet I think that those people are deceiving themselves. They are deceiving themselves because, in any event, few citizens do not have the opportunity to gamble. The argument would be acceptable if gambling were

Sweepstakes
an evil in itself, but such is not the case. And I am of the opinion that people will not gamble more if a lottery is set up. The difference is that the state will benefit thereby.
How many million dollars are drained from the province of Quebec at the present time by the Irish sweepstake only? Would it not be a boon if that money served our own institutions?
And what about underhand betting? What about hockey lotteries? On March 29 last, the Canadian Press informed us that $500,000 of "hockey tickets'' were sold every week in Canada. Only yesterday, the police seized 3,760,000 of those tickets on Perrot island. And it was the third confiscation of the sort in one month.
No, a provincial lottery would only channel towards Quebec state revenue which, at the present time, is going to foreign institutions or private individuals here.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the house something that happened in Australia, I think. A young bookkeeper working in a bank managed to embezzle about $74,000 -without getting caught. One day he won first prize and decided there and then to reimburse the bank, principal and interest. That goes to show that sometimes a lottery will indeed help some people.
But, in my opinion, one very serious reason warrants holding lotteries. The article I just read mentioned the outflow of Canadian money, what are called invisible monetary deficits, which are a serious factor in our unfavourable exchange situation with foreign countries.
In that regard, I wish to read to the house an article written by Mr. Amedee Gaudreault, parliamentary correspondent for the newspaper he Soleil. Here is what he said:
Why not have a lottery?
National or provincial?
Many people think that, in Canada, a lottery should have a national character to ensure a fairer distribution of the yield among the provinces.
But if Ottawa does not want to enter that held, it should not stop one or several provinces from doing so, if they want to.
Some of us, like the hon. member for Manitoba (Mr. Regnier), suggested a national referendum. Others would like the provinces to be consulted first and say whether they are for or against the idea of a national lottery.
If the provinces were against a national lottery, they could not, later on, oppose a provincial project of that kind, first of all because they objected to a national scheme, and also to leave others free to do as they like at home.
Ottawa might amend the Criminal Code later for its own benefit or that of interested provinces, and nobody would be obliged in that case to buy lottery tickets against his will.
The recent experience in New Zealand revealed an unexpected phenomenon: a great number of tickets were sold in Australia and other countries.
If a lottery with substantial prizes were created in Canada, it is also probable, according to many observers, that such a lottery would get an important part of its revenues from the United States. It was pointed out to us that with the long Canadian-American common border, the good friendly relations between our two countries and our considerable trade deficit, it is probable that

the United States would not oppose some restoration of the balance of "invisibles" where our deficit is equally quite high, particularly in the tourist trade.
Consequently, and this is the opinion I would like to leave with this house, I am in favour of the Criminal Code being amended to allow for a lottery.


Mr. Remi Paul (Berihier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere):: Would the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Cantin) allow me to ask him a question?


Jean-Charles Cantin: Yes.


Rémi Paul: I was very much interested in his remarks, and as he lives in the same riding as the premier of Quebec, could he tell me whether with reference to the article by Mr. Vincent Prince, which he read in extenso, the heading of the article could not be changed to read:
Chevrier must say yes.


Jean-Charles Cantin: For the information of my hon. friend, and also for the information of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm (Mr. Pigeon), I will say that I am also in favour of a lottery.
Mr. Chevrier declared in the house that the file on lotteries was quite voluminous and that it was being considered. We trust that a practical agreement will be reached and that a practical solution will be found.
[Text}


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support Bill No. C-24 I can assure you that as a result of remarks I made the other day in favour of another bill of the same nature I have received correspondence from across the country, and every letter, every telephone call and every personal visit has been in favour of a bill such as the one introduced by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner)-except one. That objection, as I expected, came from a reverend gentleman, a minister of one of the recognized communions in Canada, where I maintain a great body of opposition to these sweepstakes and lotteries bills rests and where the opposition is fanned by the ministers.
I am greatly in favour of sweepstakes and, as I stated the other day, hundreds of thousands of dollars go out of the country in the purchase of sweepstakes and lotteries tickets. They are supposed to be illegal, but hundreds of thousands of tickets are bought every year by Canadian citizens and no action is taken against them. A direct result of my remarks the other day has been a letter from London, Ontario, where 50 men have now been charged in connection with the sale of sweepstakes tickets in Ontario because it is against the Criminal Code. This letter from a resident of London, who advised me

that he is one of the 50 men who have been summonsed, points out under the date of October 5:
Very shortly the horse racing season will commence at the London fair grounds. It will then be possible to enter the race track, approach a wicket, set down $2, receive a ticket and if a winner, collect in cash. This will all be under the close scrutiny of the minions of the law. Several weeks ago we staged our local London fair and here we had the opportunity of playing the roulette wheels and receiving our winnings in cash. Also under the eyes of the local police. I could go on and on adding to this list of so-called legal but out and out gambling. We live under a set of codes which are most unjust when on one hand they allow the above while on the other hand our guardians of justice will be hauling into our London court about 50 Canadian citizens who will probably have meted out to them severe judgment because of the sale of some sweepstake tickets. Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, England, Ireland, etc. all make sweepstakes available to their citizens with no adverse effect.
This gentleman then says:
To yourself, to Guy Rouleau, to Louis Joseph Pigeon and to Barry Mather I wish you all success in your splendid efforts to amend the codes. Please tell the Prime Minister that many thousands of Canadian citizens in this area are seething at the injustice which is now prevalent under our present Criminal Code and do ask that he and his legislators take immediate action to rectify this inequality in our laws.
I can assure the writer that I will personally place this letter in the hands of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) as expressive of much of the thought that is in Canada today. Reference has been made by previous speakers to the success of the New Zealand lottery. I will not burden the house by referring to quotations they have made, but there is an interesting paragraph at the tail end of the Canadian Press dispatch on this matter. This was in the Globe and Mail of July 16, this year, and I would read it to the house:
Churches and other anti-gambling interests continue to criticize the principle.
Note the next sentence:
But public opinion is so overwhelmingly and obviously in favour of the lottery that its opponents have realized that their views cannot prevail.
I maintain that the same condition exists here in the Dominion of Canada as in New Zealand. We have before the House of Commons at the present time five private bills on this one subject introduced by private members. These five private bills have been introduced by five representatives from three different provinces in the dominion, which shows how widespread is the feeling on legalizing lotteries and sweepstakes in this country. I sincerely hope that this sweepstakes bill introduced by the hon. member for Acadia will carry, and carry by an overwhelming majority.
Old Age Security


Mr. Jean-Pierre Cote (Longueuil):: I should like to say only a few words about the lottery bill-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot address the house unless he speaks from his own place. I understand he is not at his own seat at the present time.

Order. I must inform the house that the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, October 8, 1963
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Robert Taschereau, P.C.. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 8th October, at 9.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
A.G. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Miss LaMarsh for the second reading of Bill No. C-98, to amend the Old Age Security Act.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Ian Grant Wahn: Mr. Speaker, the unusual harmony and agreement prevailing among all hon. members of this house in connection with the proposed $10 increase in the universal old age pension is most refreshing and is actually a striking tribute to the work done in 1950 by the joint committee of both houses of parliament on old age security, on which committee all members of this house were represented. As a result of the report of that committee the government then in office established a basic and universal pay as you go pension without a means test in the amount of $40 a month. This legislation was adopted unanimously and with universal acclaim. In

Old Age Security
its 1950 report the joint parliamentary committee emphasized that the program it recommended could be financed and administered satisfactorily only by the federal government. They said:
Only the federal authority can establish a sufficiently broad base of contributions to make such a program possible, and only the federal authority can ensure that an individual will receive the benefit to which he has contributed, regardless of whether he moves from one province to another.
All hon. members will recall that this vital report was signed by the chairmen of the committee, Senator J. H, King and the Hon. Jean Lesage, now premier of Quebec.
The $40 old age pension without a means test commenced on January 1, 1952. From 1952 to 1956, with balanced budgets and no inflation, the purchasing power of the pension expressed in constant 1952 dollars was well maintained. In 1957, as a result of two successive increases, the pension was raised to $55, but with the inflation which commenced in that year the purchasing power of that $55 pension was actually only $52.56 in constant 1952 dollars. This was a 31 per cent increase over the initial $40 pension. In the same period average weekly wages and salaries expressed in constant 1952 dollars had increased by only 21 per cent, much more slowly than the increase in pension benefits.
Hon. members of the house will recall a continuing series of massive budget deficits experienced between 1957 and 1962 totalling some $3 billion. As a result Canada experienced a continuing and accelerating inflation, and by 1962 the $55 pension had been reduced to $49 expressed in terms of constant 1952 dollars. In 1962 the pension was increased to $65, this being the equivalent of $57.94 in constant 1952 dollars. This represented a real increase of 45 per cent over the 1952 pension rate. During the same period average weekly wages and salaries had increased by 33 per cent expressed in constant dollars. When this current $10 increase in the pension is made the pension increase in constant dollars over 1952 will be 64 per cent. The increase in average wages and salaries over the same periods will be about half that, namely 37 per cent. As between 1962 and 1963 the increase in old age pensions will amount to 13 per cent, as compared with an increase in average weekly wages and salaries during the same one-year period of 3 per cent. I have documented this record, Mr. Speaker, because the concern shown by the Canadian public generally in increasing the old age pension by 64 per cent in a period in which their own wages and salaries have increased by only 37 per cent must surely be a record without parallel among other countries and one of which all Canadian taxpayers can be justly proud.

I believe that those who are now retired or on the verge of retirement would be the first to recognize this and would also be the first to insist that while appropriate respect should be paid and provision made for them, it is of prime importance to expand opportunities for those of all ages who have suffered from the massive unemployement of recent years and for the generations who will follow.
On this side of the house we believe that in this country, with the opportunities we have, we can and will do both these things.
I have emphasized that the increased pension benefits are being provided by Canadian taxpayers and not through the generosity of successive Canadian governments. The members of the government do not provide pensions and other social benefits out of their own personal funds; they merely transfer money from one group of Canadians to another, and in doing this they act as trustees and representatives of the Canadian people. Whenever the pension is increased and whenever social benefits are increased we as trustees and representatives of the Canadian people should give careful thought to the principles on which the increase is based. In considering the amount of old age pension it must be remembered that it has never been claimed that this pay-as-you-go fiat rate pension provided a proper subsistence pension for all. Speaking in the House of Commons in 1957 when the pension was raised to $55, the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith), then the minister of national health and welfare stated:
It will be sufficient in our judgment, together with the other means that most pensioners have at their disposal, to provide a decent minimum level of living for most pensioners.
The view that the hon. member for Perth so clearly expressed in 1957 is consistent with the views expressed in the 1950 report of the joint parliamentary committee. The committee at that time pointed out that the universal pay-as-you-go system is costly by its very nature and that benefit payments cannot be limited to that section of the population which can prove need, as in the case of old age assistance or to those who have previously made the required number of contributions as in the insurance approach.
The committee pointed out that considerations such as these had made it necessary for countries such as New Zealand and Sweden to set the rate of their universal benefits substantially below minimum subsistence levels. Like considerations also led the committee to the view that benefit rates under any universal system considered for Canada should not be set so high as to make the over-all cost

too burdensome. The members of the committee also pointed out that this was particularly true of a country such as Canada where living costs and wage and salary levels varied widely from one section to another. They emphasized that the rate of benefit should be set at a level which would avoid so far as possible the social inequity of a situation in which the retired beneficiary group in any area of Canada might find themselves in more favourable economic circumstances than those not yet retired who are still actually engaged in productive employment. At the same time, care should also be taken not to diminish the area of incentive for private savings or supplementary provision for old age security through employee pension schemes or individual purchases of annuities. In view of these considerations Canadians generally can take pride, I believe, in the institution of the universal old age pension without a means test and with the successive increases which have taken place and which are now proposed.
It is true that some members of the opposition parties have suggested that the increase should be made retroactive to the beginning of April and others have implied that the government has shown doubtful taste in insisting that the resolution which provided for the proposed increase should also provide the moneys required to pay that increase. Indeed, some members have gone as far as to suggest that this was a Liberal trick.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not think that.


Ian Grant Wahn: Even the able member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) somewhat plaintively remarked:
X was at a loss to understand the attaching of a monetary clause to this resolution by which taxes would be increased.
And, later, the same hon. member said:
Might I suggest to the minister that she seriously consider withdrawing from this resolution the fund-raising part of it. Also, I suggest that an entirely new budget be presented, or an amendment to the budget, so that we can get on with granting the increase in pension without this further complication, and so we can give the fundraising aspect of this matter the kind of attention it deserves.
One wonders just what kind of attention the hon. member had in mind.
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm was even more explicit, and even more indignant. He said:
I fail to understand how the Minister of National Health and Welfare can recommend the levy of a tax to pay for this increase in pension.
There appears to be complete unanimity among the members of this house as to the desirability of the proposed $10 increase. Some may wonder why the round figure of $10
Old Age Security
was chosen. I recall that in the early days of the Alberta oil industry, oil in the ground was customarily valued at $1 per barrel. When asked why, one operator said it was the only figure he could multiply by. Perhaps somewhat similar principles operate in leading members of parliament to favour increases by ten-dollar amounts.
But though there may be complete unanimity in this house, we must base a pension increase at this time on some logical grounds, since there is a quiet, but strong demand across the country for financial responsibility on the part of this government.
I hold in my hand a letter from a constituent who says:
I understand the government may be considering increases in corporate and personal income taxes in order to pay for the recently proposed increase in old age pensions. As one who voted for you in April, I urge you to do everything you can to prevent such an increase which would, coming at the present time, have serious and far reaching effects on the Canadian economy.
It now seems almost certain that personal and corporation taxes in the United States will be lowered in the early part of 1964. This in itself, in the absence of any parallel Canadian tax reductions, will result in a worsening of our competitive position vis-4-vis the United States. If at the same time we actually increase our taxes, Canadian industry will have a tax 'tariff' of 4 or 5 per cent to overcome in competition with United States industry, to say nothing of the inhibiting effect of tax increases on incentive. The adverse balance of trade with the United States, which the government is rightly trying to alleviate by various means, would deteriorate rapidly and the effects on employment and on the whole economy could be disastrous.
I have here another letter from a constituent-


Mr. Knowles:: Author.


Ian Grant Wahn: Let me read this, and I do not think you will then demand the name of the author.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not? The hon. member is required to give it.


Ian Grant Wahn: The hon. member may have it if he desires, after I have said what I have to say.
I have another letter from a constituent who tells me that he entered St. Michael's hospital in Toronto where he has undergone a major surgical operation for the removal of a kidney. He tells me he has been in receipt of the maximum welfare allowance of $57.10 per month and that we should recognize that in Toronto such an amount is not sufficient to provide a human being with essential food, housing and clothing. He says:
Hospitalization recently plus the costs of x-rays and a major operation is going to cost my fellow taxpayers some money. Perhaps my kidney could have been saved had I been able to secure medical treatment several months past. The miracle seems to be that I have survived, considering the fact

Old Age Security
that for months prior to the operation I was eating only the skin-and-bones food allowance of welfare recipients. If I have to continue on such a niggardly allowance it may cost my fellow taxpayers more hospitalization costs in the future. There are thousands across Canada with the same problem as myself.
I shall be glad to show this letter to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
We have been told that the $10 a month increase will mean the expenditure in a full year of $116 million. Of this amount, approximately $16 million should be recovered in income taxes, so the cost of this $10 increase will be $100 million annually and the amount will no doubt increase in future years. This huge sum of money, if received each year and properly directed and co-ordinated with expenditures of provincial governments, municipalities and the numerous charitable organizations in the field, could probably eliminate forever poverty and need among those in our country who for age or other reasons are unable to work and to provide for themselves. Yet we know that this annual expenditures of $100 million spread out in $10 monthly payments among the entire population over 70 years of age will not achieve that result.
Why then, sincere people ask, do we not mass, direct and co-ordinate all our resources in the war to eliminate forever poverty and need, instead of dissipating our available resources ineffectively in small amounts over a wide area? Why do we not use these vast sums of money to supplement income, not on the basis of the outmoded "means test" but on the basis of actual needs and without restriction to the arbitrary $10 amount?
While such arguments are persuasive, there are valid reasons for rejecting this approach and accepting, instead, a general increase in the universal pension, provided always that we can afford the increase and that the increase is provided in a manner which is consistent with financial responsibility on the part of the government. I should like to refer again to the 1950 report of the joint parliamentary committee on old age security.
In paragraphs 59 and 60 of their findings the committee said:
The committee has carefully considered the argument that such a universal system for persons 70 and over is economically wasteful in that it provides the same benefit to rich and poor alike regardless of their need. It is true, of course, that, under any system which abolished the means test for the group presently of pensionable age, benefits will be paid to some persons who do not "need" them on any test of personal need. But it must be remembered that to the extent that the universal pay as you go system is based on individual contributions, individuals in the upper income groups would, through their personal contributions, have bought and paid for their own retirement security,
[Mr. Wahn.l
as well as making a substantial contribution towards the cost of retirement security of others.
In view of these facts, the committee does not consider that it would be equitable to impose a "means test in reverse" and wholly deny retirement benefits to those individuals who have actually made the largest direct contributions to the revenues from which the universal benefits will be paid.
A certain amount of the benefits paid to persons in the upper income levels will be recovered through the normal operation of the income tax.
The committee also pointed out that to make payments to those in need while refusing payments to those who have saved during their working years to provide for their retirement has the effect of penalizing and discouraging thrift and private arrangements for old age retirement which the committee felt on the whole to be desirable to maintain. Much the same point is made in the Clark report on economic security for the aged.
These principles explain the pension arrangements for which Liberal members campaigned in the last election. We campaigned for a national contributory pension plan which would be self-supporting through contributions from those now working, and their employers.
Contrary to what has been implied by members of the opposition, we did not promise an additional $10 immediately we took office and out of general tax revenues. I hold in my hand the pamphlet which formed the basis of our election campaign entitled "Better Pensions for All" published by the National Liberal Federation of Canada. It says:
A new Liberal government will make it possible for all Canadians to take part in a contributory pension plan geared to growth in our economy. The plan will from the start be financially selfsupporting through contributions. It will not require any addition to taxes. As soon as the plan can be put into legislation, a minimum additional pension of $10 a month will be paid.
And, later:
As soon as the legislation is passed, and contributions start, the pension fund will be used to pay a minimum $10 a month to everyone aged 70 who would have been a contributor if he had been younger. Added to the existing old age pension this will mean pensions of $75 a month.
I also hold in my hand the pamphlet which summarizes the entire Liberal platform, entitled "The Policies of the Liberal Party", general election, 1963, published by the National Liberal Federation. It says:
To help people already retired who have not had the chance to contribute under the new Liberal plan, a minimum supplementary pension of $10 a month will be paid, from the start, out of the pension fund established by contributions. This will raise the total old age pension to $75.
The suggestion made in this house by a number of the members of the opposition that we promised there would be a $10 increase

immediately after the election, and that therefore the increase should be retroactive to April, 1963, is not true.


An hon. Member:: You are reading too fast.


Ian Grant Wahn: After the Liberal government took office, it moved immediately to introduce the contributory pension plan which it had promised during the election campaign. Very soon, however, Quebec announced its decision to institute its own pension plan and the premier of Ontario, while indicating his acceptance in principle of the federal plan, indicated that its implementation would require detailed study. This, of course, would necessarily result in delay.
A new situation was therefore created. With Quebec definitely out there can be no truly national contributory pension plan. If ultimately Ontario also decides to proceed with its own pension plan, it is difficult to see on what basis we can institute a federal contributory pension plan.
These circumstances, which were outside of the control of the federal government, led to the decision to split off the $10 increase from the general contributory plan. With Quebec out of the plan it would have been unfair to pay Quebec residents the $10 increase out of contributions made under the plan by the residents of other provinces. To have paid the $10 increase only to provinces which accepted the contributory plan and not to other provinces such as the province of Quebec would have caused disunity at a time when greater rather than less Canadian unity is required.
The decision was therefore made to pay the $10 increase to all residents of Canada and to pay it by increasing the rate of old age security tax from 3 per cent with a maximum of $90 to a rate of 4 per cent with a maximum of $120 on the taxable income of individuals applicable to the 1964 and subsequent taxation years. By providing that the increased cost of these pensions would be paid out of an increase in the old age security tax, the government came as close as it could in the circumstances to carrying out its election pledge to increase old age pensions in a financially responsible manner and without increasing the deficits which between 1957 and 1962 proved so damaging to Canada's economic strength and reputation.
Members of the opposition have suggested that the increased pensions should be paid out of general revenues rather than by the old age security tax.


An hon. Member:: Don't read so fast.


Ian Grant Wahn: As was pointed out in the 1950 report of the joint parliamentary committee, 28902-5-213
Old Age Security
such suggestions are more consistent with a means test than with a system of universal old age pensions which should emphasize the contributory principle.
The committee at paragraphs 29 and 30 of its findings stated:
Under an old age assistance program, the determining factor, both as to receipt of assistance and to amount of assistance, is the need of the individual. This is the system that we have presently in effect in Canada.
That is to say, before 1952.
Any system of old age assistance involves investigation and inquiry into the individual resources of the applicant with a view to determining eligibility for assistance and the amount thereof. It is this feature of the old age assistance program which has been most strongly criticized.
But it must be kept in mind in this connection that such investigation procedures are an almost inevitable requirement of any old age security system which derives its funds from the general revenues of the country, rather than from specific contributions levied for the purpose.
Members of all parties in the house participated in that committee. The government therefore has, I believe very wisely, provided in the same resolution not only for the $10 increase in the universal old age pension but also for the means whereby the money required will be provided, from specific contributions levied for the purpose rather than from the general tax revenues of the country. It was important in 1950 and it is still important that the principle should be established, maintained and clearly understood by all Canadians that increases in social benefits, including old age pensions, can only come directly or indirectly from the income of the community generally. Anyone who suggests otherwise is guilty of attempting to mislead the public.


An hon. Member:: You misled them.


Ian Grant Wahn: Another most important principle is involved. Failure to pay social benefits out of current taxes or out of current contributions-the habit which was followed during the years 1957 to 1962 of paying for social benefits by running massive deficits- is one of the main causes of inflation.


An hon. Member:: Wait till the deficit next spring.


Ian Grant Wahn: Inflation is the great enemy of thrift and self-reliance, the great enemy of those who attempt to provide for their own security in their old age through their own savings.
May I refer once again to the Clark report, paragraph 1609. Professor Clark quotes Professor Kenneth Boulding who wrote in 1958 with reference to the United States:
Inflation and deflation are by far the most important agencies in changing the distribution of income, and this has been especially so in the past three or four decades. Indeed, all the other

Old Age Security
forces affecting the distribution of income, the rise of the labour movement, the development of agriculture policy, the tariff, even the progressive income tax itself, all taken together have not achieved half the revolution in the distribution of both income and wealth that decades of successive inflation, deflation and inflation have achieved.
Professor Clark says that while this statement is virtually impossible to prove it is probably true for Canada as well as the United States.
Consider the significance of this statement. Consider the immense importance of the labour movement, income tax, tariff and agricultural policy on the redistribution of income. But all those have not had half the effect of our failure to maintain the value of our money.
Yet the forced redistribution of income of Canadians by variations in the value of our money has not been authorized by legislation passed by this house, concurred in by the other house and assented to by the governor general. These vast changes affecting the income and property rights of each one of us have not been assented to by the people or by their representatives in parliament. In fact, the forced transfer of wealth among various groups in our country as a result of the changing value of our currency amounts to taxation without representation. It violates a fundamental principle for which members of this house are supposed to stand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have waited until the hon. member appeared to be on the last page of his speech before raising the point of order so that he would not think I was trying to prevent him from making his speech. Citation 144 of Beauchesne, fourth edition, reads:
It is a rule in both houses of parliament that a member must address the house orally, and not read from a written, previously prepared speech, for the reason that "if the practice of reading speeches should prevail, members might read speeches that were written by other people, and the time of the house be taken up in considering the arguments of persons who were not deserving of their attention."


Ian Grant Wahn: I think my answer will satisfy the hon. member that he was in error. I was not in the last page of my speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then I must press my point of order. The hon. member has now admitted that he has before him a written speech and his addressing the house in this way is clearly against the rule that I have just drawn to Your Honour's attention.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He admitted no such thing.


Ian Grant Wahn: Because of the shortage of time-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I also was reading citation 144 of Beauchesne with considerable interest. I must say that remarks should

be kept as closely as possible to the bill before the house, and we do seem to be wandering a little bit beyond the precise, shall I say, explanatory notes. The hon. member obviously is refreshing his memory from rather full and rounded notes, but nevertheless the explanatory notes are very short and Bill No. C-98 is very short too. I wonder whether the hon. member could not capsule his remaining remarks into, shall we say, a few more minutes.


Ian Grant Wahn: I will be glad to do that. The notes I have in front of me do contain a large number of statistics and quotations, the product of careful research. But following your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, to capsule my remarks, may I say that I think I have made the point about the social evils of inflation and I will dispense with a long quotation from the Clark report, which I will hope to put on the record of the house at some other time, and go on to say-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Go on to read.


Ian Grant Wahn: -that, as I pointed out at the beginning, between 1952 and the beginning of 1957 the value of the Canadian dollar and purchasing power were well maintained. But since that time, from 1957 to 1962, there was a continuing degree of inflation which affected the value of pension rights. I have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that in constant dollars pension payments, after giving effect to this proposed increase, will have increased at almost twice the rate of the wages and salaries of those who must bear the cost of these pension increases. But on the basis of justice, this increase in pensions is required. Between the date of the 1950 report of the joint parliamentary committee and January, 1952, when the $40 pension payment was commenced, the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar had dropped about six points. In addition, society must in justice make compensation, because of the fact that the personal savings of those now retired and those who will soon be retiring have, over the years, been eroded as a result of persistent inflation.
If I may be permitted by hon. members opposite, I should like to quote from one whose authority in this house should be unquestioned. I refer to Graham F. Towers, former governor of the Bank of Canada, who was reported in the Financial Post of February, 1963, as follows:
Devaluation by a country with large imports of goods and services-that is certainly Canada's position-effectively lowers the purchasing power of the currency. This is not just a by-product of the move, but one of the intended results. While it improves the competitive position of industry by- note this-its downward influence on real wages, it also reduces the value to recipients of welfare payments of all kinds.

Devaluation is a solution which has from time to time appealed to countries overburdened by public expenditures and caught in the whirl of a relatively high cost structure. In this day and age, it is difficult to reduce the scale of payments for welfare and wages. The remedy sought is to reduce the real burden of the payments. Obviously, if the effect of devaluation is then offset by increases in the scale of payments, nothing has been accomplished and the machinery may be set in motion for repetition of the process.
In other words, the intended result of the devaluation brought about by the government of which the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) formed a part, was the reduction in real value of wages and social benefits of all kinds. The fact we have had a degree of inflation, Mr. Speaker, is the real justification for the increase in old age pensions which this government is proposing.
I wish to conclude my remarks on these pension increases, Mr. Speaker, by congratulating the government upon recognizing the need, and for its sense of responsibility in establishing, in the same resolution, the principle that taxes shall be increased to pay for the increased pensions. Quite properly members of this house insist upon proper respect being paid and proper provision made for those who are retired or are on the verge of retiring. These older people would be the first to insist that it is also of prime importance to create expanding opportunities for those who have suffered from unemployment in past years, and for those generations which are coming. We on this side of the house believe we can and we will do both of these things.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the hon. member a question? My question is based upon a statement that he made. I do not wish to bring these facts into the house on a controversial basis or to prolong the discussion, otherwise I would make a speech later in the evening. I understood the hon. member to state that his colleagues campaigned-he did not specify in what election campaign-on the basis of a contributory pension plan and not the increase of $10 to the old age pensioners. Am I correct in this assumption?
I am asking the hon. member if he made that statement?


Ian Grant Wahn: I purposely cut my remarks short so hon. gentlemen could ask questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ian Grant Wahn: What I said, Mr. Speaker, was that we campaigned in the 1963 election for a contributory pension plan, out of the contributions to which the $10 increase in old age pensions would be paid. This is set forth in these pamphlets which I have, and which 28902-5-213J
Old Age Security
I would be prepared to make available. I shall quote from the pamphlet, which says:
To help people already retired, who have not had the chance to contribute under the new Liberal plan, a minimum supplementary pension of $10 a month will be paid, from the start, out of the pension fund established by contributions. This will raise the total old age pension to $75 for a single or a widowed person-
I am prepared to table this pamphlet or give it to the hon. member if he wishes.


Eric Alfred Winkler: At this particular point, the hon. member for St. Paul's certainly did mention the 1963 election campaign. However, in his previous remarks he did not say 1963.


Some hon. Members:: He did.


Eric Alfred Winkler: No, he did not. We will have a look at the record tomorrow, and if it is not changed it will not be there.
However, I should like to ask the hon. member if he is aware that other statements have been made? I am asking the hon. gentleman now because I do not want the evidence stolen out of my hands. Is he aware that it was stated in the 1963 campaign that the $75 per month pension would be paid immediately? Then, I go back to a statement made by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), as contained in a transcript from the C.B.C., on January 30, 1962 in which the hon. member said that the Liberals will establish, at once, a new national minimum of $75 pension. I emphasize "at once". Does the hon. member know that?


Ian Grant Wahn: I am not familiar with the statement referred to by the hon. member. However, I do hold in my hand the official pamphlets of the National Liberal Federation of Canada, the specific pamphlets on pensions and general policy. With the consent of the house, I am prepared to table them.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Let me assure the hon. member that I am prepared to table these statements as well.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; this is developing into a debate between two members when the matter before the house is Bill No. C-98.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate because I understood that the government were most anxious to get this legislation passed. However, it would appear that the government is not anxious to get it passed when one of their own members has taken up a good deal of time-


An hon. Member:: Forty minutes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -damning the legislation with faint praise. I would certainly be interested in knowing if the antediluvian views which have been advanced by the hon. member for

Old Age Security
St. Paul's represent the views of the government. If one were to judge by the applause which came from government benches when he sat down, one would assume that what he said was fully concurred in by his colleagues on the government side of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him a question? Does the hon. gentleman not realize that his party is not the only one in which there can be a variety of views?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: At least when we have a variety of views, we do not applaud the views with which we do not concur. When hon. gentlemen opposite applauded the hon. member for St. Paul's, I can only assume they agreed with the views he was expressing. It was for that reason I rose to make mention of it, because I think it is rather significant that the only member who has taken a dim view of this $10 per month increase is a member of the party supporting the government.
If I can gather his ideas from the welter of statistics he quoted, I understand he is making two points. The first is that the old age pension, since old age pension legislation was first introduced, has risen more rapidly than wage levels. But surely this is understandable when one realizes that old age pensions started at the miserable figure of $20 a month and have always been too low? To make a comparison between that and the increase in wage levels is a reflection on the Liberal party's viewpoint with respect to social welfare.
The second point which the hon. member was seeking to make is to the effect that putting on a tax to raise money to pay these pensions is, as he described it, an enforced redistribution of wealth. We can therefore take it that he is opposed to any type of taxation which is based on ability to pay, in order that funds might be raised to provide for those who are less fortunate than others.
This also should be made a matter of record as to where the Liberal party stands on welfare programs. As a matter of fact, far from injuring their economies, the nations which have had the most buoyant economies during the past 25 years are those that have had what the hon. member for St. Paul's calls this enforced redistribution of wealth. The table which was published by the United Nations on the standards of welfare set up by various western countries, placed Canada seventeenth on the list. It is not a very proud record; and the nations that are ahead of us, the nations that have the highest standards of health services and welfare, are all countries which have experienced a better economic growth than we have, for the very

obvious reason that their welfare programs are important economic tools for redistributing wealth and redistributing purchasing power. Far from a welfare program injuring the economy of Canada, such a program will do much to promote and stimulate the economic activity of the country.
Those who have spoken on behalf of this party have made it clear that we support this increase of $10 a month. We have been asking for it for a long time. We do not think it should have to wait until there is an election in order to persuade either of the old parties to give an increase which has been so long overdue.
We also believe that this increase in pensions should be made retroactive to April 8, for the very obvious reason that the increases to civil servants were made retroactive and that the increased indemnities to members of parliament were made retroactive to April 8. For that reason alone I do not see how the government can refuse to grant the same consideration to the old age pensioners.
As my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), pointed out the other day, we think the government should move steadily toward the goal of lowering the qualifying age for the universal old age pension to 65 years, because in industry today 65 has become the normal age at which workers retire, and there is a hiatus of five years between 65 and 70 when the average worker has no means of support unless he belongs to a private superannuation plan. Therefore by lowering the qualifying age to 65 years we would make the pension available at the normal superannuation age.
I want to say to the government that we are glad it decided to separate this increase in old age security pensions from the Canada pension plan. When the minister introduced the Canada pension plan we felt then that it was wrong to ask the old age pensioners to wait until that plan had been put into effect. We are now glad the government has separated the pension plan and the increase to old age pensioners, and that the increase is now being proceeded with.
As the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) pointed out, we are most dissatisfied with the method which the government has resorted to in order to raise the necessary funds for this increase. The hon. member for St. Paul's, who is worrying a great deal about how the money is to be raised, ought to give some consideration to what the government is planning to do. It is planning to place the entire cost of this $10 per month increase on those people who have $3,000 of taxable income or less. This means that those who have above $3,000 taxable income

will not pay any more, although their ability to pay is much greater.
I contend that if the government were willing to remove the ceiling and to apply the 3 per cent, which is now in effect, as a surcharge on all incomes, it could raise sufficient money to pay for this increase without raising the rates at all.
I am very much concerned with one statement which was made by the hon. member for St. Paul's, to the effect that if the provinces of Quebec and Ontario decided to opt out of this plan, then we cannot have a national Canada pension plan. Mr. Speaker, we did not criticize the government for changing its mind and proceeding with the $10 per month increase without waiting for the Canada pension plan. We do not criticize it, because we are glad it changed its mind, but we think we have a right to some assurance from the Minister of National Health and Welfare that this change of mind does not mean the Canada pension plan is to be dropped. We are entitled to some assurance from the minister that there will be no uncertainty about proceeding with that plan.
We know the Canada pension plan is under attack from the insurance companies of Canada. We know they are carrying on a lobby against it, a lobby of the provincial premiers and of the members of parliament. We know that speeches are being made, and literature is being disseminated, to discourage public men and women from proceeding with the Canada pension plan. Before this debate concludes the minister ought to give the house some assurance that the reason the government changed its mind, and decided to proceed with this $10 per month increase now, is merely because it did not want the old age pensioners to have to wait a number of months.
She should also assure the house that the reason is not because it is the government's intention to drop the Canada pension plan, because I disagree most strongly with the hon. member for St. Paul's and I say that if Quebec decides to have its own plan, and if the province of Ontario decides to proceed with its plan, there is no reason whatever why the other sections of Canada, which may want to proceed with a plan, should not enjoy the privileges of a national Canada pension plan.
Legislation can be drafted by which the provinces that want to opt out and conduct their own plan can do so. The Canada pension plan could apply to the remaining provinces. Within the terms of the legislation provision could be made for portability between the national plan and any provincial plans which may come into effect. But I must say I am disturbed that the hon. member
Old Age Security
for St. Paul's may be flying a kite for the government when he suggests that if Quebec and Ontario opt out it may not be possible to have a national Canada pension plan. I hope the minister will take the opportunity in this debate to make it clear beyond any shadow of doubt that it is her intention and the government's intention to proceed with the Canada pension plan legislation so that those provinces which do not wish to opt out and are prepared to avail themselves of a universal, national pension plan will be able to do so. I think the house and the country are entitled to that assurance. If we do not get that assurance the suspicion will be widespread in Canada that already the death knell has sounded for the Canada pension plan.


Mr. Gerard Girouard (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I did not intend to participate in this debate but after hearing the opinions expressed in the various corners of the house, I came to the conclusion that it would not be difficult to say something which would be just as interesting and useful for the Canadian people.
May I say, first of all, that I commend the government for introducing a bill to increase old age pensions. It might be appropriate to point out that it was thanks to the co-operation of the opposition that the government was able to propose such an increase.
It will be recalled that, at the beginning of the session, the government had decided to grant an increase only in January. However, following the pressure that was brought to bear by the people and the opposition, the government has decided that the increase will start in October.
Does this mean that I am commending the opposition for the part it has always played up to now? I do not think so. As a matter of fact, I feel that it is proper at this time to remind all members of the house that the people sent them here to play a part and that they must do their best as far as possible.
I should also like to remind opposition parties that if the Canadian people had wanted them to be in power, they would have elected them.
That is why I think that we have lost valuable time on the matter of pension increases simply because party leaders attempted to exaggerate the mistakes of the government, to set traps for it and try on every occasion to introduce non-confidence motions.
Once again, if the Canadian people had wanted one or the other of the opposition parties to be in power, they would have elected them as such.

Old Age Security
Once more, I repeat that the role of the opposition is to guide the government, to make suggestions and to hope that it will propose the best possible legislation, and not to constantly set a trap, to oiler amendments which only delay the implementation of legislation such as this one, which, at first sight, seems to us absolutely sound.
It is evident that had this increase been retroactive to May 8, our older people would have had more benefit. It is equally evident that had retroactivity gone back to 1957, 1958, 1960 or 1961, our older people would have equally gained more. But, alas, such is not the case.
We hear today that it would have been preferable for the increase to be retroactive. It would equally have been preferable to grant our older people this increase at the age of 65 years, or even better, at GO years, 55 years, 50 years. Well, the government has brought in legislation which specifies that they will get an increase of $10 a month at 70 years.
I realize that the government could have found a more interesting way of levying taxes, and on this point, I am almost in agreement with the leader of the New Democratic party when he says that the government could have left the tax at 3 per cent and taken away the ceiling, so that the person whose taxable income is $5,000 or more would pay a larger part of the cost.
On the other hand, I am sure that if we went around the country today and asked the son whose father is 70 years old if he is ready to pay 1 per cent on his salary in order that his needy father might receive an increase of $10 on his pension, I am sure that everywhere in Canada that son would say "Yes, I am ready to do that for my needy father."
In my opinion, the opposition has played its role and has suggested an alternative to the government. I hope that the government will adopt the best possible policy to help our older people and that it will bring in other beneficial pieces of social legislation.
But I say nevertheless that the role of the opposition is to guide the government; and if the government brings in other similar social measures, which will benefit all Canadians, it is with pleasure that we shall support those measures.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Waterloo North.


Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North):: 'Mr. Speaker, in order that we may close this debate I will forgo my time to speak now. I would like the debate to come to a close.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I will also forgo my right to speak.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: Miss LaMarsh, seconded by Mr. Pickersgill, moves that I do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of the whole on the said bill. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a minor point, but the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) is not in the house and it is impossible for him to second the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: With the unanimous consent of the house Mr. MacNaught will second the motion. Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. MacNaught:: I second the motion, Mr. Speaker.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Payment of pension.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, needless to say, we heartily endorse this first clause in the legislation. However, I want to ask the minister if she is prepared to make any statement now regarding the matter I raised in the debate on second reading. I thought she might make some statement at that time, but she may have felt that to prolong the debate would involve the risk of carrying the debate on until tomorrow. However, it seems to me that clause 1 would provide a very excellent opportunity for the minister to give some assurance to the committee and to the country that the government's change of mind with respect to separating the increased pension for the old age security recipients from the Canada pension plan was motivated purely by a matter of timing and that it is still the government's intention, irrespective of what may be done by either the insurance companies or the provinces of Ontario or Quebec, to proceed with the Canada pension plan legislation at an early date.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: My hon. friend has asked something which should be apparent to him. May I refer him to page 3038 of Hansard, where I am reported as having said at the resolution stage of the bill:
This present measure is, Mr. Chairman, a solid step in the right direction, but the government sincerely hopes that the Canada pension plan will be introduced before too long to provide adequately for the retirement of our older people.

I hope that satisfies my hon. triend.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Just to follow that up for a moment, the minister has answered in a very nebulous manner and I would ask the minister to be fairly specific. Does that mean that we will proceed with the Canada pension plan legislation at this session of parliament?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: My hon. friend knows that there is a reference in the speech from the throne to the Canada pension plan. He knows that a resolution appears on the order paper. He knows that the house has been delayed in presenting this legislation in the past two weeks. We were three days on the resolution alone, although the bill has only two clauses. I can only say that my intentions are as always with respect to the Canada pension plan.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I do not like playing cat and mouse with questions like this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I should have said kitten and mouse.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I rise to purr.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Surely it was not too difficult for the minister to have said yes, rather than to tell us that it was in the speech from the throne. Every hon. member here can recall things in the speech from the throne which have never seen the light of day. That it was in the speech from the throne does not mean anything. The fact that there is a resolution on the order paper does not mean that it may not remain there and die on the order paper. All I am asking the minister to say is yes, that it is the intention of the government to proceed with the Canada pension plan legislation at this session of parliament. That is all, there is no problem.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to ask the minister if she will clarify the point, because actually the resolution on the order paper now states, among other things:
-for the payment of an additional pension of ten dollars a month to all persons to whom a pension may be paid under the Old Age Security Act;
I ask the minister simply whether she is going through with this resolution. Does she contemplate amending it?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Obviously, Mr. Chairman. [Translation]


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, during the
debate on second reading, I asked the minister a question and I wish to repeat it because' she did not reply.
Why does the government refuse to increase pensions from 65 years of age and
Old Age Security
also increase pensions for the blind and disabled, as is done by this legislation for persons 70 years of age and over.
I think that this is a discriminating attitude on the part of the government, a discrimination against the disabled and the blind and persons from 65 to 70 years of age.
I ask the minister, who is a very charming person, to give me a logical and positive explanation.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member, who has shown in the recent past that he has either little knowledge of, or little care for, the rules of the house, should be well aware as a member of some experience that one does not amend the Old Age Assistance Act, the Disabled Persons Act and the Blind Persons Act by presenting an amendment to the Old Age Security Act.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, as a supplementary question, I should like to ask the minister: Does the government intend, in the course of this session, to present another bill to increase the pension paid to the disabled and the blind?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr.   Chairman@: Order. I am sure the hon. member will agree that during this debate we must talk solely to the resolution before the committee.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, I hope I will succeed in getting an answer if for the third time I put my question to the minister. I believe the answer is either yes or no. It is very important for the purposes of debate that the house have a final answer from the hon. lady. Again I ask her: When she introduced her legislation for a universal contributory pension plan on July 18, was she or was she not aware of Mr. Lesage's intentions to proceed with a plan in the province of Quebec? How, yes or no.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Heward Grafftey: I do not think that is too much to ask for.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I would think that that question-


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: I suggest to the hon. member that he should remain seated while I make my comments regarding the objection raised. I do not want to be too strict because this is a discussion in committee, but it seems to me that the question which has been

Old Age Security
asked by the hon. member now is considerably beyond the scope of the bill before the committee.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, I have read comments outside this house in the last two days, and a lot of people feel that it is irresponsible politics on my part that I keep asking this question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Heward Grafftey: But this could have been avoided a long time ago if the hon. lady had taken the house into her confidence and given us a forthright yes or no answer to what she realizes is a very important question. Because a lot of the time of the house would have been saved if the hon. lady had been forthright with us. It is terribly important that she tell us whether or not she was aware of Mr. Lesage's intentions when she introduced her legislation.


Mr. Forgie:: I suggest the hon. gentleman ask Mr. Lesage.


William Heward Grafftey: I am sure the chairman will forgive me if I do not treat that interjection with any seriousness. But I do hope that the hon. lady will finally give the house an answer.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps I might treat my hon. friend's interjection in the same way in which he treated the previous member's interjection.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-Tax payable by individuals.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed with clause 2 I should like to take the opportunity of following up the very eloquent and forceful remarks and suggestions made by my colleague for Greenwood earlier when discussing the bill on second reading. He made the suggestion that we have no need to raise the tax by one percentage point, and that a much more equitable and fair manner of dealing with and raising the money for this increase of $10 would be by way of removing the ceiling on the tax and leaving the level at the same rate of 3 per cent. The Minister of Finance, when he replied to the suggestion by the hon. member for Greenwood, approached the question with such gentleness that I am sure in his heart he agreed with the suggestion, but for the sake of putting up a good front on behalf of his cabinet colleagues he had to reject the idea, well merited though it was.
The leader of our party, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, has just said that the Minister of Finance indicated that there was much to be said on both sides, which is quite true and is typical of the attitude of this
[The Chairman.]
particular minister and his government, that of taking a stand on anything and putting up each side of the question.
However, I should like formally to move an amendment to this clause in order to put into effect the principal point made by my hon. friend from Greenwood earlier today on behalf of the New Democratic party. The amendment reads as follows:
That clause 2 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
I believe the deletion of the entire clause is necessary because two or three alterations are proposed and the amendment reads with greater clarity if that is done. It continues:
2. Subsection (3) of section 10 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor: " (3) Every individual liable to pay tax under Part I of the Income Tax Act for a taxation year shall pay an Old Age Security tax for the year equal to 3 per cent of the taxpayer's taxable income for the year."
The amendment uses the wording of the proposed statute but it does, in reality, three things. It leaves the proposed tax as it is at the moment, at 3 per cent, but eliminates the ceiling so that those of us in higher income brackets or above that ceiling-and all members of parliament are now at that level or above it-will be paying a just and equitable share toward the old age security fund. The amendment, in addition, eliminates the proposal to make this applicable to the coming taxation year. Instead, the tax becomes applicable in the current taxation year, the one in which members of parliament received such a substantial raise and the one in which the old age pensioners are to receive the $10 raise.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The hon. member for Skeena in presenting this amendment suggested I had been somewhat gentle in discussing the proposal which was put forward on second reading by the hon. member for Greenwood. I hope I shall always be gentle when I am replying to the hon. member from Greenwood, who is an old friend of mine. The hon. member for Skeena also said I had suggested there was something to be said on both sides of this question. I agree with him. I think there is something to be said on both sides of most questions. But I also said I had reached the conclusion that it would be unwise to accept the proposal which was put forward by the hon. member for Greenwood, and that if there was a case for a review of the structure of personal income tax it would be far better taken up when the subject of the personal income tax itself was under review. I think it would be wise to wait-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister but it seems to me that before going into the essence of the proposal

put forward by the hon. member for Skeena the Chair should be given an opportunity to rule on the validity of the amendment.
In the very few minutes I have had at my disposal since this amendment has been proposed to the committee I have looked up certain authorities and I should like to make the following ruling: This amendment is out of order for the reason that it seeks to introduce a new proposal which is outside the scope of the bill as it was approved earlier today on second reading. It is, therefore, irrelevant and I should like to quote from May's Parliamentary Practice, sixteenth edition at page 421, where it says:
Stated generally, no matter ought to be raised in debate on a question which would be irrelevant if moved as an amendment, and an amendment cannot be used for importing arguments which would be irrelevant to the main question.
The proposal put forward by the hon. member is one which would have the effect of negating an essential principle of the bill as approved on second reading.
I submit, also, that it is out of order because it seeks to change the incidence of the tax as implied in the bill. I should like to refer hon. members to Beauchesne, fourth edition, paragraph 276 where it is stated:
In early editions of this book (Sir T. Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice), it was stated that "the crown has no concern in the distribution of taxes." Hence amendments were at first permitted which proposed the substitution of a different tax for a tax proposed by the government (provided that both were estimated to yield an equivalent amount) on the ground that the necessity of next taxation to that extent had already been declared on behalf of the crown. In modern practice this view is regarded as incomplete, and so requiring to be, supplemented by the view that the royal initiation in taxation implies the exclusive right to define the incidence as well as the amount of burdens to be placed upon the people, and that an amendment which transfers a burden to taxpayers not previously liable is an infringement on this initiative.
The motion by which a tax is proposed in committee of ways and means is now treated as an effective expression of the financial initiative of the crown, and therefore as the standard in relation to which the admissibility of amendments is determined. Accordingly an amendment is debarred, not only from increasing the rate of a tax, but also from extending its incidence to new classes, even while proposing to relieve other classes of payers.
For these reasons I declare, with regret, that the proposed amendment is out of order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If Your Honour rules this amendment out of order-and I do not agree with you on the question of relevancy, though I do not intend to argue your ruling now you have given it-may I say I think it is a great pity that the government should not be prepared to accept it. The reasons given this afternoon by the Minister of Finance for not doing so were, it seemed to me,
Old Age Security
flimsy. The first ground for refusal was, as I recall it, that if we intend to revise personal income taxes this is not the time to do it. Well, of course, it is never the time to do it. The fact is that we are now proposing taxation which is not equitable, taxation which is not levied on the basis of ability to pay. The hon. gentleman says some other time would be the time at which to do what we are asking, which means it will never be done. If the committee intends to deal with this question it should deal with it now.
The other objection the Minister of Finance had was that those in the upper income brackets would be paying a great deal more than the rest, but they would not be eligible for any greater benefits and that we would therefore be taxing them in respect of benefits they were not going to get. I submit that this is precisely what we are doing now, only with respect to people in the lower income brackets. For instance, a man who all his life never earns more than $2,000 or $2,500 a year may never pay this tax, yet he will naturally draw a full pension. Surely, the whole principle of taxation is "From each according to his ability to pay and to each according to his needs". That is the principle of all welfare legislation.


An hon. Member:: It is the principle of Marxism, too.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We pay our taxes on the basis of ability to pay and the return we get is not necessarily commensurate with what we have contributed. No one has ever suggested that this is an insurance plan. It is an old age security measure which entitles people to a certain income at a certain age irrespective of whether they have contributed anything to the fund or not. The return which a senior citizen is entitled to receive has nothing to do with what the citizen may have paid in over a period of years. Therefore it is beside the point to suggest that if the ceiling is removed a taxpayer with $10,000 or $12,000 taxable income will be paying more without getting any larger return when he is eligible. It seems to me that on the basis of good welfare legislation-not insurance legislation but good welfare legislation-the proper thing to do is to say that the payments will be levied on the basis of ability to pay on the entire taxable income. If this were done it would remove the necessity of increasing the rate from 3 per cent to 4 per cent. I certainly believe that the government should give very serious consideration to this point because I think the people of Canada would recognize the equity in the proposal we have made.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman-

Old Age Security


Lucien Lamoureux: Does the hon. member for Kootenay East wish to ask the previous speaker a question or is the hon. member asking for the floor?


Mr. Byrne:: I am asking for the floor.


Lucien Lamoureux: I have already recognized the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will not be very long. The remarks made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam indicate a serious weakness in this particular portion of the bill to which objection was taken by the hon. member for Perth at the resolution stage. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was entering upon a debate on income tax or methods of raising money which would have been more fitting in a budget debate.
I am surprised that the Minister of Finance has permitted this section of the bill to be included in the legislation because it restricts his room to manoeuvre in his budget arrangements. I wish to reinforce the protest lodged earlier by the hon. member for Perth against this method of combining in a bill a system of raising the money to pay for the expense created by the other portion of the bill. I think this is unsound and I want to put it on record that we do not accept this as a precedent if other legislation should come forward involving a section on money raising in the bill.
The nature of the bill is such, and the time we have spent on it has been sufficiently prolonged, that we do not wish to take any more time discussing these matters. Nevertheless, the particular subject I have been dealing with is vital in legislation, and consequently I make these remarks at this time so there will be no mistake about our position in the future if something similar is done with some other piece of legislation.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, in intervening at this point in the debate it is not for the purpose of assisting the minister in defending the legislation because certainly she is quite capable of handling it entirely on her own. However, I do take exception to certain statements made by the hon. member for Skeena when he spoke and introduced the amendment which you subsequently ruled out of order. In supporting his contention that the tax should be applied to taxable incomes above $5,000 he said that members of parliament had increased their pay during the spring session.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: If the hon. member feels that was improper or if he now feels that he should not have accepted the increase, I suggest that he avail himself-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am sure the hon. member will recognize that he is straying quite far from the bill before the committee and I would ask him to limit his remarks to the bill and particularly to clause 2 thereof.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I am limiting my remarks entirely to the clause. Surely if the hon. member for Skeena has the right to introduce matters extraneous to the clause I should have the right to reply.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I would remind the hon. member that the Chair brought the previous speaker to order when I felt he was straying from the bill before the committee. Even if by error the Chair failed to bring a previous speaker to order when it should have done so, if at this time the situation is recognized in the way it should be I would ask for the co-operation of the hon. member.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, I was the previous speaker. I do not think you intended to refer to me.


Lucien Lamoureux: No, to one of the previous speakers.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, I feel that the determination of the maximum at $120 is a reasonably fair arrangement. I want to remind hon. members that members of parliament, who may now reach a taxable income of $5,000 or more do not at any time receive old age security payments by reason of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: They do not receive old age security payments. This is really no argument that the hon. member for Skeena has presented, and if on reflection he feels he should not be receiving the increased indemnity he should in conscience opt out.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I was somewhat surprised that the Minister of Finance, in rejecting some of the suggestions made by members on this side of the house, said that this was an inappropriate time to amend the Income Tax Act. If clause 2 of this bill is not a partial amendment or revision of the Income Tax Act, what is it?


Mr. Perron:: Mr. Chairman, at this stage of the bill and before dealing with the subject matter, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss

LaMarsh). I hope that, with her usual kindness, she will give me an answer.
Does the minister admit the correctness of the statement of the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn), who suggested that it was a matter of principle that the increase in old age pensions is to be financed by an increase in income tax?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am sorry, but either the interpretation was incorrect or I did not understand the question.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, for the information of the minister, I will repeat my question.
Does she consider that the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) has stated the policy adopted by the government, that is to finance the cost of higher old age pensions by means of an income tax increase?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am not sure I understood the purport of the question. However, I should like to say to the committee that I quite agree with the hon. member for St. Paul's that the proposal of the government was always tied to taxation, that taxation being by way of contributions to the Canada pension plan. The payment of the increased $10 was to be paid from that source, which is a type of taxation; the government, by reason of the unanimous resolution of the Quebec legislature was required to separate this $10 increase from the Canadian pension plan. The government therefore continues to apply the principle of raising, by contributions from the public, the necessary amount for the increase.


An hon. Member:: We have the reason at last.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I said that at the resolution stage.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this does not answer exactly the question I had asked, but since nearly half an hour has been necessary to outline a principle aimed at justifying the increase in income tax to finance a $10 increase in old age pensions, which we approve, it is imperative to set the record straight.
During his speech, the hon. member for St. Paul's quoted certain statements made by Mr. Graham Towers in support of the principle he was setting forth.
Now, allow me to point out to the house that at the time he appeared before the committee on banking and commerce, in 1939, Mr. Graham Towers made other statements. In
Old Age Security
fact, when he was asked about the way the government obtained funds, Mr. Towers replied:
There are three ways for the government to secure money: by taxation, by borrowing the savings of the people or by borrowing to create additional money in the economic process, an act which is connected with the monetary expansion policy.
Since Mr. Towers has been quoted as an authority on financial matters, I feel that we should also recognize the principle of creating credit for the government of Canada and for the country, since Mr. Towers agrees that the government can obtain money by means of monetary expansion, a scheme which consists in borrowing to create additional money in the economic process.
Mr. Chairman, at this stage I feel it would be time to change our system and to move an amendment to the section under consideration. I hope that the government will not give us the same reply as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) who said earlier that we could not put estimates out of balance, when the last budget did not mention at all this 1 per cent increase.
In addition, the Minister of National Health and Welfare admitted a moment ago that provision was made in the speech from the throne for another means of financing her old age pension contributory plan.
Therefore, I feel that the amendment I wish to introduce is in order and would change nothing at all to the provisions of the present Old Age Security Act.
Consequently, with the support of the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), I move:
That section 2 be repealed and that the following words be substituted therefor: "The necessary funds for the increase will be advanced by the Bank of Canada".


Lucien Lamoureux: Perhaps the Chair might be allowed to rule at this point on the proposed amendment. In my opinion, this amendment proposing a change in the propositions contained in the bill is in error for at least one of the reasons which I advanced in connection with the previous amendment. In my opinion, the amendment is not relevant to the question on which an amendment is proposed.
I should like to quote again from May's Parliamentary Practice, sixteenth edition, page 421:
Stated generally, no matter ought to be raised in debate on a question which would be irrelevant, if moved as an amendment, and an amendment cannot be used for importing arguments which would be irrelevant to the main question.
Clearly the suggestion made in the amendment is irrelevant to the main question in that it brings forth arguments which are irrelevant to the main question. I think that

Old Age Security
for this reason principally, and others which might be cited but which are not necessary, I shall have to rule the amendment out of order.


Mr. Chapdelaine:: It is with a great interest that I listened to the unacceptable solutions of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), and the amendment he proposed was, of course, declared out of order. The amendment of the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron) inviting the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) to obtain money in another way than the one mentioned in section 2 of the bill, was also rejected.
I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether it would not be possible now to initiate a reform of the Bank of Canada in order to find the necessary amounts. The time will come when we will have to stop levying taxes, as they already have started to do in the United States under the Kennedy administration.
I should like to know whether the minister is aware that the chartered banks have now the power that we, members of parliament, grant them, namely to create 12 times the money they have in deposit with the Bank of Canada. If gradually we want to cease levying taxes, we shall have to take away from the chartered banks-


Lucien Lamoureux: The Chair would be grateful to the hon. member if he would come back to section 2 of the bill under study.


Gérard Chapdelaine: I was suggesting to the minister how to find the necessary funds without having to levy taxes, and this is relevant to section 2 which provides for the raising of the funds necessary to finance the increase in old age pensions.
I merely want to know if it would be possible to gradually take away from chartered banks this power which we, the parliament, have given them and which enables them to create 12 times more money than their deposit with the Bank of Canada. Then, if we took away from chartered banks merely one fourth of the powers which we gave them to create this money, we could find more than five times the money necessary for the financing of this increase in old age pensions.
Could the minister tell me if he realizes that such a solution could be carried out?


Mr. Peters:: I would think, Mr. Chairman, after listening to the remarks that have been made tonight, the government would be aware of the fact that there are a number of ways in which this $10 increase could be paid and clause 2 of the bill could be operative. Having listened to the remarks of the chairman and the citations he used, I would think it
[The Chairman.]
would be very difficult for an opposition member to move a motion which would accomplish what a great many people want accomplished, to have the tax spread over a wider structure so that those better able to pay could do so.
I believe this is a problem which will face the government in the next few days. There is a general resentment amongst the public at increasing taxes at this time, and this is due to the statements made during: the recent election and some of the promises that were made. The Minister of Finance knows that if we maintain the rate of 3 per cent and remove the ceiling this will bring in about $116 million, which is very close to the $100 million suggested by that 1 per cent raise. It is just that simple.
We must ask ourselves, are we going to satisfy the rich people of the country and add 1 per cent on to the amount paid by the poor people, when we could accomplish the same thing if we took the ceiling off and let the rich make payments? Are we going to support the rich of the country at the expense of the overburdened poor?


Mr. Valade:: I have just a few remarks to make, and I want to pick up what the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Chapdelaine) has said. If the Minister of Finance has some difficulty in raising the funds, then I suppose that in Social Credit ridings he could always annul the $10 per month contribution that Social Crediters are obliged to pay to their party. This would amount to $120 per year per member, and could be used as a contribution to the old age pensions.


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Chairman, to restore-some degree of seriousness in this house after the broad remarks of the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade), I would ask the Minister of Finance-


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I know that the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Chapdelaine) is a newcomer to the house, but he has no right to make unparliamentary remarks, such as the rude words he just used.
When I speak of Social Crediters, I know that I am being free-spoken because the word is broad.


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Chairman, broadness is something that is inborn, it is not external.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance was ready to answer the question I put to him. I simply want to ask him whether he is aware that it would be possible to raise money in. that manner.

ITextt


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I suppose all government expenditures for a time could be financed either by borrowing or by inflation of the monetary system, but sooner or later this would lead to a great deal of trouble which would hit everybody in the country, and particularly those in the lower income brackets. Obviously there are alternative ways in which this particular expenditure could be financed, but in the opinion of the government, and in the circumstances, the method proposed is the preferable way.
Instead of indulging in a longer answer to this question perhaps I might be permitted to remind hon. members of the committee that we are about to have royal assent and they might be willing to leave this question. This is the view of the government, that this particular expenditure should be financed in this way, and perhaps we could move on to the next item of business.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 2 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, would you call for the yeas and nays on this clause?
Clause agreed to: yeas, 127; nays, 25.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major Alfred Fortier, Assistant Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Business of the House
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1964.
An Act for the relief of Madeleine Francoise Hankowski.

Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the house leader if there is any change in the order of business for tomorrow?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I hope the hon. gentleman will not feel that there is any departure from proper procedure but the Prime Minister did indicate some time ago that if the effort to establish a private trusteeship was not successful the house would be asked to proceed immediately with the first stage of that legislation, which is the resolution now on the order paper. That, therefore, will be the first item of business for tomorrow. As tomorrow is a Wednesday I suppose it will probably be the only item of business, but should it be concluded we would then proceed with the program which was uncompleted today, that is to say the Northwest Territories bill and the bill for the other territory, and the vocational training measure.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, October 9, 1963