1963-07-18

Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have a short statement dealing with a question of procedure which I think it would be in order to make at this time. As appears in Votes and Proceedings of yesterday the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) presented the fourth report of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills which read as follows:
Your committee has considered Bill S-15, an act to incorporate The Good News Broadcasting Association of Canada, and has agreed to report the preamble thereof not proven on the grounds that the committee feels that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances outlined to the committee to issue a federal charter.
Thereafter, as reported in yesterday's Hansard at pages 2292 and 2293, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) proposed the following motion:
That Bill No. S-15 as reported be referred back to the committee on miscellaneous private bills for reconsideration.
At that point Mr. Speaker intervened to suggest to the hon. member that the proper time to move such a motion would be during the private bills period if the bill was then before the house. Later on the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka stated that under the rules, especially standing order 110, this bill would not be placed on the order paper, and this would prohibit the bill in question being placed upon the orders of the day during the private members' hour. At this juncture Mr. Speaker suggested that the matter be postponed until today to give him the opportunity of going into the matter.
May I be permitted to say that I have considered the matter and to reiterate that it was not the proper time for the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka to propose his motion to refer back the bill under routine proceedings, as he did yesterday, since the bill had first to be placed upon the orders of the day by special order of the house. In this connection standing order 110 applies.
In looking at two precedents relating to similar instances-the first in 1931, at page 552 of the Journals and page 3824 of Hansard;
the second in 1958, at page 401 of the Journals and page 3329 of Hansard-it will be seen that a motion should be moved and adopted under routine proceedings in order to place such a bill upon the orders of the day for consideration, and the motion to refer the bill back to the committee is dealt with at its proper place when private bills are taken up during the hour for private members' business.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that pursuant to the recommendations of the Norris report regarding possible prosecutions, special counsel will be appointed immediately to review all the facts and advise whether charges should be laid against any persons for conspiracy to prevent, by unlawful means, persons from working in the business of shipping; or for conspiracy to commit indictable offences, particularly offences involving violence; or for offences under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.
At the appropriate stage I would envisage that there would be consultation with the appropriate provincial authorities in regard to any Criminal Code infractions indicated by the advice of such counsel.



NORRIS REPORT-ANNOUNCEMENT OF SETTING UP OF INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE

Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief announcement to make. On Monday last, on tabling the report of the industrial inquiry commission on the disruption of shipping, I indicated to the house that the report and the recommendations would be a matter of study by the Department of Labour and other departments. I wish now to advise the house that the government has set up a committee consisting of the deputy ministers of justice, transport and labour and the under secretary of state for external affairs. Other departments may be called in for consultation as the need arises.
This committee has already begun its work and has been asked to bring forward proposals for study by the government without delay. I might also add that I am getting

Sale of Wheat to Poland in touch with the United States secretary of labour regarding a further meeting in the near future.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF SALE TO POLAND

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform hon. members that the Canadian wheat board has made another sale of wheat under the provisions of the Export Credits Insurance Act and will today be making the following announcement from their head office in Winnipeg:
The Canadian wheat board has negotiated a contract for the sale of approximately 100,000 tons of wheat for shipment to Poland. This sale, totalling about 3.7 million bushels, is for shipment from St. Lawrence and Pacific coast ports during the period August to November, 1963.
Payment for the wheat is to be made on the basis of 10 per cent at time of shipment with the remaining balance to be paid in equal instalments plus interest at 2, 2J and 3 years respectively. These credit arrangements were authorized by the government of Canada under the provisions of the Export Credits Insurance Act.
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melfori-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in reference to the announcement he made of a sale of wheat to Poland. Would the minister be in a position to give the house some information as to the terms of the sale?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I gave these terms in the statement that I made. I have given the copy of the statement to the Hansard reporter. And the hon. member will be able to read it in Hansard.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. At what price per bushel was that deal negotiated between Canada and Poland?


Mitchell William Sharp: At the best possible price, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Part of my question has been asked in other supplementaries. Could the minister give us the grade of the wheat sold to Poland? I wanted the price as well, but he could not tell us what the price would be.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He has not told us the price yet.


George Robson Muir: I wanted the grade and the price.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when I made this statement I was very careful to say I was informing the house of the announcement being
[Mr. MacEachen.l
made today by the Canadian wheat board. As I have said on many occasions, the Canadian wheat board is instructed by parliament to sell wheat to best advantage. It has never been customary in this house to reveal details, nor do I think it is proper for me as the minister to take credit for these sales.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: Out of courtesy to the house 1 did think hon. members might like to know the terms of the announcement that is being made simultaneously in Winnipeg today.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Pickersgill:: Is this a debate?


Robert Simpson: -for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the minister's statement that the shipment of this grain will take place through St. Lawrence ports, and I believe he mentioned west coast ports, would the minister consider asking the wheat board to see that a substantial portion of this grain will be directed through the port of Churchill-


Mr. Fisher:: Never.


Robert Simpson: -where the apparent savings by shipping the grain through this port can accrue to all western farmers?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is the policy of the Canadian wheat board, and has been for many years, to ship as much grain as possible through the port of Churchill so the full capacity of that port is utilized. I understand this continues to be its policy.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Does the minister believe that the sale of 3.7 million bushels of wheat to Poland-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Ernest Pascoe: -will do much to alleviate the situation shown in the latest release by the dominion bureau of statistics-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What is the question?


James Ernest Pascoe: My question is that-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Ernest Pascoe: [DOT]-regarding storage facilities, the figures published by the dominion bureau of statistics figures indicate that elevators will be plugged when marketing of the new crop starts in about three weeks time.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman agrees that all farmers in western

Canada would like to deliver as much grain as possible in this crop year. If this fills the elevators, it is the inevitable result of that policy.



FINANCE


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the message which the President of the United States delivered to congress at noon today is directed towards the improvement of the international balance of payments of the United States. One of the measures to which the President referred was action yesterday by the international monetary fund to facilitate continued investment by the fund in United States dollars. The arrangement is quite a technical one and I shall not try to describe it at this time. The effect is simply to allow the fund's holdings of U.S. dollars to continue to increase as they have done in the last two or three years.
Another measure announced by the President involves a system of taxes on certain international capital transactions. Certain types of capital movements have been causing weakness in the U.S. balance of payments and the new tax system is apparently designed to meet this problem. The tax applies to U.S. nationals who purchase securities, both bonds and stocks, of the following countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of South Africa, San Marino, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
The tax rate proposed ranges from per cent of the value of securities with a maturity of three to three and a half years and rises to 15 per cent in the cases of securities with a maturity of 28J years or more. The same 15 per cent applies to purchases of shares. Perhaps I might just read into the record the three paragraphs relating to this particular tax:
The interest equalization tax would be a special temporary excise tax, to remain in effect through 1965, imposed on the acquisition of stock, securities or other obligations of foreign issuers or depository receipts or other evidence of interest in, or rights to acquire, such interests. The tax would be payable by all United States citizens, residents and corporations, including organizations exempt from federal income taxes. The tax would apply to portfolio purchases of stock or debt securities issued by foreign corporations, governments, or other persons, whether such securities represented new or already outstanding issues and whether the acquisition was effected in the United States or abroad. It would not apply, however, to purchases of interest presently held by Americans.
18, 1963
U.S. Tax on International Capital
The tax would not be applicable to direct investments by United States persons in overseas subsidiaries or affiliates, nor would it apply to acquisition of any indebtedness payable upon demand or maturing in less than three years. Moreover, loans made by commercial banks in the ordinary course of their banking business would be exempted. The tax would not be applied to purchases of securities issued by international organizations of which the United States is a member, governments of countries considered to be less developed, and corporations whose principal activities are centred in less developed countries. An underwriter or dealer would be exempted from the tax on acquisitions of stock or obligations resold to foreigners as part of the underwriting of a new issue.
The tax would be applied to acquisitions occurring after the date of the President's message. It would not apply to purchase commitments made on the open market on or before that date or to other purchases which the buyer on that date was unconditionally obligated to make. Exemption from the tax would also be provided for purchases made within 60 days after the date of the President's message if the security purchased were covered by a registration statement filed with the securities and exchange commission within 90 days prior to the date of the President's message.
Now, Mr. Speaker, quite clearly the measures proposed by the President of the United States will have wide repercussions in each of the 22 countries I have mentioned. These repercussions, if the President's proposals are approved by congress, may well have an important effect upon Canada's balance of payments and upon the Canadian economy as a whole. It would be unwise for me to say more than this, however, until there has been time to give careful study and consideration to all the implications of the President's proposals.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, the statement just made to the house by the Minister of Finance, of which some of us at any rate had some prior knowledge, is one of the most important statements which could have been made to the parliament of Canada at any time in the immediate past, present or future. The implications are such that there should certainly be no casual comments at this time. As the minister has pointed out, there are highly technical questions involved on which one would not wish to pass hasty judgment or make hasty observations. Certainly this message, if it were to be implemented by congress, could have most serious implications as far as the situation in Canada is concerned. Obviously this is a matter for congress, and it would be both bad taste and poor judgment for us to make comments on a matter which has only today been referred to that body.
This bears out what has been suggested in the past, that this problem of the balance of payments is one which the United States government has had well in mind, and it was

U.S. Tax on International Capital questionable whether the budgetary proposition made by the minister should have been put forward at this time in view of the possibility of some such action as this being taken, as some of us had suggested it might be.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: I think this proposition made by President Kennedy is close to another proposition which was made in this house about a month ago when the Minister of Finance presented his budget. At that time he imposed a tax of 30 per cent on the sale of Canadian stocks or shares to foreign purchasers. The hon. gentleman withdrew that tax, but today the administration of the United States has proposed exactly the same tax except that instead of the rate being 30 per cent it is to be 15 per cent.
(Translation):
At that time, Mr. Speaker, we had in Canada a Mr. Kierans who went to see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) to ask him to withdraw the tax on the sale of Canadian securities to non-residents. Today we hope that the same Mr. Kierans will go and see President Kennedy to ask him to withdraw that tax too.
Mr. Speaker, I notice however that even if the tax applies exactly on the same grounds as the one the Minister of Finance had introduced on June 13 last only to withdraw it a few days later, this time, instead of the Canadian government getting the profit, it will be the American government which will collect this tax on the sale of securities, and, once again, Canadians will be victimized.
I am sure that when the Minister of Finance spoke to us about administrative difficulties, there were none; but the American government intended to impose that tax today. The under-secretary of state exerted some pressure on the Minister of Finance for the withdrawal of the tax, so that the American government might impose it now on exactly the same items.
At that time the Minister of Finance spoke of technicalities and of technical difficulties. Today, he again mentions technicalities. There are no such technicalities. It is the Canadian government which, once again, complies with demands of American finance.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance said, and rightly so, that this might affect the balance of payments, but I think that, as we Canadians will certainly benefit less from the influx of American capital in this country, and shall have less American investments here, I think this would be the time

for the Minister of Finance to find some sources of capital, to create capital in our own country, so that investments do not decrease and that we continue to develop this country with our own capital, because we shall no longer be able to count on American capital investments.
The Minister of Finance should see things more clearly now that he has been taken in by the American government, and he should learn from that lesson that he cannot count on foreign countries helping Canada-on the contrary we are their victim-and he should see to it that we, in Canada, use our own capital resources to develop this country.
Americans also have their own sources of capital, and they use them, not only for the expansion of their country, but for developing other parts of the world. Canada should do the same thing. This country should get from the Bank of Canada the capital it needs for its development, and then it will have no more cause to complain about decisions made by foreign countries.
(Text):


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, as the spokesman for the Conservative party has said, this is a most serious statement that the Minister of Finance has had to make to us. However, I think it would be extremely naive to imagine that Mr. Kennedy has taken this action because of the actions of the Canadian government. I think that is perhaps exaggerating our importance in the world.
It is, however, a situation that the government should have been able to foresee in the light of the continuing stream of reports for many weeks past of the grave concern of the United States authorities over the continuing drain on their gold reserves and the appeals that were made by President Kennedy to United States investors to withhold further transfers of capital to Europe in particular to West Germany, for one.
I foresee that the government is going to face some very serious problems with regard to our exchange rate. If they attempt in the face of this move on the part of the United States authorities to maintain the fixed exchange rate and to pursue the minister's professed goal of a balanced budget, we are going to find that the Canadian people will have to pay a very bitter price for it.
I suggest that the government should now reconsider its whole attitude toward an expansionist policy in this country at this time. It may very well be that the crisis that has

been precipitated by the United States administration will cause the industrialized countries in the world to take seriously the proposals that have been made for the developing of a much greater measure of international liquidity than at present obtains. If so, then there will be some gain made from this situation.

On the orders of the day:
High! Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition): I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether any information was given to him by the President prior to the announcement today of this new system of excise tax. Was there any consultation, or has the love feast of Hyannis Port now been dissipated in the light of the experience of the United States following the withdrawal of the 30 per cent security tax?
High! Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
I can understand the right hon. gentleman's interest in love feasts of the kind he has mentioned, because he was not exposed to any of them during his term of office. Naturally it has rankled ever since that we have initiated them on this side. Subject to correction, I may say that I believe the Minister of Finance has been in touch with United States government officials on this matter. I understand that President Kennedy's administration sent an official up from the treasury office before this announcement was made in Washington.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: When was that?


An hon. Member:: How long ago?


Mr. Pearson:: It was this morning.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the decision may have been taken yesterday, but that is rather expeditious action. I do not believe, although I will find this out, that a messenger from the President was sent to any of the other 22 capitals.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it not a fact that Canada is the one nation that will be directly affected to a greater extent than any other?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not a fact. The right hon. gentleman should know there are 22 governments that will be affected by this matter.


George Clyde Nowlan: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the dissertation on taxation to which the right hon. Prime Minister has just exposed us, may I ask the Minister of Finance if there is any other government of the 22 nations which has
18. 1963	2331
U.S. Tax on International Capital considered or was considering a withholding tax to the extent that we were when the President of the United States made this statement this morning? In view of his announcement, I am wondering if the Minister of Finance is not now prepared to give consideration to the withdrawal of his suggestion in respect of increasing the withholding tax because the same result would have been achieved by the President?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that we are back on the budget debate.


An hon. Member:: We will be tomorrow.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I could add to that answer by saying that the withholding tax to which my hon. friend referred was imposed by his government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Clyde Nowlan: I should like to ask the Prime Minister to what extent the government of which I was a member imposed a withholding tax which had to be withdrawn within 48 hours after it was introduced, and to what extent his government is imposing a withholding tax now to which parliament has not given approval?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It would take me too long to go through all the deficiencies of the previous government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should like now to go to the cooler end of the house. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. The tax on foreign securities proposed to congress by the President of the United States is going to have very serious effects upon provincial and municipal financing in Canada. What steps does the Canadian government intend to take to make up this gap, which will undoubtedly face the provinces and municipalities within the next few months?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: In the first place, Mr. Speaker, the legislation to which my hon. friend refers has not yet been passed by the congress of the United States. Second, as I stated in my earlier remarks, I think it would be unwise for this government to say any more about these particular measures until we have had time to study them most carefully.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: May I
ask the Minister of Finance whether he has any information as to why Canada is paying 15 per cent and, as I understand it, several of the 22 countries are paying all the way from 3 per cent to 15 per cent? Why is Canada listed as 15 per cent?

Business of the House


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the same rate of tax applies to all 22 countries. The purpose of the tax is that in the higher ranges of the longer term issues of 28J years or more, the rate of interest would be 1 per cent higher. [Later:]


Mr. G. L. Chailerion (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance which he may want to take as notice. If the United States congress passes the measure to which the minister referred, would the tax apply to the purchase by the United States of the downstream benefits of the Columbia?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I have no idea, Mr. Speaker.



REPORTED DECREASE IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE RESERVES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliefle-L'Assompiion-Monlcalm):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister tell the house if the budget is responsible for the decrease in our foreign currency reserves?


Some hon. Members:: Order.



GOOD NEWS BROADCASTING ASSOCIATION


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the ruling you made at the opening of the house I now propose to move a motion along the lines that were suggested, namely that the bill in question, S-15, be placed back on the order paper for discussion. I should like to say a few words in connection with my reasons for asking the house to make this order.
Bill No. S-15 was considered in the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills on two separate days. On the second day a witness was called and evidence was heard. Following this the committee considered and passed the preamble and all clauses of the bill. The committee amended the last clause and added two further clauses.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the hon. member speaking to the motion that he has purported to make? If he is, it seems to me we should find out first whether he has unanimous consent to make the motion.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the point raised by the hon. member, this motion does not require unanimous consent. This is a motion on a private bill taken under routine proceedings. The precedents have been carefully examined and the Speaker has today

made a ruling in that connection. It is on the basis of that ruling that I intend to follow the procedure suggested by the Speaker rather than the procedure which I attempted to use yesterday and which was out of order. I merely want to explain the reasons. As I was saying-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to the hon. member that he move his motion, which we have discussed. I can anticipate what it will be, and I hope it will be in order.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Enns):
That Bill S-15 entitled: "An act to incorporate The Good News Broadcasting Association of Canada", the preamble of which has been reported as not proven, be placed on the order paper for consideration later this day.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Francis:: Is this motion debatable, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order at this stage.


Mr. Speaker:: I should point out to hon. members that the scope is very limited. If any hon. members have comments to make they should make them now, but I propose to put the motion after a few comments.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I wish to raise a point of order on the regularity of the motion proposed by the hon. gentleman. This is an extraordinary procedure, and I should like to have some indication that it is in order because in my view, this motion is not in order, and cannot be put by a private member. Under our rules a private member is not in a position to make a motion of this kind at this time.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I understand that your ruling is that this motion is accepted, and I should like to speak to the motion, if I may.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that it is not necessary to speak to the motion, but I will not prevent him from doing so. Perhaps the Minister of Labour was not here when I gave my ruling. It was to the effect that, after researching the authorities, I find the procedure followed by the hon. member for Muskoka-Parry Sound (Mr. Aiken) is correct. He is, in my view, entitled to move this motion. Evidence to that effect will be found in 1931 and also in 1958 where procedures identical to the one we are following at the moment were employed. At that time I believe they were employed by the other side.
Unless the hon. member has some short, pointed remarks to make, I propose to put the motion.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I just want to say that I intend to vote against this motion because I do not believe the miscellaneous private bills committee arrived at this decision lightly or haphazardly. It is my opinion that if this bill were referred back to the committee the same recommendation would be brought before this house.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I see no point in referring this bill back to the committee. I may state for the record that the reason the decision-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but we are not discussing the merits of the motion. We are simply asking the house to give authority to the hon. member to raise this matter between five o'clock and six o'clock if the bill is before the house at that time. The question of whether the bill should be referred back is not at issue at the present time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might say a word. Your Honour has ruled that the motion is in order. As I understand it, the only effect of the motion would be to put the bill back on the order paper again so that it could be considered during private members' hour. I wonder if the house would not consider, with a view to saving time and avoid dividing the house, having the motion adopted now and then dealing with the matter when private members' hour arrives.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to thank the Secretary of State, but that is the purpose of the proceedings at the moment. Is the house ready for the question?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I have not completed my preliminary remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that he withhold those remarks until private members' hour.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: If no one else is going to speak I am quite happy to do that.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-89, to amend
Inquiries of the Ministry the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act (pension funds).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill, very briefly, is to provide that when returns are made under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, those returns in respect of the operation of pension funds, and the financial details of pension funds, will be in the public domain and it will be permissible for people to have access to that information.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
(Translation):



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to find that the riding of Megantic is so important these days that two members have mentioned it.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I directed a question to the hon. lady on July 4 as recorded on page 1825 of Hansard; she answered at that time that she would consider the question. Today I should like to put the same question again to her. Did the minister do something to help financially the miners of Solbec Copper Mine in Quebec, who have been on strike since March 1, 1963?
(Text):


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the hon. gentleman that following his question, which I took as notice, I had the answer ready for about four days thereafter, but since he had been absent from the chamber I stopped bringing it with me.


Raymond Langlois: Could the minister forward it to me at my office, or give me the answer tomorrow in the house?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I shall be glad to.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the minister's responsibilities in connection with the proposed Columbia river treaty and his own practice of keeping in touch with local opinion on any question, will he listen to the C.B.C.'s national radio

Inquiries of the Ministry network series "Soundings" this evening between 8.30 and 9 p.m. for the interesting and enlightening program entitled, "Columbia river project-a local look at a national issue," and in so doing hear the views of the residents of the Arrow lakes, Revelstoke, Ross-land, Trail and other communities in the Kootenays?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should remind my hon. friend that he and I have an obligation at that hour and that is, as diligent members of parliament, to be in our places in the house. However, if the hon. gentleman will arrange that I will have a pair, and if there is no matter immediately concerning me before the house, I shall be glad to listen to the program entitled "Soundings". And may I say to the hon. gentleman that I am always interested in his soundings in the house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to inform the minister that I am willing to be his pair.



FORTIETH WEDDING ANNIVERSARY OF MEMBER FOR DIGBY-ANNAPOLIS-KINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise for the purpose of asking a question but with the leave of the house, especially today when we are discussing honeymoons between nations, it is a good day to recall that one of our members, the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), is celebrating his fortieth wedding anniversary, and I feel the house would want to extend congratulations to him. The very fact that he looks so young indicates what a fine wife he has, and to both we extend our best wishes.
High! Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, if there is any occasion which would justify a departure from the normal rules of the house it is the occasion to which the right hon. Leader of the Opposition has made reference, the fortieth wedding anniversary of my hon. friend, the hon. friend of all of us, the financial critic of the opposition. May we on this side wish him well, and we hope he and all of us will be around when he celebrates his golden wedding anniversary, still sitting over there.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jim McNulty (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agricul-


ture. Could the minister inform the house whether he has received an official request from the province of Ontario to participate in a survey to determine individual grower losses in the $3 million frost damage suffered by Niagara peninsula fruit growers?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no official request from the province of Ontario to participate in a survey, but there is correspondence between the minister of agriculture for Ontario and myself as to what steps might desirably be taken jointly by the two governments to assist growers who suffered serious losses from frost. At the moment, action to consider or implement a proposal cannot be taken pending further advice from the minister of agriculture for Ontario.


James Carroll Patrick McNulty: As a supplementary question, has the minister received a request from the Ontario grape growers' marketing board for low interest loans for growers affected by frost damage, and from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture for an emergency disaster farm loan act?


Harry William Hays: There have been proposals from the grape growers' marketing board and also from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which are being considered.



FORT ST. JOHN, B.C.-REPORTED REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I believe the Fort St. John farmers union has appealed to the minister in the light of crop conditions in the area. I wonder if the hon. gentleman has anything to report to the house in connection with this matter?


Harry William Hays: If the hon. gentleman is referring to what I think he is, the government of British Columbia will, in the first instance, have to initiate any measures which may be taken for those farmers. I am already in touch with the minister of agriculture in the government of British Columbia. We have this in mind, and discussions are going on.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I wish to direct to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in view of the statement made in the house yesterday by the hon. member for

Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) on a question of privilege, as recorded at page 2291 of Hansard, wherein he said:
I suggest in this question of privilege that if that order in council were now rescinded Banks would go back from whence he came.
Could Mr. Banks, the president of the S.I.U., be deported simply by rescinding that order in council which gave him landed immigrant status in Canada?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, since listening to the question of the hon. member yesterday I have had an opportunity to look into this matter, and I have reached the conclusion that the order in council may not be rescinded because its purpose, under section 5 of the act, was to provide for the admission of a person who had been rehabilitated. As the person concerned has now attained what we call Canadian domicile by virtue of a five year stay in Canada after being admitted, he may not be subject to a deportation order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is not that a legal opinion?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the hon. member for Greenwood had the floor.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: In connection with this matter I would like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether he has given consideration to the application of section I9(l)(a) of the act, under which deportation can be carried out without the necessity of any order in council if, upon proper inquiry, it is found that an individual has subverted democratic institutions in Canada; and I take it there is plenty of evidence of that in the Norris report.


Guy Favreau: I think the hon. member for Bow River was quite right in saying I probably would have been out of order in giving what might be a legal opinion to the house, but it was in answer to a question yesterday. It is true that under section 19(l)(a) of the act, should a person, even after having acquired Canadian domicile, advocate the overthrow of government by force or render himself guilty of such activity, he might be deported. However, so far as I am concerned for the time being, I have not read the report that way.
The hon. member may be sure that every consideration will be given to this aspect of the question as to the facts, but it really must be only in the case where subversive activities, within the meaning of advocating
Inquiries of the Ministry the overthrow of government by force, have been entered into. However, we will look into that question.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does not the minister believe that trade unions are democratic institutions, and is he not aware-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Andrew Brewin: -that the regulation includes democratic institutions as well as governments?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are entering into a debate. I believe the hon. member for Bow River had a supplementary question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I merely wanted to ask the minister whether his opinion was a legal one.
(Translation):



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Does the minister intend to open negotiations with the political and religious leaders of the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland, so that divorce bills be referred only to the Senate, or that some other kind of procedure be adopted?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the issuing of this legislation does not rest with the government, but rather with parliament. In fact, the leader of the house has already made a statement regarding the procedure to be followed in that case.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John N. Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Gaspe directed a question to my minister in connection with the excavations and explorations which would be carried out on the Perce rock by German mountain climbers. I am informed that the Canadian wildlife service has no information in that connection, but we expect to reply directly to the hon. member.
Hansard has attributed a preliminary reply to my hon. friend from Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Asselin); because of the noise and enthusiasm of hon members opposite, the stenographer did not correctly identify the member who made that answer.

Inquiries of the Ministry WORLD FAIR



REPORTED RESIGNATION OF CHAIRMAN OF CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Could the minister confirm or deny the report which was published in a Montreal daily to the effect that, during the time the Prime Minister was absent, he received, as Acting Prime Minister, the resignation of the chairman of the world fair, Mr. Paul Bienvenu?


Lionel Chevrier: When the Prime Minister was absent, I neither had the opportunity of meeting Mr. Paul Bienvenu nor, as far as I am concerned, could I have received his resignation either orally or in writing.
(Text):



INQUIRY AS TO INITIAL PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of his remarks two or three days ago with regard to the announcement of an initial price for the coming crop year, is the minister now prepared to inform the house as to what will be the initial price in the coming crop year for wheat grown in western Canada?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): As I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question, this is under consideration and I hope that in the next few days there will be an announcement.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder whether in his recent invasion of Saskatchewan he assured Liberal leader Ross Thatcher that when the crop year arrives the price of wheat will be up to $2-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley James Korchinski: -or are these statements uttered by Mr. Thatcher incorrect?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard.


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare which comes to mind-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I did not see the hon. member. Would he mind waiting his turn; there are quite a few hon. members ahead of him.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I believe you recognized the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, who is now speaking. I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare which comes to my mind because I am being continually dazzled by the brilliance of the lady minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Another honeymoon.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I would like to know whether the minister has any advice for parents in connection with protecting their children when watching the eclipse of the sun next Saturday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, it is a happy circumstance indeed that my hon. friend should hit upon asking this question today. The Department of National Health and Welfare has already issued two warnings to the public which the press outlets of the country have been good enough to carry; however, they do not appear to have been carried very prominently.
It is a matter of very grave concern to the public health authorities of this country that everybody should realize that on Saturday next there is to be an eclipse of the sun, which normally might be watched by adults and children. The strongest warning is given that great care must be taken in looking at this eclipse, for damage can be done to the eye which is painless when it occurs, of which the viewer has no warning, and which could be permanent. It is therefore most strongly urged upon everyone who might watch the eclipse that no reliance be placed upon household facilities such as smoked glass, sun glasses or exposed film. Indeed, it would be more appropriate for anybody interested in watching the eclipse to watch it when it is later presented on television.
(Translation):



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY AS TO REPLIES BY PROVINCIAL PREMIERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct

a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell the house how many premiers so far have accepted his invitation to attend the federal-provincial conference scheduled for July 26 and 27, to discuss the proposed municipal loan fund and contributory pension plan?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have had four written replies from the provinces accepting this date. I have had one oral communication that the date is satisfactory, and one reply saying that the date is not convenient for the premier of that province, but I hope he will be represented.
(Translation):


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. Has the suggestion of the Prime Minister to the premiers of the provinces, met, in some instances, with a refusal?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have received replies from the governments of Quebec and Nova Scotia accepting the date, and from two other provincial governments-New Brunswick, and I am not sure of the other. The premier of British Columbia has indicated that the date is not convenient to him personally. (Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? If a majority of the provincial premiers are not interested in attending the conference, will it nevertheless take place in Ottawa at the prescribed date? (Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: The premise on which the hon. gentleman's question is based, as is sometimes the case, is quite unfounded.


Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Prime Minister if the governments of the Yukon and Northwest Territories had been asked to participate, and he informed me no, that it was neither proper nor constitutional. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would be good enough to invite these two governments to at least sit in as observers at this very important conference.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think it is quite appropriate that the governments in question should be informed of what goes on. It is not customary, however, to invite them to conferences of this kind. They were not invited to conferences of this sort by the previous regime either. The suggestion that they should be there as observers is an interesting one, and I will look into it.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, referring to the answer of the Prime Minister with regard
Inquiries of the Ministry to the premier of British Columbia, did he suggest an alternative date or did he simply say that he was not attending?


Lester Bowles Pearson: He indicated that it would have been preferable for him to have had a date after the first week of August, but I have written him expressing the hope that he will send a representative on the date in question as the majority of the provinces apparently find that date acceptable.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I could add to the information I have already given about acceptances to attend the federal-provincial conference next week. The premier of Manitoba has written that the date is convenient to him, and we have had acceptances orally from the premiers of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland.
(Translation):



WITHDRAWAL OF PROVINCES FROM JOINT PROGRAMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, before we go on to the orders of the day, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State, in his capacity as leader of the house. Could he tell us whether the government intends to put on the order paper, before the anticipated adjournment, a measure allowing the provinces that wish to do so to withdraw from joint programs without loss of money, as was suggested yesterday by the President of the Privy Council?
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman has, I am sure, enough knowledge of the constitution and of our procedures to know for himself, without asking this question, that this is the kind of matter which would first be discussed at a federal-provincial conference, and there will be one in the autumn.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council concerning a reply he gave yesterday to the effect that the provinces could withdraw from joint programs. He also stated that no province had officially made such a request to the federal government.
Is he aware of requests having been made not necessarily to the President of the Privy Council himself but to the federal cabinet, by the authorities of the province of Quebec, in order to withdraw from these joint programs, under the conditions he described yesterday?
2338	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (President of the Privy Council):: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should now like to direct to the Prime Minister the question I put to the President of the Privy Council. Has he received any requests from the authorities of the province of Quebec in order to obtain a larger share of direct taxes in return for the federal government's withdrawal from joint programs? (Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I do not know of any direct request of that kind, but I should be glad to look into it.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I think I speak for the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard as well as myself when I inform you that we expect to have that riding back in our fold next time. I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Does the Department of National Defence intend to take action under the Official Secrets Act against the two Vancouver Province reporters who entered the Boundary Bay wireless station without giving their passes to the security guard and who took pictures of these defence installations?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we are looking into the facts of this case to see whether they are as alleged. If this report proves to have foundation we will then consider at once what action should be taken.



EXERCISE &quot;TOCSIN B&quot;


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a question of privilege, I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Defence Production to a discrepancy which is revealed in yesterday's Hansard. On page 2298 we find an answer given by the hon. gentleman to a question asked on the subject of exercise Tocsin B. The question was:
Was exercise Tocsin B carried out in the fall of 1981? If so, how many Soviet bombers were assumed to have taken part in this simulated attack?
The answer given was:
As the exercise did not involve interceptor forces it was not necessary to assume any specific number of enemy bombers.
I should like to point out that in a return to an order of the house brought down on February 12, 1962, on a motion of Mr. Pit-


man there was a reply to a question asking "What was the extent of the simulated attack in terms of (e) bombers attacking?" The reply states, among other things:
For exercise purposes it was assumed that 300 to 350 individual aircraft tracks were detected in the attack on North America.
Those two answers are certainly at variance. While I think it is serious enough to withhold information, I think it is even more serious when we are given information which contradicts information previously given in the house.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Defence Production):: I think the difference is more
apparent than real. The question asked was how many bombers? The answer given to Mr. Pitman was, none; not a given number of bombers, but individual aircraft tracks. This means tracks on radar screens, and one bomber passing over a series of radar observation points might produce as many as 20 or 30 tracks. So the number of bombers and the number of tracks are not necessarily the same. I think the information given to the hon. member was correct. No specific number of bombers either had to be assumed or was assumed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the question of privilege, if the hon. gentleman is correct the first answer was wrong, because the return to the order dated February 9, 1962 was specific. Question 5 asked: "What was the extent of the simulated attacks in terms of (e) bombers attacking?" The question did not have to do with tracks at all, and the answer was in reference to bombers attacking.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES WINNIPEG MAINTENANCE BASE    INQUIRY AS TO REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Poriage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, but in his absence I will address it to his congenial parliamentary secretary. A month * ago, that is to say on June 18, the Prime Minister and the transport committee of the cabinet gave a very receptive hearing to the Manitoba delegation in respect to the retention of the T.C.A. overhaul and maintenance base in Winnipeg. My question is, has the report of R. Dixon Speas and Associates been received to date and, if not, has the minister's office any indication when it may be expected?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this is a question I should like the minister himself to answer. The minister will

be absent until Monday next; in the meantime I will take the question as notice.
(Translation):



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. A. Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I should like to correct an error which appears on page 192 of the Parliamentary Guide, regarding the Dorchester constituency.
If we look at the election results in that county, we note that victory was attributed to a Conservative candidate although he even lost his deposit. Being credited with the victory is already too great an honour for leaving unnoticed that error as well as others which have slipped into the Parliamentary Guide.
In my opinion, this correction will contribute to clear up the doubt which the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Drouin) has in his mind at the moment, if we refer to the question of privilege he raised yesterday.
(Text):



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the government yet found a way to provide retroactive pay increases to former civil servants who may have retired after the effective date of such increases but before they were actually announced? I ask this question with respect to the increases announced last December 10, and also with respect to the increases announced two days ago.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows this is a very difficult point because it involves the question of where you draw the line. The government has spent a lot of time on this and has come to the conclusion that the cut-off date will be July 1, 1963, but it will not be made retroactive.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, but in his 28902-5-149
Inquiries of the Ministry absence I will direct it to his affable and efficient parliamentary secretary. In view of the report in the Liverpool Advance that the management of the C.N.R. ferry Bluenose has been turning down reservation applications despite loadings considerably less than capacity, will the Minister of Transport investigate the procedure used by the company when making reservations, with the hope of a change being made which will be beneficial to the company and to the travelling public?


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, this question will be transmitted to the attention of the minister.



NORTH SYDNEY-NEWFOUNDLAND    INQUIRY AS TO SECOND FERRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, but I see he is absent from the house, no doubt on other business, so may I direct it to his parliamentary secretary since notice has been sent to the office. For the information of the house, the country and the Secretary of State, can the minister advise how soon we can expect some action on the proposed second ferry between North Sydney and Newfoundland?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, did the hon. member not direct his question to the Acting Minister of Transport? Because I happen to be the acting minister. I apologize to the hon. gentleman, but someone handed me a note just as he began to speak and I did not hear all his question. However, I did hear about the subject, and it is one in which I take at least as great an interest as does the hon. gentleman. I believe there will be a decision about that in the very near future.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question of which I gave notice, and to which his parliamentary secretary may have the answer. Has there been a change in policy respecting airport parking lot franchises since the new government took over, particularly in Ottawa, and has this had the consequence of much larger parking fees as a result of the change in policy?


Jean-Charles Cantin: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I do not have the

Canada Pension Plan
answer to this question, but I will take it as notice and next Monday the hon. member will have the answer.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am
sorry to detain the house for a moment, but I promised to bring up this matter on behalf of a group of tourists. My question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. There is a great shortage of parking space on parliament hill during the changing of the guard, and at the same time there are usually vacant spaces in the diplomatic row. Would it be possible for these spaces to be used by tourists during the time when the guard is changed?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: I am glad this matter has been brought up. Officials of my department have been looking into this matter for the past two weeks, and we hope to be in a position to improve parking facilities on the hill very soon.



PENSIONS


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a comprehensive pension program to be known as the Canada pension plan and to provide among other things for the payment of pensions on an adjusted scale commencing at the option of the pensioner, at any age between 65 and 70 years; for the payment of pensions to surviving spouses commencing at any age after 65 years; for the progressive establishment of such pensions over an initial period averaging ten years in order to facilitate the adjustment of existing pension schemes to the new plan; 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; for the adjustment of pensions payable under the Old Age Security Act to co-ordinate such pensions with the new plan; and for the appointment and remuneration of such officers, clerks and employees as may be required for the due carrying out of the new plan; and to provide further that all expenditures under the new plan, additional to those required under the Old Age Security Act, shall be paid out of or reimbursed from contributions by employees, employers and self-employed persons.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In rising today to introduce this resolution dealing with the Canada pension plan I have the honour to speak to the implementation of one of the most important

and far reaching plans of action put forward by this or any other government. It is the natural next step in providing rounded welfare legislation for Canada. The whole record of the Liberal party in office has always been the introduction of legislation designed for the welfare of Canadians. Every major social advance made by parliament in this century has been made under a Liberal government. The legislation now before us, I am proud to say, will continue this tradition.
I should like briefly to express my personal gratitude to members of the public service for their devotion to duty and the long hours they have given to the development of this plan. Nor should I forget to say a word about the contribution of many of Canada's pension experts who, from the depths of the years of their experience, have offered advice and admonition to me, to my officials and to many members of the house who have been kind enough to bring their submissions to me.
The purpose of the Canada pension plan is to ensure, as was said in the speech from the throne, that all Canadians will have an opportunity to retire in security and with dignity. The legislation based upon this resolution is complex. Legislation as far reaching as this, as much a departure from the past as this is, must be drawn to produce its benefits as early as possible to achieve its goals without interfering with the body politic. Further, the parliamentary process, which was designed as a way in which all the people's representatives might take their part in such decisions, must be used in this case to full advantage.
In my view, Mr. Chairman, it is the government's responsibility to propose a scheme. It is then the responsibility of all members of parliament as the people's representatives to address themselves, without thought of partisan advantage-


Mr. Grafffey:: You have already been
partisan.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: -to the proposal; to modify, to amplify or to change, but always to act with the intent to cause improvement in the legislation. Each of us here has a responsibility to produce the best piece of legislation possible in every field. This is especially so when the legislation is such as that to which this resolution refers, legislation which will for the future affect almost every Canadian. For that reason I make no apology for saying that the contributory pension plan to which this government has bound itself is inflexible only in its main purpose. The government will therefore welcome from any member any contribution or suggestion genuinely designed to improve the legislation, particularly

as all other parties have already committed themselves to the principle and idea of contributory pensions.
I recall that in my early months in the house the then minister of justice, Mr. Fulton, took such an attitude and saw fit to adopt a couple of suggestions of mine which were then incorporated in legislation respecting capital and non-capital murder. Indeed, this co-operative attitude has been shown already in the government's approval in principle of several private members' bills which have been referred for study to committee.
I think it is fair to say to all hon. members that the government's pension scheme, introduced now so quickly after the opening of this session of parliament, has excited throughout the body politic a great deal of interest. The fact that the plan is intended in its application to cover the widest possible range of citizens is itself sufficient cause for this interest. Most economically advanced countries of the world have been moving toward this type of contributory wage related pension scheme for some time. The introduction in 1951 by the Liberal government of the day of the old age security program brought into effect in Canada, as all hon. members know, a flat rate scheme available to all at the age of 70 without a means test.
The present premier of Quebec had a lot to do with that plan. The present Secretary of State for External Affairs had a lot more to do with it. It was a logical and particularly apt step for pensions in Canada at that time. Unfortunately, however, in recent years some of the increases in payments made under this legislation have been based not upon increase in productivity, not upon progress of the economy, but only upon pure political expediency. This can no longer be countenanced.


William Heward Grafftey: Would the hon. lady permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is degrading to those who are recipients of old age security-


William Heward Grafftey: Would the hon. lady permit a question?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: -to find themselves used as political footballs-


William Heward Grafftey: Would the hon. lady permit a question?


The Chairman:: Order. Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat. He asked the minister whether he could pose a question and the minister continued to make her speech, so I assume she was not prepared to reply.


William Heward Grafftey: That is not the usual practice, Mr. Chairman.
28902-5-149i
Canada Pension Plan


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It is the only practice.


William Heward Grafftey: She should have the courtesy to say yes or no.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The minister has the floor.


William Heward Grafftey: No courtesy.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Those who cry courtesy might have the courtesy to wait until I have concluded to ask their questions. As I say, it is degrading to those who are recipients of old age security to find themselves used as political footballs, and it is arrant fiscal irresponsibility if such payments are not keyed to the progress of the economy. The country simply cannot continue to afford to pay attractive sums which have no reason for being except for their political sex appeal. Present old age security payments yield at best little more than subsistence levels. Our country has always recognized, through adopting the old age security legislation, the validity of that oldest of social responsibilities, that we support the aged of our community.
In a modern industrial society it is increasingly impossible for a family to care for its own aged. Of course, it is rejected by all Canadians that those who cannot be cared for by their immediate families should be shunted aside to fall upon public assistance, or worse, to be abandoned. Some may criticize the type of plan which we propose under this resolution because it is one where the contributor, while active in the working population, pays to the government to create a debt from the state to him for his own retirement years. In effect, under this plan each generation will provide for the one which has preceded it in building Canada. No matter in what way pensions are provided, this is in fact their economic and social significance.
As I mentioned earlier, all the major parties have already committed themselves in principle to a wage related contributory pension scheme. What then, one may ask, are the alternatives in designing such a scheme? Each party has gone on record, reflecting the generally held feeling in this country, that such a scheme must be comprehensive so that it applies to the widest possible group of Canadians, and it must be as inexpensive as possible while returning an adequate pension to the individual. It must be truly portable or transferable so that an individual Canadian may carry his benefits with him anywhere he may choose to live and work.
It is possible, Mr. Chairman, to construct a scheme which, in common with many of those offered by private pension companies, is completely funded; but this would put in the hands of the state tremendous sums of money which would be withdrawn or

Canada Pension Plan
used lor other purposes. No government plans are completely funded. In a public plan the contributor may rely upon the fact that so long as his country exists the continuous inflow of contributions under such a plan will assure him of his benefit rights on his retirement. These were the arguments balanced by the government in coming to its conclusion that this plan should not be funded; thus the plan is framed on a pay as you go basis. The plan, including the costs of administration, will be no charge at all upon the general revenue.
The Canada pension plan has important features which are new to this country. We cannot tell at this stage exactly how people will decide to use them. For example, we do not know how soon and in what numbers people will take advantage of the opportunity to start pensions before the age of 70. Nor do we know how many voluntary contributors will decide to take part in the plan. Neither of these factors affects the finances of the scheme in the long run. Whatever the decisions, the relation of benefits to earnings will settle out in a way that makes it safe to estimate that for the first 10 years the contribution rate will not need to be more than 2 per cent of earnings.
However, the calculations for the next few years are more uncertain. The ages people choose to begin pensions, and the number of volunteers who join, will have a relatively big effect on the short run finances of the scheme. Also, of course, the amount of time which parliament decides to take in discussing the legislation will influence the date at which collection of contributions starts, and therefore the contribution rate needed to finance the increase to $75 in the flat rate pension. Until there has been some preliminary discussion of this, Mr. Chairman, it is not proposed to set the exact date for starting the $10 increase to $75.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am sure the date is of some interest to hon. members opposite.


William Heward Grafftey: Another broken promise.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: May I say that I hope, sir, it will be early in 1964, to the disappointment of the hon. member for Brome-Missis-quoi. Because of the uncertainty as to the length of time the house may take in dealing with the matter, the government cannot yet fix the initial contribution rate more precisely than to say it will not be more than 2 per cent of earnings. Here I refer again to the total rate which will be divided between employers and employees. The rate for the employee alone will be not more than 1 per

cent, that is to say, a man whose annual earnings are $3,000 will pay up to $2.50 per month. The maximum contribution for anyone earning $4,000 a year or more will be not more than $3.33 per month.
It was decided at an early stage of the pension plan that a combination of compulsory and voluntary coverage would be the most acceptable and most workable method of achieving comprehensive coverage. How, then, to operate the comprehensive plan? Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, machinery already exists. As all hon. members are aware there is this machinery in the combined resources of the Department of National Revenue, my department and the unemployment insurance commission. It was decided, therefore, that this same machinery should, for simplicity, efficiency and cheapness, be utilized for registration at the time of the regular reissuing of unemployment insurance books and numbers by the unemployment insurance commission. This will also have the advantage that this same numbering system may be used.
Accordingly, since the next time for renumbering and reissuing the books has been scheduled for May 1964, it was concluded that the registration for contributors should be carried out at that time. This, Mr. Chairman, is the earliest practicable time, bearing in mind the tremendous administrative complexities of registering what is expected to be more than seven million contributors.
Then the coverage of this scheme, the Canada pension plan, is of every Canadian who can be included, bearing in mind some administrative problems. Broadly speaking, the only classes definitely excluded from coverage are those whose earnings are paid to them by their own spouses, for obvious reasons, members of the armed forces and casual employees. Employees of provincial governments may be included if the province so wishes, as may employees of foreign governments and international agencies.
The Canada pension plan is designed to pay benefits related to earnings. As all hon. members know, wages are not uniform across the length and breadth of our country. What is less than sufficient for subsistence in one part of the country may provide a much greater degree of comfort for the recipient in another part of the country. For that reason we should have no difficulty in agreeing here in committee that the pension plan should be one which upon retirement provides an income, bearing in mind the reduced costs of living on retirement, related to that enjoyed throughout an individual's productive life. This scheme is designed to do just that.
We already have in this country a flat rate scheme. The new wage related scheme is added

to it, and payments will be made in one lump sum of the two portions of pension, flat rate and wage related. This will mean that our retired, rather than as now supplementing the flat rate payment of $65 per month with their savings, if any, or public assistance, will have in the future an appreciably more generous income related to their earnings, up to an average level. It is, unhappily, not possible to apply this retroactively to all those who have taken or who are about to take their retirement. For this reason, and in order to provide a little more in the way of security for those who have now retired or will shortly be retiring, this government has pledged itself to the payment, from the contributions to this plan, of an additional $10 per month to each recipient of old age security.


William Heward Grafftey: That is not what you said during the election.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: This has always been the promise made by the Liberal party in the last two elections.


William Heward Grafftey: Wrong.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It has been the promise made by the leader of this party and now the leader of the government. There were some who said it was irresponsible to promise this increase. I have before me, Mr. Chairman, several newspaper clippings in which it is reported that the right hon. gentleman opposite ridiculed the Liberal scheme for promising this $75 per month pension plan.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I rise immediately on a question of privilege. At no time did I ridicule the increase. What I ridiculed was the promise of $250 or $260 per month without increasing taxation.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I, of course, accept what the right hon. gentleman says, as I am required to do in the house. However, I should like in passing to refer to a newspaper clipping from the Winnipeg Free Press dated March 4, 1963. The date line is Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, and this paragraph appears in the article:
He-
That is the former prime minister.
-did not mention the Liberal party in his context, but he did ridicule the Liberals for promising schemes such as a $75 per month pension plan, charging that Liberal promises in total would increase income tax for everyone by 40-50 per cent.
There are those who, like the right hon. gentleman in this chamber, hooted in derision at the suggestion that this payment might be made. I was surprised to note from his comments, following the Prime Minister's announcement in this chamber on Monday last
Canada, Pension Plan
that we would deal with this resolution today, that the right hon. gentleman has now swung so far in the other direction that, notwithstanding the whopping budgetary deficit which resulted at the hands of the last government, and notwithstanding the deficit at present in the old age security fund and the unemployment insurance fund-


William Heward Grafftey: I thought you said you were not going to be partisan. You are a disgrace to the old people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Heward Grafftey: She said she was not going to be partisan. What she is doing now is sheer hypocrisy.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. minister has the floor, and I suggest she should not be interrupted while she is making her statement.


William Heward Grafftey: A disgrace to the old people.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: While this government is committed to this increased payment at the earliest possible date, it is committed not to pay it out of general revenue but from a flow of contributions under the new contributory pension scheme. As I have said, it will be paid as quickly as possible, and it is hoped that will be early in 1964, within a year of this government taking office.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I think it should be remembered by those who cry shame-and certainly such a cry did not come from my predecessor in this office, who has been listening with some interest-that it is well known by those who have any facility or training in pension schemes of this complexity that in any country in the world where such a plan was introduced it has taken at least two years to do it. This government has taken three months. I say without partisan taint that the exact time of payment is dependant upon the speed with which this chamber adopts the plan.


An hon. Member:: Tell the truth.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In proceeding to tell the truth about this plan, as about all other things, it must be readily apparent, even to those such as the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) who obviously from his remarks knows so little about the field, that if payment of contributions were started immediately it would not be possible tomorrow to pay out, to anyone reaching retirement age, the full benefits of such a plan which has the aim of providing sufficient sums to enable people to retire in security and dignity. There has to be a period of earnings before benefits can be related to

Canada Pension Plan
earnings. There will be, as we have said throughout in our plans, ten years from its inception to the payment of full benefits, and this will permit the adjustment of pension plans already in existence. In the interim each person retiring will be paid a graduated sum, based upon the length and the amount of his or her contributions, plus the flat rate of $75 benefit.
It is increasingly common that those who are employed by others cease their employment and take their retirement at an age earlier than 70. For this reason, and in order to bridge the gap between earning and retirement years, the government has designed the plan to provide an option to each pensioner to draw his or her pension on a reduced rate from the age of 65 onward. It is anticipated that such options will begin at the earliest possible date, in January 1966.
There are those who will ask, why not start the contributions now? This would, of course, permit for earlier payments to all, but I suppose it need not be pointed out to hon. members of experience that the parliamentary system itself takes time for the preparation, discussion and passage of such legislation. It should be borne in mind that this is a highly complex scheme and requires a great deal of unseen administrative work, all very time consuming, and none of which may be commenced until parliament has given approval to the full legislative scheme. Forms and literature must be designed, tenders called and material produced. Forms must be prepared by punching for mass registration and setting up of pension records. Then these will have to be distributed to the U.I.C. offices. Forms will have to be distributed to an estimated 350,000 employers. Temporary field staffs have to be recruited and trained to complete this phase. A master key punching of about 7 million account records has to be completed, and after that the numbers and forms must be distributed to employers, some of whom will have to redesign their payroll records before they start paying the contributions.
The machinery of government, which I have already mentioned and which is already in being, has to be used because of the otherwise tremendous outlay and delay, and we have to use it without interfering with the regular responsibilities of the U.I.C. offices in looking after the unemployed and paying unemployment claims, together with the regular responsibilities of national revenue in the income tax field.
All these considerations place the earliest date for the commencement of payment of contributions at October, 1964, and this only if this legislation is treated with dispatch by this house. Normally one would only anticipate payment of the increased old age pensions to
IMiss LaMarsh.]
be made after these contributions have begun to flow in, after October, 1964. However it is contemplated that the contributions, once started, will produce enough revenue within a fiscal period to enable payments to start very early in 1964.
I can see a question in some hon. members' eyes; just how much will the pension benefits be? Average earnings in the country are approximately $4,000 per year, and for this reason this figure has been chosen as the starting level. All earnings up to this level will be used in computing contributions. The plan is designed, when the transition period of 10 years is over, to pay a pension of 30 per cent of the earnings upon which contributions have been made, if taken at the age of 70, and upon a reduced basis if taken at any time from 65 to 69.
This basis has been so designed that the average person will receive the same total payment from the age he starts his pension until his death, whichever starting age he chooses. His lifetime earnings will be the basis for the scale of the payments, and here is a most important feature. The average of these earnings will be adjusted by an index representing the general level of salaries and wages, so that he will be receiving benefits on the basis of the equivalent receipt of earnings in the year of his retirement. The effect will be that the Canada pension plan will permanently provide a satisfactory standard of pension for those with earnings up to the average level. This $4,000 level will be adjusted with changes in the general level of wages and salaries, and will do away with the incentive to barter for the favour of the old people of this country just before an election.
When the plan has passed its transition stage a man whose wage has been $4,000 or more will receive a monthly income related pension at age 70 of $100 plus the flat rate portion, totalling $175 per month. If his wife is also a contributor she will receive up to the same amount. If a man and his wife, both contributors, choose instead to retire at age 65, each will receive up to $118 per month in pension.
What of the widow and widower? There is here, some hon. members will be pleased to know, complete equality, and each spouse receives the same treatment regardless of sex. Either survivor of a marriage may be sure of receiving somewhat more than half the retirement income of man and wife together. This, of course, applies to survivors of 65 years or over.
It might be of some interest to hon. members to compare the relative benefits of the United States social security plan with those of the

Canada pension plan. In each case, at present levels, this proposed Canadian plan is more generous than the United States plan. It should be borne in mind that the figures which I will be using are of retirement at the age of 65. Our benefits are greater at the age of 70 years, as I previously explained-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister, but her time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Lucien Lamoureux: Does the committee give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: May I thank hon. members for their courtesy in allowing me to complete my remarks, Mr. Chairman. The table to which I made reference indicates that for average monthly earnings of $100-and this, of course, is at the end of the transition period, when the plan is in full operation- in Canada benefits at age 65 will be $71; at age 70, $105, as compared with the United States benefits at the same income level of $59. At $200 monthly the Canadian benefit at age 65 will be $91; at age 70, $135, as compared with the United States benefit of $84. At $300 monthly the Canadian benefit at age 65 will be $111; at age 70, $165, as compared with the United States benefit of $105. Three hundred and thirty three dollars is the maximum level for monthly earnings. At that level Canadians will be able to obtain $175 a month if they are 70; $118 a month if they are 65. The upper limit of the United States pension plan at an income level of $333 per month is $112.
It will be seen from this scheme, Mr. Chairman, that this government has no intent to pre-empt the field of private planning for one's own retirement. There are many who will still wish to provide additional benefits over and above those to be provided under this plan. Indeed, the whole field above $4,000 in annual income is left open to private endeavour. It is obvious that in so far as these plans are concerned-that is, private pension plans, many of which are already in existence in Canada-employers and employees will have options either to keep them in existence, over and above the Canada pension plan, or to adjust them. What course will be followed in each instance is for the individual employer and his employees to decide, probably by negotiation. Since many such labour-management negotiations are for a period of one year or longer, it will be of advantage for us to provide specific information at the earliest possible date by the passage of this legislation.
Canada Pension Plan
Unfortunately this plan cannot provide for the wanted portability of private plans. In order to do this, at least upon a provincial basis, the province of Ontario has already enacted regulatory legislation and has expressed itself to be in accord with the goal of full portability of pension plans. Other provinces have been looking at this development with interest; they have expressed interest in this approach, so much so that some are now considering the adoption of similar plans. It is hoped that some uniformity might be obtained in order to make such private plans portable on a Canada-wide basis, just as will be this Canada pension plan by its very nature. However, the Ontario type of legislation, if enacted by each province of Canada, could not produce comprehensive coverage, nor could it provide quickly fair sized pensions for people of up to average earnings who retire in the next decade or two. Speaking from memory, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is some 40 years before the full benefit of the Ontario type regulatory plan could be obtained by an employee in that province.
The fact that this type of plan cannot provide benefits for those who retire in the near future appears to have been recognized in both Ontario and Quebec. On June 10 last the premier of Quebec expressed himself in his legislative assembly, when he was discussing pension schemes in answer to a question from the leader of the opposition there, as follows:
There are needs and attitudes which finally impose themselves in spite of what is said in constitutions. For instance, one cannot indefinitely deprive the population of a province of services from which it could constitutionally benefit from a central government if nothing equivalent is even offered to it.
Then on March 26 this year Mr. Cecile, the Ontario minister of welfare-my opposite number in that province-expressed his government's view in the legislative assembly in this way:
I have advocated for many years the inauguration of a compulsory social security maintenance scheme designed largely along the lines of the United States plan. I am pleased, indeed, to learn that the three major political parties in Canada are all agreed that not only is such a plan practical, but necessary. I hope the time is not too far distant when a social insurance scheme becomes effective in this country so that every working individual may obtain all the advantages that might be made available to a restricted group of employees under the more limited approach of a portable pension plan.
It seems to me that we in this house should take some cheer from this fact. I am sure this presages Ontario's full co-operation at the meeting of provincial premiers next week in bringing the benefits of the Canada pension plan to the people of Canada; if not from this government, perhaps from another.

Canada Pension Plan
In a country such as Canada, where there are concurrent areas of responsibility in the welfare field as in others, the closest cooperation between the federal government and the governments of the provinces is necessary for the social welfare of the Canadian people. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, it is known to all hon. members that there are other welfare programs in which the provinces and the federal government co-operate to provide joint action. For some time it has been apparent that these programs, the cost of which is in the main shared on a 50-50 basis, should be restudied with a view to fitting them to current conditions. In addition many provinces have their own independent welfare programs in which this government does not share in any way.
Of course this realm of action lies outside the scope of the Canada pension plan, but it cannot be ignored in a rounded welfare program for Canada. This is one of the important fields for discussion at the conference with the provinces which is to be held next week, and is a field referred to by the Prime Minister in his letter to the premiers of June 20 last. It is appreciated by the government that it is only fair to the provinces to consider the effect upon them of our moving ahead with this legislation. In particular, the increase in old age security payments to $75 will create a demand for parallel increases in shared programs which we have with the provinces. This will be one of the things we will wish to discuss. I hope, in another realm, that the provinces will look with favour on what I consider an area of need, and that is to provide an extension of assistance programs to single women and widows at age 60.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, a federal-provincial conference is especially necessary because there is another field where the close co-operation of the provinces and this government is most desirable. As a part of this Canada pension plan, ideally there would be provision in it for benefits to be paid at least to three classes of persons not now covered. There would be widows with dependant children; those contributors who, because they become disabled before reaching the age of 65 and no longer have regular earnings are now covered only by assistance programs, and orphans of contributors. It is now generally agreed that these are areas of need. Most provinces have indicated in the past a readiness to discuss plans for those in such circumstances. There is opinion that such programs, since they do not apply to "old age pensions"-that is the wording of the British North America Act-are not within the domain of the federal government,

and that legislation to deal with these cases on a Canada-wide basis would require amending our constitution upon the assent of the provinces. If agreement can be reached with the provinces-on these three types of classes, it is to be hoped that such provisions may soon be written into the Canada pension plan. This is an urgent matter for consultation with the provinces in the pension field.
In the time at my disposal today, Mr. Chairman, it has not been possible to deal fully with such a complex proposal as the Canada pension plan. Nor, I think we would all agree, is it fair to expect hon. members opposite to have a considered opinion on the basis of the resolution and these few remarks. Therefore, for the benefit of all hon. members and for the benefit of interested people in the country and the provincial governments, I have had prepared a supplementary outline of the nature and scope of the Canada pension plan. With the leave of the committee, Mr. Chairman, I would request that this outline be permitted to be printed as an appendix to Hansard. I am also prepared to send now to the leaders of each party a copy of this outline. I have as well a supply which might be tabled, printed in English and in French, which are available for any interested member. If leave of the committee is given, Mr. Chairman, then I should like at this time to have these documents distributed to interested members and I will table them accordingly.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lucien Lamoureux: The document to which the minister refers, of course, cannot be tabled now in committee. It can be circularized and left informally at the table, but official tabling for the purpose of insertion in Hansard could be done when the Speaker is in the chair.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: At the conclusion of my remarks it might be possible briefly to revert to motions in order that it might be tabled, and I would be pleased to do this in order that it is made available to everybody.
Before concluding my brief remarks, Mr. Chairman, may I repeat what I said at the outset. The Liberal party and this government are pledged to a wage-related contributory scheme. Since taking office, we have been working steadily to explore the best type of scheme for Canada. We believe that the scheme now placed before parliament will commend itself to the house, but I should like once again to make it clear that we welcome comments of hon. members and any other interested persons which are aimed at producing the best possible plan for all retired Canadians. I also hope that in the

period before parliament gives final approval to this legislation interested members of the public, including, of course, representatives of employers and workers and of those who are concerned in the financing of private pension plans, will make it their business to assist in advising me. My officials and I will, as always, be glad to study their views.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, before the hon. lady takes her seat may I ask a question. Did I understand her to say that it is not the intention to vest the funds collected from employers and employees; that no fund will be set up? Or did I misunderstand?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, that is correct. It is not a fund; it is a pay as you go plan.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the minister explain how it is proposed to do this?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, as the minister has said, there not having been available until this time any summary of the general plan, detailed examination will be quite impossible. However, I think there are some general remarks which I can make at the very beginning. The plan as enunciated is far from clear. There is a great deal of window dressing in it, hopes expressed for the future, and hopes as to what may be achieved 10 years from now.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: You did not do anything in six years.


John George Diefenbaker: It was said suggestions would be welcome from the opposition. There was a plea for non-political and non-partisan consideration. The less said about that the better, on the basis of some of the remarks which were made. Looking at the plan in its entirety, one could almost compare it with an iceberg of which only the tip can be seen above the water. Let me say this immediately, that in every part of this nation the old people will be thoroughly dismayed by the fact that the promises, direct and implied, that they would receive $10 a month-


Mr. Winkler:: For votes.


John George Diefenbaker: -immediately by way of increase in pension is not going to be achieved. Indeed, all through the election campaign that was used as an argument. We have stated that social security advanced greatly in amount during the period the government which I had the honour to lead was in office, but that social security could not be advanced unless it was taken out of the additional earnings and the expansion of the economy. That was not the attitude of the Liberal party in the election campaign.
I have received a number of letters. One was given to me since the hon. lady started 28902-5-150
Canada Pension Plan
to speak. It comes from an old age pensioner from British Columbia and says this:
I and many other senior citizens with O.A.P. want to thank you for exposingwhat he calls
-the diabolic scheme, the plan to get votes by offering and promising payment within 30 days after the election of an increase of $10 in old age pensions.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: That will be the attitude in every part of this country.


Stanley Ronald Basford: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes. Would the right hon. gentleman obey the rules and identify the letter he is reading?


John George Diefenbaker: I will be glad to table it. If the hon. gentleman wants the actual words I will be glad to table the letter. After all, he is entirely correct in that, and I was hoping that some hon. member would ask that question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: It is available for tabling, and I will do so either now or at the conclusion of my remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Now.


John George Diefenbaker: Might I table this letter, sir, at the request of the hon. gentleman?


Lucien Lamoureux: We have the same situation here as we had a moment ago. It cannot be tabled at this time. It may be left at the table for the availability of the members.


John George Diefenbaker: I would be very glad to quench the thirst for dependable information on the part of the hon. gentleman, which must be satisfied and at the earliest opportunity.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that the right hon. gentleman should obey the rules and identify the letter he is reading. We want to be sure that we are not having any more forgeries.


John George Diefenbaker: All I can say to the hon. gentleman is that his mind reveals a great interest in the subject possibly for good reason.
Now, sir, the purpose of this debate was to unveil a plan to give the provinces the opportunity which they should have had before it was brought before this house, namely that of consultation and consideration. Indeed, the present government offered that consultation

Canada Pension Plan
in this work of art entitled "Canada's Liberal path to prosperity, progress and peace-the Pearson Plan", where at page 12 it says this:
A Liberal government would give prompt consideration to a national contributory pension scheme co-ordinated with existing provision for retirement and old age security. The pensions would begin at 65 and be based upon federal contributions as well as upon contributions by employees, employers and self-employed. This is a highly complex problem requiring the agreement of the provinces, but we would act as quickly as is consistent with establishing a really sound and effective scheme in the general interest.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: May I ask the right hon. gentleman a question?


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to have any of these interruptions. I sat quietly while the hon. lady spoke and I am asking for the same consideration.
A moment ago, the hon. lady said something should be done for women-something should be done for unmarried women and widows. How far removed is this plan from the promise made in these words, to be found on page 11:
There is a serious gap in provisions for old age-one which particularly affects women workers. Many companies retire their women workers when they reach the age of 60 and the men at 65, but old age assistance is not available to anyone under the age of 65. For unmarried women and widows we would make it available at 60.
That was the promise. And that promise is being implemented today by undertakings to see whether the provinces will do what was promised in this policy summary to which I have referred.
I was interested in another aspect. One would almost think that creation began with the Liberal party-that nothing had ever been done in the field of social security except by the Liberal party. I do not intend to go into that today, except to say-


Some hon. Members:: Ah.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no, I am familiar with that old mythology, those myths which members opposite repeat over and over again until finally they begin to believe them themselves. No party has a monopoly of social justice. A short review of history from the days of Macdonald shows that throughout the years each political party has made its contribution in this regard. When I look back to the days of Macdonald I find that the Liberal party of that day opposed trade unions. They were entirely opposed to such a system being built up on behalf of labour. Does this mean that the Liberal party carries that stigma forever? As far as social security legislation is concerned, workmen's compensation provisions and the like, it was first introduced into the country by a Conservative government in the province of Ontario. After all, one would

think there was in the hearts of those so-called Liberals something different from what is possessed by other human beings.


Some hon. Members:: True.


John George Diefenbaker: One has only to state that proposition to understand how ridiculous it actually is. I repeat: This announcement today will prove a disappointment to the old people across this nation who were callously deceived by promises made during the election campaign by those who sit opposite.
I was tremendously interested in the homily on political honesty to which we were treated.
I felt the hon. lady did protest too much when she said that increases were based on other than political considerations. All I know is this: All through the election campaign the older people of this nation felt they had a true commitment from the Liberal party in this regard. They believed they had a commitment not only in general terms but in actuality. The hon. lady spoke of increases in the old age pension and social security payments as something which should be entirely based on economic considerations. What about 1957? You may remember, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. gentleman who is now Secretary of State for External Affairs took a strong stand at that time in this regard. The Prime Minister followed suit, because he was a member of that government. They were boasting of their surpluses; boasting of an expanding economy. The cost of living had been going up seriously and dangerously for five or six years. But they said at that time that $6 was enough for the old people of this nation. The economy at that time, so they said, was expanding. Yet at that very time they refused any further increase. All kinds of explanations were given. One of them was supplied by the Hon. Walter Harris, who was minister of finance. He said: If we give them more than $6 there will be a dangerous trend toward inflation. That was the excuse. They thought they could get away with it.
During the period in which the government of which I was the head was in office, we expended in this country on social security sums far and beyond those which had ever been expended before. My hon. friend who is sitting beside me did more on behalf of social security-and I am measuring this on the basis of the amounts which were made available in this connection-than had ever been done before under any other government in a period of 50 years or more. He will deal with that in detail, later. We increased the amount of social security benefits, old age pensions, soldiers' pensions, old age security payments and so on. In 1919, the Liberal party promised health insurance, and they won several elections afterwards on the strength

of their promise. They finally brought it in in 1957, subject to a qualification that it would require the consent of the majority of the provinces. That is as far as they went. When we came in it was one of the things which added to the difficulty of the financial situation in which we found ourselves, the amount of the expenditure we had to make in this connection in the first year being about $170 million and increasing year by year thereafter. If it had not been for the increases in social security payments and the assistance given to the provinces to enable them to discharge their responsibility, we would have had a deficit in no one year between 1957 and 1962.
A belief in social security and social justice is not something I have acquired in recent years. I have taken the same stand throughout. All of us are affected by the days of our childhood and youth, and I fully realize what the difference would have been had there been in effect something of the social security that was beginning to expand among all political parties after 1926.
As far as many social security matters are concerned, it is of interest that the government of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett brought in legislation on hours of work and vacations with pay as well as an unemployment insurance measure. But when the Liberal party came into power in 1955 the first thing they did was to submit the matter to the courts and to appoint counsel to argue that these measures were unconstitutional. Then they took years thereafter before introducing similar measures.


Mr. Matheson:: Were they constitutional?


John George Diefenbaker: I believe now as I said in 1944, we must go forth to new horizons of social justice. Today the opportunity comes to us as it has come to few men in few generations to take part in the forward march of the common man. Tremendous changes are taking place. The state must guarantee and underwrite equal access to security, to education, to nutrition and to health to all. That assurance is inexorable through the awakening of the spiritual being of man everywhere, and the recognition by all men of their responsibilities for the welfare of every other man, not only within their own state but beyond its confines.
I am not going to give the quotations today because there will be fuller opportunity later; but throughout we in this party have followed the course of expanding social security in this nation. When we came into office the human betterment needs of Canadians had been neglected to such an extent that Canada lagged behind most of the nations in the western world in the care of those who, through no fault of 28902-5-1504
Canada Pension Plan
their own, were unable to meet even their most modest needs. Not once but twice in the five years we were in office we increased old age pensions, blind, disability, war veterans and other pensions. We brought these matters before parliament in order to rectify the dilatory tactics of the former administration in meeting a serious social security problem.
I am not going into the statistical record, but during our period in office we increased human betterment payments from the national treasury to the average Canadian by about 80 per cent. That is a record which indicates something of our purposes, our aims and our intentions. All of these things, disabled pensions, extra old age assistance and so on, will be dealt with by others in this debate. I shall do no more than refer to this fact. In the field of health and welfare the amount of payments in 1956-57 was $885 million and in 1962-63 expenditures were $1,900 million, an increases of 115 per cent. And so I could go on citing the whole field of social justice during a time when many argued that there should not be any expansion in social security however far behind other nations we had fallen up to 1957.
Mention was made of the United States by the hon. lady. It is perhaps useful to compare the position of Canada in relation to the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. It is very difficult to get comparable data. The data for 1949-50 and 1956-57 are not exactly comparable with that for 1958-59 and 1959-60. But these are the figures. In 1949-50 the percentage of Canada's national income expended on social security was 7.8. In 1956-57 it was 8.7 per cent and by 1960-61 it was approximately 12 per cent. Some figures for other countries are: the United Kingdom, 12.5 per cent; New Zealand, 13.9 per cent and the United States 7.6 per cent.
I said a moment ago that no one had a monopoly of the feeling for others. I remember so well, however, the attitude and philosophy of the Liberal party in 1957 when the then member for Eglinton protested that the slight increase of $6 would not be effective until July 1. A moment ago the hon. lady said there should not be an increase in an election year. They did it themselves that year. They thought they could get away with $6, and the same group of six-buck boys is riding again. This time they promise a manna in the future. At that time I expressed myself in these words, as found on page 2774 of Hansard for March 28, 1957:
As far as old age pensions are concerned, we believe the increase is totally inadequate for the needy; it is niggardly and paltry. Twenty cents a day will do nothing to help the needy among the old age pensioners of this nation. The increase

Private Bills
of $6 per month simply will not meet their desperate need; and with the government spending so extravagantly and so profligately in other directions there are no words with which one could describe its disregard of the needs of our senior citizens.
We proceeded to increase these pensions subsequently. One of the most unusual explanations that was given by anyone opposite was made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill). You know, he believes in two flags, and one thing and other like that. I am sorry he is not here today. On October 25, 1957, when we increased the old age pension by $9 a month, he said as found on page 427 of Hansard,-and listen to this for a philosophy:
I am going to support it, but it does present a real problem for all of us who are conscientious representatives of constituents on the Atlantic seaboard. The effect of the legislation the government is now proposing will be-perhaps not for anyone more than myself and the hon. members for Burin-Burgeo and Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador-to give to the retired adults in many of our communities larger incomes than those of the working members of their families who have to contribute through the sales tax toward the payment of these pensions.
There was a philosophy. Only one with a two-flag mentality could come out with an ejaculation like that.


Lucien Lamoureux: I regret that I have to interrupt the right hon. gentleman, but it being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members business pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Minister of National Health and Welfare leave to table the documents to which she referred in committee of the whole?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of document referred to, see appendix to Hansard for July 19.]



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: Since there are a number of private bills standing on the order paper for consideration in committee of the whole, is it agreed that in accordance with section 1 of standing order 54, they be referred to the committee in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-ll, respecting the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Western Canada-Mr. More.
Bill No. S-18, to incorporate Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec-Mr. Wahn.
Bill S-19, to incorporate The Union of Slavic Churches of Evangelical Christians and Slavic Baptists of Canada-Mr. Smith.

Bill No. S-21, to incorporate Ukrainian Canadian Foundation of Taras Shevchenko- Mr. Mandziuk.
Bill No. S-24, respecting The Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Canada-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. S-23, respecting The Canada Board of American Missions of The United Lutheran Church in America-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. S-8, respecting Quebec Fire Assurance Company-Mr. Forest.
Bill No. S-22, to incorporate Fidelity Mortgage and Savings Corporation-Mr. Morison.
Bill No. S-20, respecting General Mortgage Service Corporation of Canada-Mr. Wahn.
Bill No. S-13, to incorporate Standard Trust Company-Mr. Wahn.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of the whole on Bill No. S-12, respecting Ukrainian National Federation of Canada-Mr. Mandziuk-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: For the information of hon. members the amendments proposed to this bill, as recommended in the fifth report of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, are printed at pages 221 and 222 of Votes and Proceedings of July 17.
On clause 1:


Mr. Macdonald:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay passage of this bill but I wish to mention a question of principle which was very much discussed in committee and which it might be useful to put on public record. May I first say that the members of the committee were greatly impressed with the presentation made by the sponsors of the bill, both in this house and in the other place, and with the very able assistance we received from the parliamentary counsel.
The question of principle to which I want to make reference is that incorporated in the proposed clause 8A (2). If I might summarize it in this way, there is conferred upon the central body the power itself to incorporate further corporations, thereby involving a delegation of the crown's right to incorporate. At the time the committee considered this there was general agreement among members, including the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and hon. members on this side of the house, that they were concerned about the possibility that a number of precedents might be set up, by which this power might be more greatly used.
At the time it was considered in committee it was disclosed to us that there had been three other examples in which this particular power had been conferred, all in connection with religious institutions, and it was agreed by all members of the committee

that the Ukrainian National Federation of Canada was no less entitled to this power. However I think I am expressing the views generally held by members of that committee in saying they would be unhappy to see this particular provision being brought forward in connection with other organizations whose beneficial purposes and bona fides are less obvious than they were in this particular case.
Therefore I would like to lodge a caution, for the benefit of others who might be bringing bills forward, that there is a general feeling that this particular power, that of delegating to a corporate body the right itself to create corporations, should not be too widely used in bills brought before this house.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Bill reported, and read the third time and passed.



SECOND READINGS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-25, respecting the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto-Mr. Wahn.

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-28, to incorporate Allstate Life Insurance Company of Canada.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. member sponsoring this bill through the house. Can he tell us who are the majority owners of this insurance company?


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, 75 per cent of the stock will be owned by the Allstate Life Insurance Company, a United States firm. Twenty five per cent-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It must be understood that the hon. member is now closing the debate.


Gilles Grégoire: Oh, no, Mr. Speaker. (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, it is just that we want to ask a question about this bill, the answer to which will determine our stand.
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed by the house that the hon. member shall have the opportunity to answer this particular question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) that 75 per cent of the ownership of the stock of this proposed corporation will be held by Allstate Life Insurance Company, a United States company. Twenty five per
Private Bills
cent will be held by Simpsons-Sears Limited of Canada. The situation is that Allstate Life, the United States company, is actually owned 100 per cent by Sears-Roebuck, and the Canadian company of Simpsons-Sears Limited is 50 per cent owned by Sears-Roebuck; so it works out that about 87 4 per cent of the stock will be issued to the United States Allstate Life firm. That actually will not be the way it will be, but in effect that will be the equitable ownership. As to the remaining 12-2- per cent, Simpsons Limited of Canada will own it. There is another provision with respect to non-voting participating preference stock, 8 per cent of which will go to employees, who of course might be Canadians; so there may be Canadian ownership of somewhat more than 124 per cent, depending on the result.
Perhaps I should give a little more elucidation in view of the hon. member's question. Bill No. S-28, to incorporate this new Canadian life insurance company with the English name of Allstate Life Insurance Company of Canada and, in French, Allstate du Canada, Compagnie d'Assurance-Vie, is similar to Bill No. S-12 introduced at the last session, which bill was not passed prior to dissolution. The only change is in the addition of the French name. As many hon. members know, Allstate is the name of two insurance companies in the United States. They are, as I said, both owned by the Sears-Roebuck company. In January of 1953, when Sears-Roebuck and Simpsons Limited formed Simpsons-Sears Limited, there was an informal agreement or understanding that Simpsons-Sears Limited would eventually acquire an interest in the insurance business in Canada of the two United States Allstate companies. In pursuance of this agreement there was incorporated by parliament in 1960 the Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, which was given power to write all lines of insurance in Canada other than life. At the present time both United States companies-that is, Allstate Insurance Company, which writes all types of fire and casualty policies, and the Allstate Life Insurance Company, which writes life policies-are carrying on business in Canada very successfully. Their history in Canada is that in 1949 the fire and casualty company acquired a licence under the Foreign Insurance Companies Act and commenced its operations here on a major scale in 1953. Its annual premium volume is now in excess of $16 million, representing about 4.8 per cent of all automobile insurance in Canada, and a much lower percentage of fire and casualty lines. This company has approximately 250,000 Canadian policyholders at the present time; that is, the fire and casualty company. In 196o' the other company, the life company, acquired

Private Bills
a licence, also under the Foreign Insurance Companies Act, permitting it to write life policies in Canada.
The Allstate Life company has approximately $32,500,000 of life insurance in force in Canada at the present time, with approximately 3,400 policyholders. It is the business of this life company that it is proposed shall be acquired by the incorporation contemplated in this bill. If the incorporation of this Canadian life insurance company be granted, then it is intended that the holdings of the United States Allstate Life Company in Canada shall be transferred to the new Canadian company as of January 1, 1964.
I may say to the hon. member that the Allstate offices in Canada, both firms, are now staffed 100 per cent by Canadians. In addition several Canadians have gained their experience here and now fill important executive positions with the company in the United States. Allstate now employs about 700 people in Canada and it is expected that in the next five years they will employ about 1,000 Canadians. The company maintains offices in most cities of Canada and it is well known. It also maintains sales offices in the Simpsons-Sears department stores. In 1960 the Sears-Roebuck company and Simpsons-Sears Limited-I know this is rather confusing-carried on discussions as to the implementation of the informal agreement they made in 1953. After these discussions the Sears-Roebuck company offered to sell to Simpsons-Sears Limited an interest, not exceeding 50 per cent, in the Canadian business of Allstate; but Simpsons-Sears Limited, in view of its capital commitments, certain commitments it had undertaken for extending its mail order and departmental store business, decided to purchase a 25 per cent interest. To permit Simpsons-Sears to acquire this interest it was decided to incorporate Canadian companies which would acquire the Canadian Allstate business. The shares of these companies would be owned, as I said, as to 75 per cent by Allstate and, through Allstate, by Sears-Roebuck and Company, and as to 25 per cent by Simpsons-Sears Limited. As the shares of Simpsons-Sears are in turn owned 50 per cent by Simpsons Limited and 50 per cent by Sears-Roebuck and Company, this will result in Simpsons Limited having, as I say, 12| per cent interest, and Sears-Roebuck an 87i per cent interest in the Canadian business of Allstate. These percentages were arrived at without taking into account the 8 per cent interest represented by non-voting participating preference shares which will be held primarily by Canadian employees in the Simpsons-Sears profit-sharing fund. So it 
will readily be seen, Mr. Speaker, that both the Allstate companies have the right to do business in Canada, in any event, and that by the formation of the two Canadian companies and transfers of assets to them there will result somewhat more than 12J per cent Canadian ownership of the Allstate business, where there is presently no ownership whatsoever.
The two Canadian companies-that is, the one already incorporated and the one proposed by this bill-will each have nine directors, a majority of whom must under the law be' Canadian citizens residing in Canada. The original directors of this company, the ones applying for this incorporation, are all Canadian residents and five out of six of them are Canadians. It is planned that Mr. John Atkinson, a Canadian, shall be president of the two Canadian companies and that the management will continue to consist wholly of Canadians. The operation of the Canadian companies will to a large extent be carried on independently of the United States companies, which is consistent with the United States companies' intention to decentralize their operation. It will readily be seen by all hon. members, Mr. Speaker, that the acquisition of an interest in the Allstate business was an inducement to Simpsons Limited back in 1953 to enter into the agreement with the Sears-Roebuck company, and that this proposed incorporation will falcilitate the proper carrying out of this undertaking which the Allstate and the Sears-Roebuck people made at that time to the Canadian firm. Mr. Speaker, if the new life insurance company is not incorporated, the life business will have to continue as at present wholly-owned in the United States. Or in the alternative, it will have to seek a provincial incorporation, and that would be less desirable than a Canadian charter in the view of the applicants, the petitioners.
The present Canadian management and staff are most anxious to obtain separate Canadian incorporation. This will provide a much greater sense of identity than is possible at the present time when the Canadian operation is being carried on as a branch of the United States company. Incorporation in Canada will also permit a separate Canadian profit-sharing plan to be developed which, in view of the faster rate of growth of the Canadian part of the business over that in the United States, should prove highly advantageous to Canadian employees. They are the ones who want this incorporation and are most enthusiastic about Canadianizing it. That is another reason for the dual name.
I submit to all hon. members that there is some gain here in the form of at least a one

eighth Canadian participation in the ownership. It is not a large gain but it does give Simpsons Limited a fixed and definite interest in the life insurance operations in Canada of the Sears-Roebuck operation where none now exists. If the bill receives second reading it is my intention to move that it be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce, where it can be examined in detail.
(Translation) :


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I must tell you frankly that the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) has not convinced me at all. He would like to Canadianize the Allstate company, but the owners and stockholders remain nevertheless foreigners and this, on the very day when we are informed that the American government has just imposed a 15 per cent tax on American investments in 22 countries of the world including Canada.
There are now in our country many life insurance, fire insurance and automobile insurance companies, several of which are Canadian undertakings, if we consider their staff as well as the capital invested.
Now, the staff of the company the incorporation of which is proposed may be Canadian, but on the other hand, the capital stock is 87-| per cent American-owned; in other words the profits it makes will go to foreign countries.
What is the amount of money that will flow out of Canada each year? I wonder whether the hon. member sponsoring this bill has given a thought to that before introducing the bill. What is the amount of benefits that will go out of Canada each year to be distributed to the owners of the stock of this company? Of course substantial amounts will be added to those that are already flowing out of this country. In fact, an estimated amount of over $1,200 million is leaving Canada every year to be distributed to citizens in foreign countries, in the form of profits, interests, benefits and dividends.
As the majority of owners of this company are citizens of the United States, they will be anxious to draw their benefits and to bring them back, so to say, to their own country.
Mr. Speaker, there are several Canadian companies selling insurance. Then why should we accept all foreign companies which would like to enter into the insurance business in Canada. In fact, it would be interesting to inquire of the Department of Finance or the department of insurance in Ottawa
Private Bills
in order to determine how many American or foreign countries whose majority owners are non-residents do business, and in what amount, in Canada.
On the other hand, I would be curious to know how many Canadian companies are doing insurance business in United States. In fact, is the American government willing to incorporate in United States a Canadian company wishing to do business there, especially in the insurance field.
It would also be interesting to know how many Canadian companies derive profits from the United States. As a matter of fact, I am convinced that the Canadian people would be amazed to note the disproportion in that connection. It would then be realized that Americans can set up companies in our country-which they use as their hunting grounds-in order to invest their capital, collect premiums and have them yield profits for themselves, while we are unable to avail ourselves of the same advantages.
If we asked ourselves all those questions, we might be less interested in incorporating so-called Canadian companies, which are only Canadian through their insurance salesmen. It must be kept in mind that it is the salesman who does all the work, while the shareholder does not even live in Canada. In fact, he receives dividends, he takes profits, but the insurance salesman is the one who does most of the work, and in a field where competition is rather fierce today. And those who benefit, who make large profits, are foreigners after all.
Let no one tell us that these are Canadian companies, when 87 per cent of the shares are held by non-resident Americans or others.
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing against the Americans. The United States have a population of 180 million people and, in my opinion, the Americans should be happy to sell insurance to their fellow citizens, leaving Canadians to do the same to their own people.
One must not forget that insurance companies represent one of the largest savings and investment funds for the development of a country's economy. Consequently, let us leave to our Canadian companies the task of keeping for us that savings and investment fund that will contribute to the growth of our economy.
Today, President Kennedy announced during the noon hour, that the United States government will be asked to approve a 15 per cent tax on American investments in

Private Bills
Canada. On the other hand, we will continue to export our capital to the United States and to invest there for the advantage of American companies. That is illogical, Mr. Speaker.
This afternoon, the Minister of Finance complained about his biggest headache, the deficit in our international balance of payments. It now seems that the members of his own party wish to add to his troubles by helping again those companies to take our capital away from us.
I now see the minister of commerce (Mr. Sharp), who is also interested in the development of trade and industry in this country. Insurance is one of the greatest businesses, one of the most important industries of the country. Then why encourage the establishment of foreign industries and businesses in our country when it would be perfectly possible to develop an insurance industry here in our country by Canadians and for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the sponsor of the bill will understand that such a situation is no longer justified. The sponsor of the bill will understand that we cannot in good faith accept the passage of a bill which would be giving still another part of our savings to foreign companies the profits of which will revert to non-residents and consequently leave the country.
Mr. Speaker, needless to say that an attempt can be made to have the bill read for the second time before the end of the session, but we shall not allow it to pass. Therefore, if the sponsor of the bill will realize that the time of the house is too valuable for that, he will simply withdraw his bill. It must be understood that if insurance companies were scarce in Canada, if there were not any, it would be different. But, we have enough especially in the field of life insurance; there are Canadian companies in the province of Quebec, as well as in all other provinces, with Canadian stock. Since we have enough and that we are in a position to develop that industry ourselves, to bring other foreign companies to Canada to operate in that field is utterly nonsensical and illogical.
The sponsor of the bill should make it clear to those who are asking for the incorporation and refrain from introducing it again.
I note that the provisional directors of the company mentioned in the bill are all from
[Mr. Gregoire.l
Toronto. But, just because of that, are we going to believe that the real directors and owners are people from Toronto? Everybody knows when a lawyer prepares the incorporation of a company he often picks his secretaries as acting directors until the first meeting, where the real directors will be appointed. Therefore, those first directors are not the real directors of the company. That is why, even if the whole city of Toronto were thrown in, we know quite well, as the hon. member himself told us, that that company is controlled to the extent of 87 i per cent by American interests.
So, Mr. Speaker, that is one of the reasons why we are opposed to this bill. I think we have very good reasons for being opposed to it, and I believe all Canadian insurance companies agree with us. In fact, every one who cares about the well-being of our economy also agrees that we should try and keep as much as possible in our own country that field of endeavour which we must control.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. member for Lapointe. Does the hon. member think it is normal or abnormal for foreign industrialists or foreign investors, not residing in Canada, to come in this country and invest money, abiding by Canadian laws, just like Canadians may go to the United States or Brazil, where the Brazilian Traction Company is controlled by Canadian interests, inasmuch as these corporations conform to Canadian laws?


Gilles Grégoire: Of course, I think that is normal. But there is a sentence which the hon. member failed to understand. If a company or somebody invests funds in our country, well and good, but this insurance company does not come here to invest in Canada; it comes here to take our savings out of this country.
The investments of an insurance company are in fact the savings of that company's policyholders. When an insurance company makes an investment in a large building, of the kind we can see in our cities, it does not invest capital from the United States but our own money, which comes from our savings and our investments. It is not its money which it brings in; it brings no new capital. A foreign insurance company settling in Canada comes without anything. It just channels our

savings and our investments. It just channels them into a holding which it created for its own advantage. It is not the same thing as if it invested capital or brought in skills or some other talents, not at all, it just comes and uses our savings and investments to make profits. That is why I say that in Canada we have everything we need to do it ourselves.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I have a supplementary question for the hon. member for Lapointe, Mr. Speaker. Can he prevent a Canadian to do business in good faith with a company such as that mentioned in the bill we are considering now, if it is incorporated?


Gilles Grégoire: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of preventing anyone from doing business with a company. After all, we do not live under a dictatorship. It is not a question of preventing a Canadian of good faith from doing as he pleases. However, we must not either greet with open arms all those companies owned by non-residents who would come to operate in a sector where we are capable of operating ourselves.
There are in Canada American, English and French insurance companies. If that was done in the past, it is not a reason to keep on allowing foreigners to channel our savings, our efforts and our investments.
It is not a question of stopping a Canadian citizen from taking out an insurance policy with the company of his choice. No, that is not the problem. It is only a matter of trying to protect our own people as much as possible, especially in the insurance business, against the intrusion of foreign companies when, in fact, we succeed so well in developing the insurance business in our country. All the more so-and I think that Allstate is one of them-since those companies often have methods against which our own insurance companies cannot always compete successfully. When a person buys an insurance policy from Allstate, that insurance is sold at the counter. And when you have claims to lodge, there is no agent to help you; you inquire at the counter, you get no help from them, and often the person who takes an insurance with a counter insurance company such as Allstate is not in as good a position as if he were to insure with an insurance company which has brokers and agents who are interested in giving satisfaction. In fact, all insurance brokers and agents in the country will tell you that counter insurance, whether from
Private Bills
Allstate or other American companies of the same type established in Canada, does not give satisfaction to the policyholders.
So the point is we must protect our insurance industry against that new method they want to introduce in Canada and which, often, does not serve at all the interests of Canadian policyholders.
(Text):


Mr. Greene:: Would the hon. member permit a question? I understand that these companies which make direct sales of insurance are able to sell more cheaply to the consumer than those which deal through a series of agents. I wonder if he would tell us whether his party is against these direct sales which result in insurance being cheaper to the consumer?
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Not necessarily, Mr. Speaker, Not necessarily. We are not necessarily against this type of counter sales, for they tend to reduce prices.
However, there are different points to consider with regard to that system. For example, it creates unemployment and reduces the need for manpower. But this is only a minor argument. The main argument is that it might be advisable that the government inquire into the service given to Canadian policyholders in this system of direct sales of insurance.
You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that as members of parliament, we are in touch with the people. We find that some citizens are sometimes cheated by certain insurance companies. It is very difficult to obtain satisfaction from these insurance companies.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to give you one example. About four years ago, my car was parked in one of the main arteries of Montreal, while I was on the other side of the street. A passing cab sideswiped the side of my car. The driver gave me the name of his insurance company, to which I naturally wrote-it was a company which sold insurance over the counter, as the company we are discussing today-but I did not collect a red cent for damages. Was it because I did not go about it the right way in presenting my claim? However, as the amount involved was not very important, I did not think it was necessary to ask a lawyer to put in my claim for me. But I must say that the company did not pay any damages.

Private Bills
This type of company which functions rather like a slot machine selling insurance leaves the car owners to shift for themselves in case of need.
To come back to the matter in hand, I feel the government should inquire into it, and find out whether that type of company serves the public in a satisfactory and honest way.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I direct a question to the hon. member?
(Text):


John James Greene: May I ask a question? Does the hon. member's party advocate greater control of insurance by government and by government agencies?
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: No sir. Our party has never requested that a greater control be exercised over the insurance companies by the government nor are we asking for any legislation of that kind. The words "protect" and "control" have a different meaning: to wish to protect our Canadian insurance companies against a foreign insurance company is quite different from wishing to "control" them.
There is no question of control here, Mr. Speaker; it is a matter of finding out the facts, not of controlling. It is chiefly a matter of protecting the Canadian people and the Canadian industry, in this case our insurance companies, but there is absolutely no question of controlling them.
Why should we ask for government control? There is no such need, Mr. Speaker. Our insurance companies are doing well at present and no government control is called for.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. member for Lapointe. He suggested that an investigation should be carried out by the federal government in the field of insurance. Does he not fear that that would be an infringement upon provincial autonomy? Since the provinces are rather touchy about their rights and since each of them has an insurance division, would it not be up to them to carry out such an investigation if that is necessary?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would have no objection to this recommendation being passed on to the provinces.
However, since those big insurance companies are seeking a federal charter, then I feel it is up to the central government and not to the provinces to undertake the investigation we recommend.
At this stage, allow me, Mr. Speaker, to give an example to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. In my own

riding as well as in the constituency of Chicoutimi and Lotbiniere, about a year and a half ago, a number of citizens were literally tricked by confidence men who pretended they were giving away sewing machines, the only catch being that the recipients had to undertake-through a finance contract-to pay an amount of $600. Altogether 190 people let themselves be fooled in that way.
In that case, there had been an actual transgressing of the law. Therefore, those people got organized and instructed a lawyer to represent them before the provincial government, requesting the province to get that finance company off their backs.
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Gilles Grégoire: One moment, sir.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Now, after that lawyer made the necessary representations to the provincial government, the attorney general of the province of Quebec replied that this was a matter coming under federal jurisdiction. At that point, I myself asked Mr. McGregor to look into the problem. Before going any further, I must congratulate Mr. McGregor before the house for the magnificent work he did, for he succeeded, with the co-operation of his inspectors, to install order where disorder existed and at the same time to bring to heel an American finance company, the Seaboard Finance, which, with the assistance of two confidence men had taken in a great many people. Following the intervention I just mentioned, justice was done to those people.
(Text):


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I must object most strenuously to this company whose bill I have been asked to sponsor being put in the same category as the type of groups to which my hon. friend has referred. After all, this bill has been considered in committee and passed by the other place, and I am certain there can be no possible comparison between the men seeking to incorporate this company and the type of groups to which the hon. member has referred.


Gilles Grégoire: There is no comparison at all. It is just an example of provincial and federal jurisdiction. That is all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The time allotted to the hon. gentleman has

expired, and unless the house gives unanimous consent-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John James Greene: I should like to ask the hon. member a question. He has referred to the flow of dividends and profits going to the United States of America from American companies doing business in Canada. How does he reconcile that with the fact that the deputy leader of his party, the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), has a car agency from an American concern and the profits from that company go back to the United States? In view of the ideas the hon. member has expressed today, is this in accord with the thinking of his party so far as their deputy leader is concerned?
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the hon. member for Villeneuve operates an American car agency. But if the previous governments had been wise, they would have encouraged Canada to develop its own automobile industry and we would not have to sell American or foreign cars. It is because of government negligence that at this time we have to sell American cars.
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gilles Grégoire: Six o'clock.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I move the adjournment of the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. It being six o'clock, the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired and the house will revert to the business that was interrupted at five o'clock.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Miss LaMarsh-Mr. Batten in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a comprehensive pension program to be known as the Canada pension plan and to provide among other things for the payment of pensions on an adjusted scale commencing, at the option of the pensioner, at any age between 65 and 70 years: for the payment of pensions to surviving spouses commencing at any age after 65 years; for the progressive establishment of such pensions over an initial period averaging ten years in order to facilitate the adjustment of existing pension schemes to the new plan; for the payment of an additional pension of ten dollars a month to all
Canada Pension Plan
persons to whom a pension may be paid under the Old Age Security Act; for the adjustment of pensions payable under the Old Age Security Act to co-ordinate such pensions with the new plan; and for the appointment and remuneration of such officers, clerks and employees as may be required for the due carrying out of the new plan; and to provide further that all expenditures under the new plan, additional to those required under the Old Age Security Act, shall be paid out of or reimbursed from contributions by employees, employers and self-employed persons.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 7 p.m.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I had just about covered the preliminaries preparatory to discussing the particulars of the plan brought before the house. I might summarize. Mention had been made by the minister that the day of introducing old age pension increases before an election was over. I had just pointed out that in 1957 that was the course followed by the St. Laurent government, the increase becoming effective after the election with the results that everybody recalls at this time. I further pointed out that the reason given by the leaders of Liberalism in that year for the picayune amount that was provided for was, to use the words of the then minister of finance, "That is the way you fight inflation." This was his answer to criticism directed at the fact the pension would not be effective until July 1.
I should like to point out something more in that connection. During the period from 1953 to 1957 the provinces, and indirectly the municipalities, were being starved by the government of that day. The old age pensioners were being starved. The veterans were being starved. Then, after the election of 1957 we introduced appropriate additions and the members of the former government expressed different views, the general purport of which was, that one of the best ways of getting along is to recognize that you have to change your views. These remarks were made by one of the most distinguished members of the former government, and an equally distinguished member of the present government.
Now, sir, the attitude of the opposition was very clearly set forth during the period we were in office and also during the campaign. We stated we would extend social security; we would add to the dignity and security of our older citizens; we would make retirement from toil and labour a rewarding part of life through an addition to the present old age security program by bringing about directly an old age and retirement plan with survivor benefits. We said that we would cooperate with the provinces to bring about portable pensions. In addition to that, and

Canada Pension Plan
in order to assure survivor benefits, we would have to secure an amendment to the constitution. We endeavoured to secure that amendment for two years, in particular from January 17, 1962, thence during the next year until the time we were defeated in the house.
I might summarize the letters which were sent to the various provincial governments by me as prime minister. They were to the effect that the law officers of the crown advise that the authority, under the amendment to the British North America Act, section 94(a) in 1951, would permit parliament to enact directly graduated old age pension schemes, but would not permit the inclusion of benefit payable under certain circumstances to widows and children, nor to contributors who become disabled before they are old. To extend the law in this most desirable way, it would be necessary to replace the present section of the British North America Act in this way:
It is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to
(a)	old age pensions, and
(b)	pensions and other benefits incidental to, or conducive to the better operation and administration of, a scheme of old age pensions,
We had hoped that agreement would have been reached by 1962 on a means of amending Canada's constitution, but we found it was impossible to secure agreement. The attitude of the provinces in general was favourable to our request, with the exception of one province and to a lesser extent a second, so that again under the constitution the dead hand of the past controlled the present to a degree that made impossible the bringing into effect of national social security legislation, providing for survivor benefits.
In this case the government has become a convert only in recent days to the need for consultation with the provinces, but in this legislation it is placing the cart before the horse. It has brought in a general plan in a resolution, and having brought in the plan, complex as it is, then it calls the provinces together to discuss the matter. I do not know what the reaction of the provinces will be, but certainly two of them have passed legislation in connection with pensions, legislation that may well become a dead letter unless there is full co-operation between the two levels of government, federal and provincial. These things have to be worked out so that in reality, as we debate the matter at this time, not knowing what tomorrow will bring forth in the meeting of the dominion and provincial representatives, we can only discuss in a general way the recommendations and suggestions made.

We intend to examine this matter most carefully. The minister has pointed out that it is complex and difficult. I understand one of its architects was Mr. Stanley, upon whom the Minister of Finance relied with such disastrous results in preparing the budget. After the fiasco of that budget and the recommendations made, it will be doubly necessary to give the fullest examination to this plan that he and those associated with him evolved, to the end that the government will be saved from itself once more and from having to make a further retreat.
After pleading for discussion freed from the sinister influence of political considerations, the minister asked for co-operation. We are going to give the fullest co-operation, and in a little while, Mr. Chairman, I will indicate how far we are prepared to go in this connection in order to give those who now sit on the government benches the opportunity of voicing their vote as they voiced their views in regard to social security during the election campaign.
Over the week end I read the biography of Arthur James Balfour, prime minister of the United Kingdom and a leader in Britain for almost 50 years. In the book there is an extract which illustrates the spirit we are going to use and apply as we examine this general plan. I quote:
Society is becoming more and more sensitive to the evils that exist in its midst;-
This would be around 1903-04.
-more and more impatient of their continued existence. In itself this is wholly good; but, in order that good may come of it, it behoves us to walk warily.
If only the Minister of Finance had read those words before he produced that budget.
It is, no doubt, better for us to apply appropriate remedies to our diseases than to put our whole trust in the healing powers of nature, but it is better to put our trust in the healing powers of nature than to poison ourselves straight off by swallowing the contents of the phial presented to us by any self-constituted physician. And such selfconstituted physicians are about and in large numbers-
It applies today, Mr. Chairman.
-gentlemen who think that they pay Providence a compliment by assuming that for every social ill there is a speedy and effectual specific lying to hand; who regard it as impious to believe that there may be chronic diseases of the body politic as well as of any other body ... Of two evils it is better, perhaps, that our ship shall go nowhere than that it should run upon the rocks.
All of us recognize the need for action being taken. As the minister has stated, there is universal agreement in that connection; but I have a number of questions to ask the government, and after all, Mr. Chairman, when you remove the halo from what has been said to date and start to look at the substance you

ask yourself: Is there not a great deal in what has been said which is of a nature expressing the possibility of a hope, while denying at the same time the achievement of that hope at an early date?
As the minister has said, this is a tremendous problem and I have a number of questions which I ask merely for information. I am sure the provincial premiers would find some of the answers very helpful.
With the taking over in large measure of the responsibility of providing all employed Canadians with a retirement pension, will private pension plans, in the natural sequence, not tend to be wiped out? It is a frightful challenge. There are hundreds of thousands of people who have pension plans, but not one word was said today, except by way of generality, as to what is going to be done with them.
Can any person under a private pension plan opt out of the national scheme?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Can they opt out of any provincial plan that is in existence? What happens to the contributions a person has made to provide for old age before the benefits have accrued? What effect will this plan have, unless worked out with the greatest of care and most meticulous of examination, on the 2 million workers already members of private pension plans? What about interference with provincial jurisdiction? To what extent will this plan interfere with legislation such as that recently passed by the Ontario legislature, whose purpose it is to supervise and regulate the pension plan?
I heard today with a great deal of interest the estimate as to how much is going to be deducted from the employee and paid by the employer. All I have to say is that the economists we have talked to say the estimate is about 20 per cent of what the actual deduction will be in a matter of three or four years. Nothing is said about this. We have the unfolding, the unveiling of a great plan, but without evidence as to how much it is going to cost. Is this going to be a means whereby a tremendous amount of additional taxation is to be imposed, without benefit, on many of those from whom the deductions are made who are today members of other pension plans.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman must surely have heard that part of my remarks which indicated that the requirement was 2 per cent, to be divided equally between the employee and employer, and that this was the entire amount to be charged.
Canada Pension Plan


John George Diefenbaker: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. If that was produced by Mr. Stanley, all I have to say is that I need better proof than that, after the budget mistakes that we had.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, if the-


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend has made her speech-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: On a question of privilege-


John George Diefenbaker: *-and I should like-


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. I understand the minister is rising on a question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, privilege.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Again on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman has made the imputation that some private citizen prepared this plan. May I, as the minister concerned indicate to the house that the figures used and the plan as drawn up were prepared by the public service of Canada and by the department of insurance.


John George Diefenbaker: If that is a question of privilege, the minister progresses. I am glad that the public service of Canada are again being consulted, after the incursion recently of outside advice. A study was made, and a very complete one, by Professor Robert Clark of the University of British Columbia. It was a tremendous study; he worked at it for a very long time. It took 15 months to complete and produce a report of some 727 pages.


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you implement it?


Mr. Mandziuk:: You talked too much, that's why.


John George Diefenbaker: The Winnipeg Tribune asks some pertinent questions-


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you implement it?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, these quarrelsome contributions are all very helpful, I am sure; but I was trying to discuss the matter somewhat seriously. The Winnipeg Tribune sums this up very well when it says:
The high cost is not the only reason for going slow on such an ambitious undertaking. There are many other problems involving constitutional questions, property rights, existing pension rights, the purchasing power of the dollar and federal-provincial relations.
I listened with interest to the description of how this plan was going to work out. This is the first time in all history that painless pensions have been invented. Only 1 per cent. The state is not going to pay anything. We have had this type of experience

Canada Pension Plan
in the past in the introduction of measures such as hospital insurance and all the other fields of social endeavour.


Mr. Maiheson:: Unemployment insurance.


John George Diefenbaker: In the matter of a few years they multiply; they expand; the cost becomes terrific. But what studies have been made in that connection? I could not quite understand, from what the minister said, whether or not this would be a compulsory plan. As I understood it, though-and I have to depend entirely on listening to the revelations as she made them-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: You heard it for two hours.


John George Diefenbaker: -it would be compulsory up to a salary level of $4,000. This is a tremendous undertaking; one that will require a great deal of study. I again come back to the question of cost. I am just asking for information, that is all. We find that in the United States the deductions started at 2 per cent. They had the same hope. The deductions started at, not 1 per cent but 2 per cent. The payroll tax is now 6 per cent and it is expected to be 9 per cent by 1970. That does not indicate bad administration, but we ought to learn, on the basis of experience in other areas, what may well be the result here in the future. As has been said on more than one occasion, these tremendous amounts of money will be siphoned off out of the investment field and, rendered funds sterile in government bonds during the first few years beyond that which is being redistributed. This is a vast plan. Most people think of only one thing-this is all they heard during the election campaign-that they were going to get $10. Now the minister says we have to work fast on this. I have seen closure applied by that party, many of whom are sitting over there today. They did not even let us speak in 1956; they moved closure before the discussion started.


An hon. Member:: Eighteen days.


John George Diefenbaker: But this is a new type of closure, "If you people do not pass this quickly, the old age pensioner who is getting the fixed amount is going to be held up".


Eric Alfred Winkler: Let them pay them the $10 right now.


John George Diefenbaker: That is an idea with considerable wisdom in it. We want to see the election campaign promises carried out. Before I deal with the thoughtful suggestion of the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler), may I refer to the Financial Post in this connection. I am not saying I am in agreement with these views, but they show how we must

carefully study this matter and not be stampeded into passing something that is going to be an incubus on the Canadian economy for years to come. We believe in the objective. We carried it so far that we increased social security payments during the period of our office by 79 per cent. But this is a very difficult matter, and we found after the examination not only by Dr. Clark but also by outstanding civil servants that there were many problems in the way. The Financial Post said:
There can be no doubt that the goal of portable pensions for all Canadians is a commendable one and well worth working for. Rarely now does a worker stay in one job for life. Indeed, a fastchanging economy demands a mobile work force and the loss of pension rights when moving from one job to another creates unnecessary hardship for the individual and unnecessary burdens for the nation as a whole-
Even getting a provincial portable pension plan working will impose many complications, most of them costly, on employers and employees. In Ontario, which has set up the first provincial program and scheduled its start for Jan. 1, 1965, companies are having difficulty fitting existing plans into the government's over-all pension framework.
Quebec now says it intends to introduce a plan similar to that scheduled for Ontario. British Columbia and Alberta are known to be actively considering comparable schemes.
Then it says this:
Inadequate study and over-anxious politicking could very well produce a pension mess beyond imagination and beyond repair.
I believe, as the minister said, that there is general agreement on the necessity; but the difficulty will be to work out a plan that is effective, constitutionally proper or co-operatively implemented with provincial assistance. The increase in the cost of living is now starting ahead faster than was the case when we were in office. They used to say what terrible things would happen when we borrowed money from the international monetary fund, but now they have done the same. The United States today is securing the right to borrow $500 million from the international monetary fund. This is the first time the United States has done that and it is bringing in regulations-if congress passes them, but effective now-designed to bring about that which we brought in in May of 1962. We had to take that action.
However, there is one group which needs assistance now, and that is the old age pensioners. Why not do that which was undertaken implicitly or indirectly by the former government in the elections of 1962 and 1963? There was a commitment. We on this side lost tens of thousands of votes because we stated: "We have raised you to $65. The other people raised you $6. We raised you from $46 to $65, and there will be an increase when the situation improves; but in the

meantime there will be this contributory system over and above the existing pension". The Liberal party said there would be an immediate payment. I say, very well, first of all, do not try and apply closure to the opposition. Do not try to lead the old people of this country to believe that the reason they are not going to get another $10 is because the opposition dared discuss the rest of this question. If it cannot be brought in immediately, make it effective now, and whenever the whole system is in effect then give each one the persion, beginning today. Then they would be doing something along the line they promised.
Second, we suggest that people be allowed to obtain their pension on an actuarially reduced basis as early as age 65. Is this plan actuarially sound? If it is actuarially sound and it is certified so, then we need not expect an ever-increasing levy on business, employers and employees, as has been the case elsewhere. By allowing our people before age 70 to obtain a pension at a reduced rate for the rest of their lives, no significant cost would be imposed on the federal treasury. Persons choosing to take their pension at an earlier age would, of course, benefit from any increase in pensions voted by parliament. While this was not said, it seems to me implicit in what the minister said that this $10 is the last increase. Because she mounted the white charger of political purity and said that never again are Canadians to be bought by their own money. The Liberal government of Mr. St. Laurent tried to do just that and put off the implementation of the additional pension till after the election so that the carrot would dangle before the voters of Canada. Also include a system of flat survivor benefits payable to widowed mothers and dependant children of widowed mothers. As I listened to the minister I think that something in this regard is being done. Canada is one of the very few countries in the western world which does not have a system of survivor benefits unrelated to a means test. Indeed, it is the view of Dr. Robert Clark that this is the greatest gap in the welfare legislation of Canada.
The basis of financial survivor benefits should be made the same as that used to finance old age security itself. This in turn should be altered from its present illogical basis as we see it to an equal tax on earnings of employers and employees, as is done in the United States under the social security act, and under this the self-employed would be covered under similar legislation.
With regard to co-operation with the provinces, the federal government should cooperate with the provincial governments in the regulation of pension plans. It could do
Canada Pension Plan
so in its capacity as an employer by seeking to have federal employees covered under provincial statutes. It could also offer to administer provincial portable pension acts for those provinces which were willing to pass the appropriate legislation, and a fee could be charged for this purpose.
The question of cost is one to which we must return-not the cost of the firm, fixed old age pension but this contributory one. Because experience has shown that governments have to plan most carefully if they are to assure that their pension plan will be as cheap as employee pension plans in the long run. In addition to that, as I said earlier, we would set up a contributory plan following the most careful study, to the end that the mistakes which have been found to exist in other such plans will be found wanting in ours.
I mentioned a moment ago that I should like to read this literature because it gives one an idea of events so very recent. I outlined a moment ago the promises made. Here is one which went across the country. The great trouble is that a lot of people read the big print but do not read the fine print. How often it happens that those who do not read the fine print find, after they have come to certain conclusions, that the results were not in keeping with the promises of the large print. This is one: "Jobs Created. Take a Stand for Tomorrow-Vote Liberal".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Never have I seen anything like the political puppets sitting opposite who applaud that, after their experience in recent days. It was all right before the people of Canada had had the experience they have now had. Look at what it says: "Jobs Created". Yet there were 4,000 more unemployed in the month of June than there were a year ago. All the promises of yesterday are disappearing in the light of experience. The hon. lady gave us a course today in how to look at the sun when it is in eclipse. Well, we are looking at this government now. The pamphlet goes on to say: "$140 a Month for Today's Retired Couple; Up to $295 a Month when You Retire". That is what I ridiculed. They said it was not going to cost the people of Canada anything. I said that was the most ridiculous promise ever made since the days of the south sea bubble. "Up to $295 a Month When You Retire". By Jove, people are asking today: when do we get into this bonanza? I quote further:
For people who are retired now: The Liberal plan for pensions will establish a new national

Canada Pension Plan
minimum of $75 a month for today's old age pensioners If they are single or widowed, $140 for married couples.
Then, on the same page, further down under "Contributions" it says:
The Liberal plan will add a contributory pension to the existing old age pension. The addition will be paid for entirely by contributions, not by taxes.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs-I just to have to mention the question of social security and he immediately launches forth with that eloquence so characteristic of him-made a speech on the subject on January 30, 1962. Here are some extracts:
There are four essentials to our plan. First, it will for the first time guarantee to Canadians that they need no longer be concerned about security in their years of retirement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: They will not be applauding when we get to paragraph 2.
Everyone will have the opportunity of a pension equal to a good proportion of the income he had been earning. The Liberal plan will establish at once a new national minimum of $75 pension.
I emphasize "at once". Today they are trying to weasel out of this. They fooled the people. They pulled the wool over their eyes. Now they do not want to answer for what they did in deceiving the people.
Here is what appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune: "What can we expect from the Liberals?" that paper asks. I see the Prime Minister smiling. He would go into office, the article says, with a tough schedule for the first 60 days of business, including a visit to London to meet Prime Minister Macmillan, a meeting with President Kennedy and arrangements for a budget by mid-June. Well, I tell the right hon. gentleman that the Hyannis Port honeymoon ended today as far as the United States is concerned. Then the paper says: "Old age pensions will be increased immediately to $75 a month from $65".
I want to give hon. members opposite an opportunity to support their ideals. We realize that an amendment to the effect that $75 should be paid would be one which would be out of order. But there is nothing to prevent a recommendation, and I know they are just waiting for an opportunity to be able to show that they want to recommend to the government immediate consideration of this proposition. They promised the old age pensioners in Canada $75 a month in the large print. Then, in the small print, there were some evasions and qualifications. Their advertising was carefully designed to delude, and it succeeded. It could not have been more effective. Everyone took it the government intended to follow this through. Now I read in the Toronto Star of June 29 an article by Mr. Joe Scanlon

in which he sums up everything in advance- and he is fairly close to authoritative sources:
They have a plan that will lead to an immediate increase in the present pension and at the same time take the first step to a contributory pension plan.
For our part, as far as this is concerned, we do not intend to allow the government to say to us that, if we dare to discuss this, any time we take in considering this contributory plan in order to make it more effective will deprive the old age pensioners of the increase. What that means is that we should pass this potpourri as it is-get it through; then work will start and the tremendous organization which would be required would be set up. Well, I feel that everyone on the government side of the house will be most anxious to do everything possible to show that there was no callous disregard of election promises in this field. I therefore believe we should take all the time necessary to consider this measure-and it will take time, now. The provinces are meeting. They will, no doubt, be making suggestions after they have had the plan placed before them. They have not yet heard what it may be, because, as the Prime Minister has advised one or other of the premiers, this resolution has been called early so that the plan might be made available and the provinces might know what they are up against when they come here. And this will take time. We want to see the old age pensioner not deprived in any way of the carrying into effect of the promise-


An hon. Member:: Promises.


John George Diefenbaker: -that was made-


An hon. Member:: Commitment.


John George Diefenbaker: while the rest of the plan is being studied. So let us proceed now and do our part in this house to bring to the attention of the government a promise that was made. You see, Mr. Chairman, what they are trying to do is this. They are going to try to pretend that this extra $10 a month is going to come out of the contributions that will be made under the national contributory plan. They are going to start to collect in November or December-I do not know when-and by January they are going to be able to take out $110 million, or whatever the amount is, thereby weakening the fund even before it is established. Surely that is not good common sense. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, in full support of the principle of contributory old age pensions-


An hon. Member:: In an irresponsible way.


John George Diefenbaker: -in entire support of the laudable desire of the government to make available the $10 a month to those who were

so promised, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith):
That the said resolution be amended by adding after the words "ten dollars a month" in line 9:
"and this house asks that the government give consideration to making the payment of such additional pension to commence on this date."
(Translation):


Mr. Girouard:: Mr. Chairman, I must point out first of all the honour my leader (Mr. Thompson) did me in asking me to speak on his behalf tonight on the occasion of this debate, not only because he asked a backbencher-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I wish to remind the hon. member that there is at present an amendment before the house and that amendment must be discussed before we can hear the remarks of the hon. member for Labelle.
(Text):
Perhaps I could hear argument from hon. members on the amendment which has now been submitted by the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Monteith:: What is wrong with it?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Byrne:: Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite obvious to all members of the house, certainly to the members on this side of the house who are prepared to look on these things rationally-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -that this is an amendment to a resolution which requires a considerable amount of expenditure.


Mr. Churchill:: The amendment does not.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: If the amendment were accepted it would change the sense of the resolution completely and require immediate action which would result in an expenditure of some $50 million to $100 million before it was possible to bring in the measure that would provide for the expenditure.


An hon. Member:: That is what you
promised.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I am sure the house would not be prepared to consider this amendment in order in any way.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, there is just one short reference I should like to bring to your attention. The only objection that can be raised to an amendment of this type is that it would alter the plan set forth by the government. The minister made it exceedingly clear in her initial statement that there was no date set upon which the $10 increase in old age pensions would be made, and since a date was not set surely the setting of a date should not be taken to change the
Canada Pension Plan
amount of money that will be expended. I will admit that there might be some objection if a date had been set and the amendment set the date back earlier, in that this would mean a greater expenditure, but in this particular case no date was set and therefore no change that anyone can imagine or point to is possible.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: With respect to what the hon. member has just said, he has indicated the line of attack in the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. The amendment is indicative of the spirit of co-operation and of the real interest in the aged people of this country on his part. It is indicative of how little he really cares about the welfare of our aged. The line of attack has been indicated in that if the amendment were adopted it would have the effect of altering the government's plan set forth in the resolution, and indeed, Mr. Chairman, it would do so. The government's plan has been explained explicitly both in my remarks and more fully in the paper which the right hon. gentleman has had in his hands, despite what he said, for the past two hours. It is indicated clearly there that the only way that payment can be made is from the contributions which are to flow in, contributions which, under the timing, cannot be made earlier than October, 1964. The right hon. gentleman was careful not to read that document or to inform himself as to the material before the house. My submission would be that if such an amendment were permitted to be adopted it would have the effect of materially altering the plan of the government as set forth in the resolution, and thus it cannot be accepted.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, if I may say a word I think there has been a complete omission to realize the wording of the amendment. It does not say that $10 will be paid. It asks the government to give consideration to making the payment of such additional pension to commence on this date. It is a recommendation to the government, not a direction, not an interference with the financial plan. Of itself it does not require a contribution whatsoever. It simply asks the government to give consideration to this matter. I am sure that both sides of the house are anxious to do that and that the minister in particular, possessed with the interest that she has indicated, will get widespread support for this, because the amendment is not going to interfere in any way with the financial obligation or with the collection of any amounts required to provide payment.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I do not believe any of us could believe that the purpose of such a

Canada Pension Plan
motion could be anything other than to place the maximum possible coercion on the government to make this plan effective at the earliest possible date. There is no question but that the plan which has been laid before this house by the minister gives rise to administrative difficulties in the collection of revenues. The plan also indicates the earliest possible date in which this could be effected. In addition, the plan indicates that the method of financing the benefits which are proposed is from the contributions as outlined, and the plan cannot be effective before October, 1964.
The adoption of the amendment, therefore, would inevitably have the effect of substantially changing the plan by requiring the payment of pensions in amounts in excess of those which would be provided in the terms of the plan as outlined in this house, and not by any minor sum but by a major sum. The intention of the government, as outlined in the terms of the plan, is quite clear. The adoption of the amendment would place the government in such a position that it would have to change substantially the nature of the plan proposed, and therefore I do not think the amendment is in order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to say one word with regard to what has been said concerning coercion. There is no coercion, direct or implied in the amendment which has been proposed. The amendment simply asks the government to give consideration to making the payment of such additional pension commencing on this date. This government, which is very fond of setting dates, might like to take this opportunity of giving the further consideration that is suggested by us because obviously everybody in the house is in agreement on pushing forward with this plan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is an example of outstanding co-operation.
(Translation):


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I believe that the amendment, as it stands, cannot be accepted because it proposes to the house something it cannot do.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Guy Favreau: The house is asked to give consideration to the possibility of passing a bill which would involve the payment to commence on this date of a pension when the bill has not yet been presented and the act has not yet been passed. We certainly cannot consider legislation involving an expenditure
TMr. Francis.]
which would take effect at a prescribed date when the bill has not yet been presented to the house.
On the very face of it, the wording of the amendment is not acceptable because the house does not have the right or the opportunity to consider and study legislation which would involve the payment as of today of a $10 a month pension to anyone.
Under the circumstances, since we are being asked to consider something preceding a bill that has to be passed before the measure is enforced, I say that we are being asked to consider something that is impossible, for on the face of it the wording of the amendment cannot be accepted, as it is unconstitutional.


Mr. Paul:: Could the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tell us in what way this amendment is unconstitutional?


Guy Favreau: We are asking the house to consider the acceptance or the approval or the immediate passage of a $10 monthly payment when the legislation itself has not yet been introduced.


Rémi Paul: This by no means infringes upon the provisions of the constitution.
(Text):


Eric Alfred Winkler: This is the normal course to follow in presenting an amendment to the house for consideration when that amendment does not commit the government to an expenditure of funds. I will say this. We are doing our utmost this evening to help the government keep its promises, Mr. Chairman. If they fail to agree with this motion, the old people of this country will know precisely where these people stand.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is where they stood in 1957, and that is where they stand tonight unless they support this motion.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As I understand the objection to the amendment by government members, it is that the amendment changes or alters the motion in question. I suggest this, Mr. Chairman, that the only change or alteration that has taken place has been from the time the commitment was made to the Canadian people until the time it was executed in this house.
(Translation):


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Mr. Chairman, it seems that some mentioned promises made during the last election campaign. I can tell you that if you study a little the Liberal party's platform, you will see that the present government did not promise to increase old age pensions as soon as it came into

office. It made no such pledge. Some members of the party may have made speeches to that effect but in the party's platform, the first plank was to put the country's economy on its feet.


Mr. Lambert:: Order.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Why should I be called to order when members on the other side of the house said all they wanted.
In any case, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say that if some people made speeches to that effect, there is no mention of this measure in the Liberal party's platform and the Liberal party must not be blamed.
(Text):


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We will hear some gems of wisdom now.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: Louder for the record.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, in so far as the point of order is concerned-I can hear catcalls from across the way-


An hon. Member:: That is your side that is giving them.


John James Greene: -but this is just what you expect from a barnyard, and that is what we generally hear. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, in so far as this point of order is concerned-


An hon. Member:: Smart alec freshman.


John James Greene: Well, it is better to be a smart alec freshman than a tired old campaigner. One thing about a freshman is that he has some hope of doing something around here, whereas some of you have been here for years and have accomplished nothing.


Eric Alfred Winkler: You have little hope now.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, in so far as the point of order is concerned, I would say that this resolution carries out implicitly the exact pledges that were made during the campaign, and as contained in the literature of the Liberal party, namely, to bring out a responsible scheme which will be paid out of or reimbursed from contributions by employees and employers and self-employed persons. This party, by bringing this resolution forward at this time, is simply carrying out this pledge and promise in accordance with the tenure of the promise. We know that in 1957 and 1958 the right hon. gentleman opposite-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
Canada Pension Plan


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I do not
think we are now on the question of order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Yes, I would kindly ask the hon. member-


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Lucien Lamoureux: If the hon. member will kindly resume his seat I wish to point out there is a point of order, a very serious point of order, before the committee at the moment, and if any hon. member wishes to express his comments and helpful views to the Chair in connection with it, I would be most happy and grateful to hear them; but I think his comments, recommendations and advice should be strictly limited to the point of order.


John James Greene: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The resolution, as it is worded, does not indicate the spending of any public moneys. It indicates a self-liquidating fund, but the right hon. gentleman opposite proposes an amendment which would in effect result in the spending of public money.
Now, there was a time when the right hon. gentleman was in a position-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John James Greene: This is on the point of order, Mr. Chairman. There was a time when the right hon. gentleman was in a position to introduce resolutions or amendments which would have the effect of resulting in the spending of public money, but he is not now, nor will he ever again in the future be in that position.
This amendment is very clearly out of order. It is a callous attempt to play politics with the rights, welfare and well-being of our old people.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a point of privilege with regard to the remarks of the hon. member because he is imputing motives to the Leader of the Opposition, and this is clearly not within the purview of parliamentary procedure.


Lucien Lamoureux: It is quite true that an hon. member cannot impute motives to other hon. members, and perhaps the words uttered by the hon. member went beyond his thoughts.


John James Greene: If alluding to the fact that the right hon. gentleman opposite is playing politics is impugning his character, then his character must have been impugned many times in this house out of his own mouth. I merely say that the amendment is clearly out of order, as it involves the spending of public moneys, and I repeat that this is a cruel hoax on our old people with whom this side of the

Canada Pension Plan
house has the utmost sympathy and for whom this party, by introducing a responsible and self-liquidating measure, is trying to do something worth while, and at the same time serve the economy of the country in good stead.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I do not think the hon. member is speaking to the point of order, and I would invite him to do so.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, may I say and may I repeat-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John James Greene: -that this is very clearly an attempt to bring in a money resolution.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege, the hon. gentleman apparently thinks he is in the other house where they cannot discuss money bills.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to bring to your attention that the amendment, which reads as follows:
-and this house asks that the government give consideration to making the payment of such additional pension to commence on this date-
-is out of order for the following reasons.
It is out of order first, because as has already been said on more than one occasion by some who have preceded me, it would require an additional expenditure and therefore would disturb the balance of ways and means. It is next out of order because, if such additional pension were to be paid and to commence on this date, it would clearly be in contravention of the normal rule in the house, with which surely hon. members on the opposite side are familiar, in that a private member cannot under any condition move an amendment which requires the expenditure of public funds. This is clearly set out in Beauschesne's fourth edition, page 214, citation 249 which reads:
No cases can be found of any private member in the Canadian Commons receiving the authority of the crown, through a minister, to propose a motion involving the expenditure of public money. No principle is better understood than the constitutional obligation that rests upon the executive government, of alone initiating measures imposing charges upon the public exchequer.
One could go on to read the subsections of the citation, and I refer Your Honour to the third subsection, which I think has immediate application here, and which reads as follows:
An amendment declaring that government action in any matter should be taken forthwith and giving a direct order which, if approved by the house, would compel the government to adopt measures involving an expenditure of public money, could not be moved by a private member.
It would seem, sir, that that is a complete answer to the amendment which has been moved on this occasion, and I do not need

to go into the matter at great length because this is a rule which has always been respected in the house and does not require any further elaboration. For those reasons it seems to me that the amendment is clearly out of order.
(Translation) :


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, you have to decide whether the proposed amendment introduced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) is legal or not.
A while ago the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Favreau) mentioned two reasons that should enlighten you and, by way of consequence, result in the rejection of the motion introduced by the Leader of the Opposition.
First, he mentioned the constitutionality of the amendment, and when I asked him a question I did not get any answer, because that amendment has nothing to do with the constitution.
The proposed amendment may be related to the procedural rules of the house, and that is the only question which, in my opinion, should be considered at this time.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and especially the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier), mentioned the illegality of the amendment and suggested that it would involve an expenditure of public funds. I respectfully submit that such is not the case because the object of the amendment introduced by the Leader of the Opposition is simply to invite the government to consider the opportunity to adopt subsequently a measure that would allow it to pay an additional amount of $10 a month. In my opinion, the adoption of this amendment would not require at once the expenditure of public funds, because, subsequently, it will be up to the government to introduce legislation in accordance with the amendment for the house to pass.
The simple fact of adopting the amendment does not mean to legalize it.
I am told that a measure requiring the expenditure of public funds can only be introduced by a minister of the crown. In order that that measure be enacted, the proposed resolution must be followed by legislation introduced by a minister of the crown.
The adoption of the amendment introduced by the Leader of the Opposition is, therefore, not out of order because it does not require an immediate expenditure. In fact, it is a matter of adopting an immediate principle which could subsequently involve the expenditure of funds, providing some legislation were introduced by a minister of the crown for that purpose.

(Text):


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice and other speakers on the government side have suggested that this amendment is out of order on the ground that it increases expenditures and that this is not within the competence of a private member of the house. I would suggest that we look at the last sentence of the resolution, which says that the expenditures under this plan shall be paid out of or reimbursed from contributions by employees, employers and self-em-polyed persons. The minister herself indicated this afternoon that the $10 a month will be paid some time in advance of the actual collection of contributions. That means, therefore, that the money will be advanced and will be later reimbursed from the contributions. It may be that in the minister's mind there is a gap of only the period from January 1 to October 1; but there is nothing in this resolution that says that the one shall only be payable January 1 and the other on October 1. In other words, all it says here is that the $10 a month shall be either paid out of or reimbursed from contributions, and there is nothing in this resolution that sets a limit on how much this reimbursement shall be.
Moreover, the passage of this amendment would not be mandatory upon the government. This asks the government to give consideration to making the payment of such additional pension commence on this date. In other words, if this amendment were passed it would be a suggestion to the government that when they bring down the bill which will follow the passage of this resolution they should insert a clause in the bill, if they so choose, making the payment of the $10 a month effective upon the passage of the bill, or even retroactive to this date, of July 18. This is not mandatory; this is simply a suggestion to the government since the government itself has not placed any date in this resolution as to when the old age supplementary pension payment of $10 a month shall be paid out of or reimbursed from these contributions.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order I would refer hon. members to page 216 of the fourth edition of Beauchesne, paragraph 4 of citation 250:
The fundamental terms of a money resolution submitted to the house with the governor general's recommendation upon which a committee of the whole is set up cannot be amended. Amendments will only be in order if they fall within the terms of the resolution. The procedure in committee on those resolutions follows in principle the procedure of the committee of supply, and amendments are
Canada Pension Plan
out of order if they are proposed with a view to substituting an alternative scheme to that proposed with the royal recommendation.
I would suggest that the fundamental basis of this pension plan is being changed from one of financial responsibility to one of financial irresponsibility by the amendment proposed. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has made it quite clear that this is a contributory scheme; that the $10 supplement being proposed will be refunded or made good out of contributions which can only start in the fall of 1964. If this $10 supplement is to be paid out of those contributions there must obviously be a starting date which is not so early or so far back as in effect to outrun the contemplated contributions.
It is the proposal of the government to institute the payment of the $10 supplement at a time which will match the contributions received. A scheme such as is proposed in this amendment would have the effect of unmatching the contributions and the payment and changing this contributory pension scheme from one of financial responsibility involving, in the long run, no subsidy or payment out of public funds, into one which is financially irresponsible and calls for the inevitable payment of money, in the long run, out of public funds. It therefore contravenes the citation I have mentioned, and I submit it is out of order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to argue this point at any length but I just want to cover the points raised by the Minister of Justice and also the point just dealt with by the Minister of Defence Production. In the first place I say this does not disturb ways and means. I realize that no private member can require the expenditure of public moneys. I realize, too, that no direct order can be made to the government by a private member. Those were the three points raised by the Minister of Justice. None of these applies, because the wording of the amendment is, "this house asks that the government give consideration" to doing this. We are not disturbing ways and means; we are not providing for the expenditure of public moneys: that is always a matter for the crown. We are making no direct order.
The Minister of Defence Production quoted a citation to the effect that you could not substitute an alternative scheme. I am not asking that an alternative scheme be substituted. I am asking that the government give consideration to making the payment of such additional pension commence at this date. In other words, I ask the government, when it brings this legislation in, to give consideration to this particular matter, in no way

Canada Pension Plan
directing them, in no way interfering with ways and means and in no way giving a direct order.


Some hon. Members:: Question. (Translation):


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, whatever preamble the Prime Minister has included in his amendment, one thing is clear: he has or he has not introduced an amendment.
If he wants us to pay immediately, well, whatever the preamble, it is indicated that we must pay immediately, and that cannot be done because the whole legislation was prepared with that end in view. If, on the other hand, his amendment with all his preambles indicates that it is only a suggestion, well there is no amendment and you must reject his motion.
(Text):


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is either ignorant of the rules-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Look who is speaking.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -or he is attempting to mislead the house.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You expert.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: While it is true that a private member may introduce a resolution which may have the effect of advising the government to take into consideration the expenditure of certain moneys, the resolution we are discussing this evening is the preamble to a bill. We have often heard hon. members on the other side of the house say that what has appeared in a given resolution does not really appear in the bill; that the resolution does not go far enough and does not describe what we may expect in the ensuing bill. This is a resolution introduced by the government which has the effect of previewing the bill which will be presented to the house for consideration. If an amendment introduced by a private member to this resolution were to carry, then the government would unquestionably be, if not bound, certainly required to bring in a bill which would have the effect of producing a large expenditure not anticipated by the resolution.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Rubbish.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It may be true-I wish the hon. member for Marquette would contain himself for a few moments and listen to what I am saying.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: On a point of order, this was anticipated last April.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, there cannot be a point of order on a point of order. If the
[Mr. Dlefenbaker.l
hon. member would contain himself until I have finished my remarks, he can then take the floor. As I say, this would require the expenditure of money if it were introduced in a bill, and if the resolution this evening is carried would be required to be in the bill.
While it may be true, as suggested by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, that there will be a period of time under the proposed bill when the $10 increase will be paid before we begin to collect payments, at the same time it is up to the ministry to determine the amount of expenditure which can be budgeted for in a given fiscal year. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, on reflection, that you will unquestionably rule this amendment out of order.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who just preceded me asked me to contain myself, and then he went on as if he were on the hustings in April.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: That is what he did, and I should be permitted to do likewise. He did not consider-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It seems to me-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lucien Lamoureux: There is no question yet because no ruling has been rendered by the Chair. It seems to me from what I have heard of the last two arguments that they are not proper arguments. If any hon. member wants to be helpful to the Chair he should try and put forward a substantial argument.


Lionel Chevrier: If I may be allowed, I should like to say one word, and I will be brief, in answer to what the Leader of the Opposition has said. I think the Leader of the Opposition has admitted that a private member cannot introduce a matter of this kind-


John George Diefenbaker: No, nothing of the kind.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the Leader of the Opposition allow me to complete my sentence.


John George Diefenbaker: No. That is false.


Lionel Chevrier: Now we have arrogance from the Leader of the Opposition. The Chair has allowed me to make an intervention, but the Leader of the Opposition will not allow me even to complete my sentence, and he is the one who complains bitterly about the treatment which he gets from this side of the house.
I should like to say now, Mr. Chairman, that the argument of the Leader of the Opposition boils down to this. If you were to take out of this amendment the words "give consideration to", then the amendment would

be out of order. But because of the fact that the words "give consideration to" are contained in this amendment, it is in order. Otherwise, if I understand his admission aright, the amendment is out of order. I rose simply to say that the rules are quite clear, as I indicated before, namely that you cannot do indirectly what normally you could do directly.


Mr. Moreau:: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, surely this resolution clearly calls for an expenditure of tax money from a bill. The legislation with regard to this has not yet been passed. I think the minister in her remarks this afternoon clearly indicated that the payment, although advanced from the date of collection, the increase of $10, would be made after the bill has passed the house. With regard to the point of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that there was an advance, in other words that there would be some borrowings against some future contributions, surely that was very clearly explained by the minister and would be after the legislation had passed. If we accepted the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, we would be in the situation where, if we started making these payments and parliament at a later date refused to pass the resolution, we would be spending tax money.
The election material on which this amendment is supposedly based, Mr. Chairman, is clearly in our election promises. I have here the promises of the Liberal party in the general election, 1963, and they clearly indicate_


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Maurice John Moreau: -that we would not pay this increased $10 out of taxes.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, there are only two questions surely for the Chair to decide. First, can any amendment be moved to this resolution? I think it is quite clear that amendments can be moved, and I refer particularly to May's sixteenth edition, page 772. Speaking on procedure on resolutions on a money bill he says:
Procedure In these committees follows in principle the procedure of other committees of the whole house, but with special rules confining amendments within the scope of the resolution to which the Queen's recommendation has been signified.
Having decided, Mr. Chairman, that an amendment can be moved we must then ask whether the adoption of this amendment would in fact create a charge on the public funds, and to that the answer is clearly no.
(Translation):


Mr. Chapdelaine:: Mr. Chairman, after having heard all that discussion on the legality or the illegality of this amendment, I think it
Canada Pension Plan
must be recognized that there is much astuteness in this amendment since the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) is quibbling to achieve his political ends.
Could the Leader of the Opposition not introduce an amendment that would not commit the government to an expenditure of funds?
He is making a suggestion to the government through an amendment and indeed, it is quite usual that suggestions are made to a government through an amendment.
I think all hon. members are anxious to see the old age pension increased. But I do not think we should make a political football of it through an amendment which I think is illegal and not justified.
Suggestions are not made to a government through an amendment.
If the right hon. Leader of the Opposition wants the government to make an expenditure, let him say so and he will probably get general support. But if he wants to make a suggestion, let him make it but not by way of an amendment.


Mr. Drouin:: Mr. Chairman, before the question is put, you must ask yourself whether or not this motion is in order. According to standing order 77, any public bill must be read twice in the house before it is referred to a committee or amended. We are now at the resolution stage which precedes the introduction of the bill. In other words, we have not yet come to second reading. If the motion were put to a vote and carried, the bill would be automatically amended. How could we allow that something should be done indirectly which is formally prohibited by standing orders?
Under the circumstances, I respectfully submit that the motion introduced by the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely out of order, that Your Honour must say so officially and reject the motion.
(Text):


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am sure very few hon. members will envy the position in which the Chair finds itself at this point. I might say, to be honest, that I was prepared to render a ruling an hour ago after I had heard the original argument, but so many different facets of this important amendment have been submitted to me that I am wondering whether it will be at all wise to rule on the proposed amendment at this time. I feel it might be conducive to proper order in the committee if the Chair were allowed to ponder and study the many arguments which have been submitted this evening. Naturally, the debate could continue until we have an opportunity to consider the matter further. There are a number of speakers who wish to

Canada Pension Plan
address the committee on the resolution and in the meantime the Chair would have an opportunity to consider the arguments which have been raised and would then be in a much better position to render a decision which would be fair to the committee. That is the submission I should like to make to the committee at this time.
If that is agreeable I would ask the hon. member for Labelle to speak.
(Translation):


Gérard Girouard: Mr. Chairman, when I was interrupted, I was congratulating the leader of our party for having given a backbencher from Quebec the opportunity to express his views on the measure now under consideration.
Faithful to tradition, our leader has not taken advantage of a great opportunity to follow the example given us today by the party in power and the Leader of the Opposition and to put the matter of transferable pensions on-
(Text):


Lucien Lamoureux: There is a great deal of conversation going on in the chamber which makes it difficult for the hon. member for Labelle to be heard. I ask the co-operation of hon. members in this respect.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member for Labelle, but a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, you stated you wished to withhold judgment in connection with the matter which has been placed before you. With respect, I suggest that if you intend to give your ruling you should give it now. Your Honour said you were ready to do so. The Secretary of State came in-and I am not going to say any more about that.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: I would simply point this out: this is the last occasion on which we have an opportunity of discussing this matter and placing our views before the house on this amendment before the meeting of the dominion-provincial conference.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a point of order.


Lucien Lamoureux: I believe the Leader of the Opposition is already speaking on the point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: I simply asked whether Your Honour intends to give a decision tonight. I do not know what the Secretary of State is exercising himself about.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Can we have some order in the chamber? I believe the Leader of the Opposition is speaking on a point of order. Perhaps he could be heard out and we could
[The Chairman.]
then hear from the Secretary of State, if he wishes to speak himself on the point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: I am simply asking Your Honour if you did not feel, whatever the circumstances, that you could give your ruling now so that we may know the position of affairs. We would then be able to take whatever further steps might be necessary. I say this with the greatest of deference.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Your Honour asked the committee for a courtesy which I have never known to be refused by any committee before in my experience, and I would be much surprised if there were ever an occasion on which it had not been extended. Your Honour then recognized the hon. member for Labelle, who had the floor. Next, Your Honour drew attention to the fact that there was a great deal of noise in the committee and that the hon. gentleman could not be heard, and you suggested that as a courtesy he should be heard. Whereupon, the right hon. gentleman, who had no right whatever to take the floor intervened.


An hon. Member:: What right have you?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member for Labelle had the floor, the right hon. gentleman did not raise a point of order in the normal and proper fashion. He simply sought to interfere with the regular proceedings of the committee. I suggest that the hon. member for Labelle has the floor and that no hon. member has any right to interrupt him without his permission.


Lucien Lamoureux: On the point which was raised by the Leader of the Opposition, the courtesy which I had requested was that I might be given an opportunity to study the record and consider the authority. What I had hoped, of course, was that I would be given the opportunity to do this after hours. That is what I was suggesting.


Mr. Nugeni:: On the point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition, as one who might be taking part in this debate tonight may I point out it would be helpful to know if we were speaking to the amendment or to the resolution. It might make a considerable difference in what was said. If we were speaking to the amendment we would have an opportunity to speak later on the resolution. I should also like to know, when another hon. member is speaking, whether he is speaking to the amendment or to the resolution. I can understand the Chair wanting extra time to consider this question, but after listening to the contributions made by some hon. members on the original point of order I do not think they added anything to the arguments which had already been made. The point was a very simple one.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I do not believe the hon. member is speaking, now, to the point made by the Leader of the Opposition. The position of the Chair is clear enough. Certainly, if the amendment were in order we would be discussing the amendment. That is the whole point. What I should like the committee to do is to allow the Chair to suspend its decision, and the discussion, which would continue, would be a discussion on the resolution. That is why I have recognized the hon. member for Labelle.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Perhaps I could say this, Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I think I have heard the hon. member out. If he would look at standing order 50 he would see that it states:
Whenever Mr. Speaker is of opinion that a motion offered to the house is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament, he shall apprise the house thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon-
In other words, the decision has to be rendered before putting the question; but with the co-operation of the house I submit there is no necessity to put the question immediately.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: With the co-operation of the house.


Lucien Lamoureux: That is what I say.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The question of privilege I raised was that when Your Honour asked hon. members if they would concede that you should have time to think it over some said no and some said yes.


Lucien Lamoureux: That was not the way I interpreted the opinion of the house after I had made the submission. It seemed to me that there appeared to be consent and agreement with the proposition I was making to the chamber. The point was really completed when I asked the hon. member for Labelle to address the committee. He has already started to make his speech and I would ask him to continue.
(Translation):


Gérard Girouard: Mr. Chairman, I hope to be able to conclude my remarks this time. But this gives me an opportunity to emphasize once again that my leader, in asking me to speak in his place, refused an opportunity to make political capital to the detriment of our old people, as did the government party and the Conservatives.
On the other hand, I think that the Minister of Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh)
28902-5-151
Canada Pension Plan
placed herself in an unfavourable position by forgetting that she was in the house today and not on the hustings.
As for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), he made it a point to refer to the forties.
As usual, we heard today the government party saying: we are introducing legislation that the former party did not want to submit. We heard the former government saying: What you are proposing now, we worked it out.
Mr. Chairman, since they want to quote historical facts and statistics, what about the Social Crediters who, in 1930, requested an increase of old age pensions and family allowances? And our opponents said then that it was a utopia and that our heads were in the clouds. But today the two old line parties want to take credit for those measures and suggest that they were achieved by them.
If we really want to do some good, I feel it is time, since all parties request that measure, that we forego politics and give our senior citizens the protection they need.
However, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has gone a little farther today. She told us: the opposition party has been working for two years to give you something, and it got nowhere. But, with my government, within three months I will submit a plan.
Mr. Chairman, I am now convinced that what is submitted to us at this time is the result of three months' work only. And I am truly afraid that what happened with regard to the budget will repeat itself with this measure.
It is not enough for the party in power to say to the Canadian electors: we are giving you a plan, three cheers for us. I believe that when our fellow citizens have studied the pension plan, they will not cheer so loudly.
The farmer will say: What about me? What will happen to me? Did I not contribute also to the growth of my country?
At the same time, the fishermen will say once again that he is the sucker, because he is not given anything under this plan.
And the small store owner will think: "And I, what is happening to me? There is no mention about me in this pension plan."
And what about the service station owners, and so on-
It might happen too that the rich stockholder in the stock exchange wonders why

Canada Pension Plan
he is not included in that pension plan? But in his case, I am less worried because representations will be made in due course and because this class of people will know perfectly how to adjust to the new plan introduced by the government.
To all the small people whom I mentioned, the Minister of Health and Welfare might just say: "Applaud, we have fulfilled an electoral promise."
In view of such pusillanimity, not to say cynicism, I wonder where we are going.
But once more, tonight, we of the Social Credit party, must congratulate the government because, despite all its blunders, at least, it is doing something, and is not content, like a certain other party which has been turned out of office, to waste two hours of the time of the house and keep us from attending to the nation's business.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, even if we think that the increase from $65 to $75 is still inadequate, and that the social security legislation is also inadequate, we must give the people a chance to try and make the best of what is offered by the government. Our elder citizens need government protection and, today, we are happy to see that a movement is taking shape throughout the country, because the hon. members who have visited their ridings lately have no doubt noticed that almost 75 per cent of our elder citizens now depend only on their old age pension to live on to the end of their days. So at this time, we must commend the government although we hoped they would go further in their projects.
When I suggest that the government should go further, I think that family allowances must soon be considered. And since reference is made to the federal-provincial conference, I think it is high time to think about the situation of our old people, who are in need, because it is painful to see 65-year old persons forced to sell their homes in order to qualify for old age assistance. I think the government should really bring legislation forward to deal with this matter as soon as possible.
I also wish to remind the government that it is high time something was done to help needy mothers, and also the blind and the disabled. It can count on our entire support for any measure of that kind.
Not only is the government increasing the old age pension, it also proposes introducing a portable pension plan. It is not easy of course to discuss, to criticize, to approve a

bill, or even to make suggestions about it when we know nothing of its provisions. However, it may not be useless to point out, once more, that Social Credit has always stood for progress in that direction.
Since the minister has invited suggestions, when the time comes to debate the resolution, the government might even consider allowing people of 60 or more to benefit from this welfare measure.
I understand that, in certain industries that have a contributory pension plan, employees are entitled to their pensions as soon as they reach age 60. They can thus retire earlier, thereby making jobs available for young workers who are now unemployed. I know that many of our senior citizens would gladly retire at 60 if they could count on an adequate pension plan to provide for their needs from then on.
Mr. Chairman, there were several pension plans in private industry before this, but I believe that a uniform scheme throughout Canada would be of much greater interest. And why would it be so? Because first of all, it would enable a lowering of such insurance cost to a considerable degree and also give the individual the possibility of recovering his freedom, because we know that pension plans are a stumbling block for many people. I know, for instance, that many civil servants will say: "I might have a good job in private enterprise, but I cannot accept it, because, in five or ten years from now, I shall have my pension."
The same thing is said in private industry. In such a case, the worker is bound and cannot leave his job for a better paid one because he knows that he must remain where he is if he wants to benefit from his pension plan. We shall most certainly have suggestions to make about the provisions of this legislation when we are in possession of the bill.
We shall also have recommendations to make about the financing of the measure. The Social Credit party would undoubtedly have been able to suggest alternative means of financing which would have cost a lot less to the Canadian taxpayer. Finally, I hope to have an opportunity at that future time to answer the stock question of the Leader of the Opposition who just a few days ago again asked our leader "Where will you find that money?"
I hope, Mr. Chairman, to be in a position to take 20 minutes before long to explain in the clearest, simplest and most precise

terms where a Social Credit government would find the money to finance social legislation.
If we consider what we are offered today- the budget incident proved it-the only benefits that are offered our people today are given to them only after an extra third is to be paid by them in administration costs. The administration cost of the budget is today exactly the third of the budget amount. So, I believe that the occasion will be given to me to answer the Leader of the Opposition-and I shall not then prevent the other hon. members from listening to me carefully-because be it today, in five years or in ten years, I am sure that the house will ponder over that, as the capitalistic system we have today will, sooner or later, have to resort to a measure advocated by the Social Credit party if it wants to maintain individual enterprise and individual liberty.
What is surprising, Mr. Chairman, is that the two governments which succeeded one another in this house have in turn advocated measures which the Social Credit party has had for years while neither one nor the other dared-I say "dared"-launch the smallest experiment with the financial suggestions offered by my party.
Another feature of the contributory pension plan on which I must expand here is the one concerning its constitutional or unconstitutional character. I already see my hon. friends getting impatient and saying to themselves: Those Quebec demands again. It will come, Mr. Chairman, but not for the moment, because first of all, I wish to consider the matter as a federal member only, that is as a legislator of the country from sea to sea and then, I will be pleased to express the views of my province.
Some will say that any discussion at this stage is difficult because the Prime Minister has convened a federal-provincial conference on the matter. I do not quite agree, because I think this is the time to express our views to the Prime Minister if we want him to channel the discussion in that direction during the federal-provincial conference.
From the point of view of all provinces, the question that seems to arise is this: Why lose the opportunity of having at our disposal millions of dollars we urgently need for our own purposes? And that is, Mr. Chairman, the objection raised by Quebec. It could also come from Ontario, New Brunswick or any other province, because I am of the opinion that our provinces really need additional funds for their own undertakings today. One 28902-5-1514
Canada Pension Plan
province might be able to do without them, because I notice that in Alberta they have found a government that did not wait for the contributory plan to balance its budget.
Well, Mr. Chairman, to mention but one of the Quebec demands, here is according to Le Devoir, what Mr. Gerin-Lajoie said:
A universal pension fund would facilitate the establishment of a school credit board.
A pension plan under provincial control would put into the hands of the provincial government a sum of at least $250 million per year. Such an amount would facilitate investment operations not only for the provincial government but also for the institutions that rely on financial help from the province for their investments, such as school boards, municipalities, classical colleges and universities.
That is an example from Quebec. It could have come from Ontario or somewhere else.
Mr. Chairman, that is only an example to show how useful it could be for the provinces to have the control of the funds that would accumulate under the present act in the years to come.
The government will be able to listen favourably to that statement of principle, which has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the project, although it is not yet sure the provinces will approve it. But it seems that if the provinces manage their contributory pension funds themselves, they could come to a difficult but possible agreement, since portable pensions may result in difficulties, because of salary differences and various operations in the provinces.
That is the reason why I do not think the province of Quebec should take a different stand from that of the other provinces. It has only to put forward its claims and it is possible that they will be listened to carefully.
But, Mr. Chairman, I think that at the present time, the Quebec problem has not only to do with the claiming of this source of income. The program raises mostly a constitutional problem. The question is very serious for the province at this time.
Has the federal government the authority to legislate in that field? Many will be tempted to say yes since, after all, Ottawa already has legislation concerning old age pensions and unemployment insurance and since the proposed scheme is nothing but an extension of that social and labour legislation.
However, outraged citizens of Quebec will say in reply to that statement made in good faith: "If, one day, I had the stupidity to give you my tie, it does not mean that you now have the right to take my shirt away from me".

Canada Pension Plan
That is somewhat the position of the province of Quebec and that is the point which should be discussed. The provincial government sorely regrets having given away its legislative and taxation powers in the past. In a fit of nostalgia, it promptly rebels against any further encroachment by the federal government.
But that makes the other provinces impatient; they can hardly understand how one province can oppose legislation which seems acceptable to all of them.
I would like to make it clear to all hon. members that the province of Quebec is not really responsible for this situation. Once, it was given certain rights like all other provinces, and the province of Quebec wants to keep these responsibilities which are clearly established in the British North America Act.
Municipalities come under the jurisdiction of the provinces. Consequently, the Municipal Loans and Development Act is ultra vires. The province of Quebec is against it and who, in this house, can blame it.
I think that the civil rights come under provincial jurisdiction. But, by its portable pension plan, the federal government wants to pass legislation in that connection and Quebec is against that. Which member here could blame our province? No one, Mr. Chairman. If there are any, they will say it is inconceivable that one province should stand in the way of a stronger confederation.
I agree that Canada should be strong and that to be strong it must remain united.
It seems unfair that the province of Quebec should prevent nine other provinces from enjoying the development taking place throughout Canada, as it also seems unfair that nine provinces could object to the just claims of a province that is an equal partner within this same confederation.
There is a solution, Mr. Chairman. It is imperative while there is still time, that Canada, the provinces, the hon. members of the house, recognize merely the fact that the province of Quebec is simply not a province like the others. The province of Quebec is not asking more than the others, but it only wishes to preserve the rights that were granted to it by the British North America Act. This is not a privilege, Mr. Chairman, it is a right.
During the last election campaign, there was great hope in the province of Quebec. Mention was made of equality, of bicultural-ism, of bilingualism, of all kinds of words starting with bi- and a few weeks after the

opening of this parliament, we heard the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamon-tagne) state in high-sounding terms: "We shall be the fathers of a new confederation". Strange father of a strange confederation who, within two months, begot three children who are totally unacceptable to the province of Quebec.
Besides, it is a strange confederation, especially when the Prime Minister should have to decide, with his back to the wall, that the legislation will be considered at a federal-provincial conference. Those measures, so to speak, are the three children unacceptable to the province of Quebec. You know which ones I mean, but I shall name them: the plan to assist municipalities, the portable pensions scheme and the program of assistance to universities.
After that, people are surprised to see that the province of Quebec is so hard to please. During election campaigns, it is shamelessly misled; not only its rights are recognized, but some others are acknowledged that it does not even possess, for instance, the right to establish full bilingualism throughout the country. That is an achievement which every French Canadian, in his heart of hearts desires, but which is not based on any constitutional text. Instead of promising things to which Quebec has no right, let it rather get its due.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamontagne), the new father of a new confederation, spoke in Quebec of giving French Canadians additional rights. And, as soon as he takes over, he rushes into a field which is dear to French Canadians. True to his former attitude, he advocates centralization and just keeps silent or goes out when things get too hot.
The solution, Mr. Chairman, as I said and repeat today, is simply to recognize that Quebec is not a province like all others.
Quebec never refused to pay taxes to the federal government, even when they were as hateful as the one on building materials. The province of Quebec was never opposed to any federal legislation, whatever it might have been, whether in the educational or any other field. Yet, it always said: "Give us an equal amount when you invade a field under provincial jurisdiction."
It is as simple as that, Mr. Chairman, a little comprehension, a little understanding on the part of the other provinces, and everything will be all right.
Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I wonder why it is always the opposition which should stand up for Quebec's rights.

To my mind it would be easy for the 40 or 50 members from the province of Quebec, who are sitting on government benches, to make suggestions to the government, when such questions are raised.
Allow me now to quote an article of Jean Marc Leger which appeared in he Devoir and which reads as follows:
And Our Members of Parliament
In the various Quebec-Ottawa disputes which stem in fact from a single conflict, what is going to be the position of our French Canadian members in the house? Their task will surely not be easy, but the moment of truth is nearing when they will have to choose between party and country. It is not sufficient to try lobbying, to have compromise solutions accepted, more often a graceful form of surrender. They will be judged by their stand, their speeches, their vote on important issues.
Mr. Chairman, I conclude these few comments by assuring the house that they have been made in the best possible spirit.
I truly hope that, during the federal-provincial conference, it will be possible to find a satisfactory means of respecting Quebec's demands without jeopardizing a piece of legislation which the other provinces wish with all their hearts.
Let us find a scheme under which one or two provinces could join the plan by means of an agreement while the others would have a similar program of their own and then all Canadians would benefit from legislation which, without being perfect, would none the less improve social conditions.
Then the Minister of National Health and Welfare will be able to say that she has given Canada an old age pension plan and our fellow citizens will be able to rejoice because, as I said, it will be a great improvement over the last five years. And this will be in the best interests of French Canadians.
(Text):


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the resolution before the committee precedes a piece of legislation which is probably as important a proposal as any we have before the House of Commons at this session. Some of the things that I shall say will be critical of certain aspects of the proposal, and there are certain other negative things I may find it necessary to say, but at the outset I want to indicate that I feel we should recognize that in this proposed legislation we are moving into a new phase of social security in Canada, and it is a very important phase.
I believe there are many things in the proposed legislation that have been worked out very well. I not only listened to the speech
Canada Pension Plan
made this afternoon by the minister but I have carefully read the paper that she tabled.
I join with her in commending those in the public service who have done the job of putting this piece of legislation together.
I also want to say that in my view the legislation comes within the terms of our constitution. It is provided for quite clearly in section 94A of the British North America Act, which was put into our constitution in 1951. In saying that, however, I am not ignoring the very effective speech that has just been made by the hon. member for Labelle.
To comment at any length on what he said would be to digress from what I want to say about the legislation that is before us, but I do share the view he expressed that we have got to find a way to respect on the one hand the things that are near and dear to the hearts of the people of Quebec, and to respect on the other hand the things that are near and dear to the hearts of the people of the other nine provinces.
I agree with him that it would not be proper for one province to deny to the people of the other nine the benefits of federalism that they want. By the same token, those of the other nine must not deny to the people of that one special province of Quebec the rights that are near and dear to them.
I hope the day will come when, instead of our making many speeches of the after-dinner type about the unity we have in this country, we will get down to the problem and deal with it, and that we will even grapple with the necessity of rewriting our constitution to protect, in our time, the rights that are so precious to the two main groups in this country. We can do it and I hope the day we get to the job will come soon.
Nevertheless, so far as this piece of legislation is concerned I submit that it does come, as I have already said, within the provisions of section 94A of the British North America Act, and in my view there is no doubt about its constitutionality.
I have deliberately made these opening remarks of as positive a character as I could, because I wanted to speak in that vein for a bit before I said something else that I feel must be said. I regret as deeply as I possibly can that the Minister of National Health and Welfare chose to introduce in her speech on this important piece of legislation the terrible partisan note that she imported into that speech. If she and those on her side do not like what happened tonight when the Leader of the Opposition returned in kind, she has only herself to blame.
I suggest it is time that the ministers of this new government, like the Minister of

Canada Pension Plan
Finance and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, got over this bad taste they have shown by importing so much partisanship into the presentation of important items.
The Minister of Finance did it when he presented the budget. The Minister of National Health and Welfare did it this afternoon when she presented this piece of legislation, which is important not just to the Liberal party, not just to the various parties in the House of Commons, but important to all the people of Canada. I hope we will deal with it on that basis, and I hope during the course of my remarks to do something that has not been done for quite a while since this debate got started, and that is to say something about the proposals that have been placed before us.
There is one other comment that I must make. I regret very much that the Minister of National Health and Welfare saw fit to say several times this afternoon that the time when this legislation would come into effect, the time when the $10 increase to those who receive payments under the Old Age Security Act could start, the time when all the rest of it would become effective would depend upon how quickly parliament dealt with the legislation. Mr. Chairman, that borders close to something which would call for my using a word that is not parliamentary. We were told categorically by the Secretary of State, when he announced the business of the house the other night, that this day is all we are getting before the summer recess to debate this legislation. He made it crystal clear that it is not to be proceeded with any further; that all that is happening is that today the details of the legislation as presented by the minister are being exposed-that was quite a word-to the Canadian people.
This means that the plan is that we have this day's debate, then it is adjourned, and there it rests. At least, that is the plan thus far; but I am now going to make a very strong appeal to the Secretary of State that this plan be changed. It must be changed for two reasons. The first is that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and the Prime Minister too, because he has said this sort of thing on motions or on orders of the day, cannot get away with this idea that this legislation is being delayed, that its effective dates are being delayed because parliament is not prepared to deal with it. We are prepared to deal with it. We are prepared to debate it tomorrow, and I say, as one who has to negotiate between this party and the government and between this party and the other parties, that I am prepared to ask my friends in this party to sit on Saturday and sit a week from Saturday and to give all the

extra time that is necessary for this resolution to be debated and passed and for the bill to be brought in. If the government is not prepared to accept that offer, let not the Minister of National Health and Welfare, nor the Prime Minister, say that the delay is because of the difficulty of getting the matter through parliament. Parliament is ready to deal with this legislation and I am sure, when I say that, that I can speak for hon. members in all four parties in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We want it dealt with; we do not want it delayed. But, Mr. Chairman, there is now another reason why the business of the house must be changed, why this debate must not simply be adjourned tonight and then left over until the fall. This is because of the ruling that has been reserved by the chairman. I say quite frankly that I think the chairman had every right to ask the courtesy of the house for time to consider that ruling, and he was quite honest with us in saying that he wanted time after hours; in other words, he indicated that he would not give a ruling tonight. But do you see what that means, Mr. Chairman? It means we will not get a ruling on this amendment until October. What kind of a place is this, to suggest that an important issue such as whether or not the $10 a month should be applied immediately shall be delayed simply because of the difficulty of making a ruling?
As I say, the chairman had every right to make that request, but I think the obligation now rests upon the Secretary of State, as leader of the house, to arrange for further days in this part of the session to debate this legislation. In fact, I think it should be debated tomorrow; it should be debated on whatever days are necessary next week, so that the ruling can be given by the Chair. I recognize that it is a difficult question. The procedural point was so difficult that I did not even take part in the discussion on the point of order, and that is unusual in this house. I admit it is difficult; but what is more important than a difficulty of that kind is getting this question settled as to whether or not the house wants the government to consider bringing in this $10 increase right away.
If the Secretary of State, as the leader of the house, does not arrange for further debate on this issue we can only assume that the government simply does not want this matter really brought out in the open; all it wanted was a chance for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to make her statement, so that we might have on Hansard the material she gave in her speech and in her white paper; but it does not want to let

us see the bill; it does not want to really get moving at this time. Perhaps the government has a good reason.


Mr, Pickersgill:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him a question. Has the hon. gentleman not read the letter which the Prime Minister addressed to the premiers of the provinces, and is not the hon. gentleman also aware of the fact that when this business was arranged I was perfectly frank with him and with the house; that the reason this matter was being called at this date was so the house would be informed of the details of the government's proposals, so the country would be informed of them and so they would be before the provincial premiers. Until that conference, which has been called, meets so that certain ancillary features which the government wishes to have in the legislation can be considered, it would really be, surely the hon. gentleman would admit, quite a grave discourtesy to the premiers and quite wrong to proceed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am quite prepared to assure the hon. gentleman right now that I will ask my colleagues to consider the possibility of bringing this matter before the house again as soon as the provincial premiers have had their meeting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am always glad to accept questions from the Secretary of State. There must be something in our both being from Winnipeg, because his question was right in the middle of a sentence in which I was about to deal with this very point. I was about to say that the government may have good reason for delaying the legislation. But if it has, tell us what it is; do not let the Minister of National Health and Welfare rise and tell us that the reason there will be some delay is because of the time parliament takes. The Secretary of State asks me whether I recall the letter the Prime Minister sent to the premiers of the provinces. Of course I do; I read that letter very carefully. That letter was sent to the premiers of the provinces after the notice of this motion had appeared on the order paper. That letter indicated that the intention was to have this legislation proceed to the point of first reading of the bill so that the bill could be presented to the premiers when they met to discuss the whole matter.
It was said in the letter quite clearly that what was proposed for discussion with the premiers was other areas of social welfare. There was no suggestion that this legislation was to be submitted to the premiers for their
Canada Pension Plan
approval, their veto or what have you. But I was concerned-I have been here a bit- and therefore on Wednesday, June 26, which I think was a day or two after the Prime Minister had tabled his letter to the premiers,
I asked him this question:
Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the invitation of the federal government to the provinces to join in discussions on pension matters contained in a letter to the provinces which the Prime Minister tabled and had placed on Hansard yesterday, imply that the introduction of legislation regarding a Canada pension plan is to be delayed until after these discussions have taken place?
The Prime Minister's reply was:
No, Mr. Speaker, that is not an implication that need be drawn from the letter.
My question indicated my suspicion that the writing of that letter would result in this kind of delay, but the Prime Minister said there was no such implication to be drawn from the letter. Well, if the government has changed its mind, and I do not think it should have, I think-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. gentleman does not want to misrepresent the situation, and neither do I. He referred to the first letter; I referred to the recent letter calling the conference. I think my remarks were quite plain. There is no question that when the Prime Minister gave the answer to the hon. gentleman, that was the intention of the government. But when the government decided last week to ask the premiers to meet before the end of July, it was indicated, it seems to me, quite clearly in this very house that this discussion with the premiers, which was not contemplated for July at the time of the earlier letter, would take place before any further stage of this legislation was proposed to the house. I repeat again to the hon. gentleman that I am prepared to ask my colleagues to give consideration to bringing this matter back before the house as soon as the conference with the premiers is over, if that is the wish of hon. members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Secretary of State will not only take up with his colleagues the question of bringing the legislation back to the house after the premiers have met, but that there will be at least one further day provided so that the chairman can rule on the amendment proposed tonight. To leave that amendment over for two weeks, let alone the possibility of leaving it over until fall, I submit is not only unfair to the house but is unfair to the people of the country.
I realize that the main subject before us is the introduction of a new scheme for provision of old age security and that we should not get

Canada Pension Plan
lost in the immediate matter of the $10 increase. But I think it is quite an accurate reflection of how the people of the country feel that the house has been in a bit of a turmoil tonight over this very question. My mail indicates that our older people across the country are assuming from the announcement about this legislation that their $65 cheques will go up to $75 almost any month now; yet we have been told today by the Minister of National Health and Welfare that the best that can be hoped for is that the $10 increase will take place some time early in 1964. I submit that that is not good enough in the light of all the promises made by the party now in power during the recent election campaign. While I admit that the performance tonight was a little lacking in decorum, and was perhaps not parliament at its best in terms of procedure, I suggest that it was a reflection of the strong feeling in the country that something should be done about this matter. It is not a case of how the chairman rules on the amendment or how the committee or the house might vote on the issue. We as private members put it to the government that they have to find a way to divide the question into its two parts and get this $10 increase through to our old age pensioners at the earliest possible date.
I said at the outset that this proposed legislation marks, in my view, the entry of this country into a new and extremely important phase of the whole question of old age security. I have down in my notes three one-word headings describing the history of old age pensions in Canada as I see it. I take a certain amount of personal interest in the fact that I think the effective history of old age security in Canada actually began on the day I was born. It just so happens that on June 18, 1908-most hon. members will remember a more recent June 18-the House of Commons gave second reading to and debated in committee the Government Annuities Act, which was the first piece of legislation providing anything in the way of old age security for the people of this country. That is an interesting debate to read. The proposal was for an annuity of a maximum of $50 a month. There were the usual arguments about the danger of this interfering with private business and the danger of its doing something about the initiative of the people, and so on. Concern was expressed about the cost. The minister piloting the bill tried to allay the fears of hon. members of that day by saying that it would cost the government only $50,000 a year. However, it got started. But what got started then was the recognition of the fact that something needed to be done by government to assist

people in their old age. That phase-I call it recognition of the need-took a long while. It started in 1908, though there had been agitation even before that.
Some years later, in 1926, the Old Age Pensions Act was passed, which provided a pension of $20 a month payable at age 70 on a means test. Then as hon. members know, through a number of years efforts were made to get the pension increased, and finally it got up to $40 a month. But that phase, which lasted roughly from 1908 down to about 1950, was merely a phase in which we recognized that government had to do something about the needs of our older citizens.
Then in 1950 we moved into the second phase. That second phase I characterize with the word "universality". If there is one thing to be said about the report of the old age security committee of 1950 and the legislation which came out of the recommendations of that committee, it is the acceptance of the principle that in old age there should be something for everybody in the country, without any means test. As I say, it took us many years to reach that point; but we did reach it in 1950 or 1951, when the legislation was passed, becoming effective in 1952, and we established the fact that pensions for senior citizens should be on a universal basis, that everybody should have a pension when he reaches a certain age. That was a tremendous step forward from the earliest phase, which was merely recognition of the need.
We have now come to the point where we realize that a further phase must be moved into, and that is the phase where we provide adequacy. The reason I welcome the legislation now before us is because I think it is a step-a halting step but nevertheless a step -in the right direction toward putting old age pensions on a basis of adequacy, of providing sufficient for a decent retirement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friends across the way should not applaud too loudly, because all I am saying is that it is a good step. It does not provide adequacy; it only starts that direction and there is still a long way to go. If we are going to have a pensions scheme in Canada that provides adequate pensions for old age, there are a few things we have to face up to. First of all, I think we have to recognize the basic principle, the philosophy if you will, that older people who have finished their time of work are entitled not just to be kept alive by $20 a month, or $65 a month, or $75 a month, but to a standard of living equal to that which society is able to provide at the time of their retirement by those who are still working. I do not know

why we settled so long tor the silly notion that it was good enough for old people just to keep them alive. People who have done their share of producing the nation's wealth or developing the nation's economy are entitled in their retirement years to a standard of living equal to that which they themselves have helped to build up. Let us not go for this argument which sometimes appears in the editorials of some of our newspapers which is directed against the extravagance of old age pensions and the political auctioneering which is going on, and all the rest of it. What these arguments fail to recognize is that it is a sound philosophical principle, a sound principle of human life that we are trying to accept, when we say that we must move into an era so far as old age pensions are concerned when we can provide an adequate living standard.
The next thing we must recognize if we are going to do anything toward providing an adequate coverage is that it cannot be done by reliance upon private pension plans. I could expand on this but perhaps I can do no better than to quote a few sentences from Dr. Robert Clark, who wrote a monumental work a few years ago on old age security in the United States and Canada.
In paragraph 1504 of his report he says this:
The mere fact that so many hundreds of thousands of employees are now members of pension plans does not ensure that any given proportion of those who reach pensionable age will ever receive a pension.
In another paper the same Dr. Clark had this to say:
From the general viewpoint of the public interest that as many as possible of the aged should have an adequate income, and not merely a subsistence income, employee pension plans have two disadvantages, apart from the limitations of coverage referred to earlier. Under the majority of pension plans in Canada, when an employee leaves his employer prior to retirement he does not get any benefit from his employer's pension plan unless he has been with the employer for 10 years or more. Employees who change jobs many times in the course of their lives may work for a succession of employers with good pension plans, yet reach retirement with only a meagre pension to supplement their Old Age Security. Likewise undesirable from the above-mentioned viewpoint is the fact that the vast majority of employees covered by pension plans, confronted when they leave their employer with the choice of cash or a deferred annuity, take cash. As a consequence of these factors, to an extent which it is impossible to determine, most employee pension plans restrict the mobility of labour. Although the point Is readily exaggerated, most pension plans also give employers an incentive to discriminate in hiring personnel against persons over age 40. These disadvantages are likely to be more serious in noncontributory pension plans.
Yet despite the fact that authorities such as Dr. Clark have expressed such views as this-and Dr. Clark is not alone; we have a 28902-5-152
Canada Pension Plan
good many professors in this field in Canada who are speaking and writing most effectively on this subject-the Minister of National Health and Welfare in the paper she presented this afternoon says:
The Canada pension plan is not intended to be comprehensive in any other sense-
The reference back is to the intention that it should cover everybody.
It is not designed to provide all the retirement income which many Canadians wish to have. This is a matter of individual choice and, in the government's view, should properly be left to personal savings and to private pension plans-
Our whole point is that Dr. Clark is right. When you leave pension plans to private auspices they will not provide adequate coverage. We shall not move into the phase of adequacy if we leave this to private plans. We must enlarge tremendously the role of the public sector in the whole business. The Minister of National Health and Welfare was completely frank about it in her paper. In another place, where she talks about funding versus pay as you go, she says:
The absence of large reserves means that there will not be large transfers of funds from the private sector to the public sector.
Our contention is that we shall not move into this phase of development unless we accept a much greater measure of government responsibility than is envisaged in this plan. In this connection, I suggest that the people of Canada, about the third day after they have read of today's statement by the minister, will wake up to its inadequacies. Figures have been thrown at us today about possible pensions-a man and his wife would get $175 a month, both, perhaps, if both were contributing. This is made up of $100 under the Canada pension plan and $75 under old age security provisions. But this would be possible only in the case of persons whose income was $4,000 or more.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it unanimously agreed that the hon. member may continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the committee for its courtesy. Let me point out what will happen under the terms of this plan as it develops. The minister has made it clear that registration will not begin until May, 1964. Payments into the plan will not begin until October, 1964. Then, the white paper makes it clear that the first year in which any benefits can be drawn from the plan will be 1966, and in 1966 a person whose income has been

Canada Pension Plan
$4,000 and who has been contributing can get a pension under the plan amounting to $10 a month if he retires in that year at the age of 70. If he retires in 1967 he can get $20 a month. It adds up to this: not until 1975 will it be possible under this plan for a person to get a pension of $100 plus the $75 under the Old Age Security Act.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare, after her little partisan and political introduction was over, said: let us not play politics with this whole question. Yet she has laid before us a plan which even under its present terms will not be fully effective for 12 years. During that time we shall have three, or possibly four federal elections- more, if we continue at the recent rate. Does the hon. lady suggest that we can get through all that period of time without having political arguments about this measure? I think it is nonsense to deprecate political discussion of this issue. What I think is wrong, though, is the kind of thing which happened today- the government giving the impression that it is going to pay $10 immediately, whereas it will not be paid until next year, and $175 in the near future when in actual fact that amount of money will not be available as a pension until 1975, and even then only to those whose income had been $4,000 a year.
All this underlines my point. I welcome the fact that we have made an initial, halting step in phase three. We have begun to develop a scheme whereby we could provide adequate pensions. The real goal, however, is years away and will remain many years away unless the government can get over this notion that, somehow, the greater part of our providing for old age must be left to private plans, insurance companies and so on.
I could hardly contain myself this afternoon, or tonight, when the Leader of the Opposition claimed that this plan would draw off all kinds of funds and take away the function of providing pensions from private plans, insurance companies and the like. That is precisely what it does not do. It provides a scheme under which people who are employees will pay 1 per cent of their wages into the plan. People are not used to pension plans costing so little and they know that for so little they will not get much in return.
In discussing the pay as you go plan versus a funding arrangement, the minister says the reason for the line which the government has followed is that it is not proposed that large reserves would be built up as a vehicle for federal debt management or investment. One could argue the respective merits of these two methods, and there are merits on both sides. There are strong arguments in

favour of a pay as you go scheme, but I suggest this should be viewed in the light of our whole economic problem, and one of the main elements of our problem today is securing public control of the economy of the country so that the savings of the people can be used for the advantage of the whole country. The way the government's plan is worked out, with all its sophistry about leaving large areas to private plans and individual choice, means that large amounts of the people's savings will still be in private hands, in the hands of the insurance companies to be used for investment in ways in which they think fit rather than the people deciding through their government on how they should best be used. I suggest these two things must be dovetailed together; the whole question of providing adequate pensions and of the funds which are saved being used in ways which are good for society as a whole through public investment.
I say, readily, that I think this is a most significant date in our history-a milestone. We have come 55 years in this story. We are now moving into phase three, but I do not think that after all these years we need to take such a halting step. The minister says that other countries have this sort of thing. Of course they have; even Sweden which has done very well, took a few years to get where it is today.


Mr. Haidasz:: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member has had sufficient time to conclude his speech.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member denying unanimous consent to the first spokesman for this party to speak on this question?


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think there was unanimous consent.


An hon. Member:: Certainly there was.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. There was unanimous consent for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to have extra time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I shall take only a few more minutes.


An hon. Member:: What happened to
knucklehead over there?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is one thing that the minister said this afternoon with which I want to express wholehearted agreement and that is her drawing attention to the fact that there are other areas of need. She mentioned in particular widows with dependant children, disabled persons not yet 65 years of age and orphans. She was perfectly right in

pointing out that as circumstances now stand they cannot be dealt with under a federal plan for old age pensions, but I am glad that a conference is to be held with the premiers to discuss this sort of thing and I hope we will move with serious concern toward integrating our various welfare and pension plans to provide a decent life for our people.
I mentioned Dr. Robert Clark. There is Professor Clarence Barber of the University of Manitoba, there is Professor John Morgan of Toronto, there is Dr. Malcolm Taylor of the University of Alberta and there are others across the country who are experts in this field, not to mention the experts we have in our own public service, not to mention the tremendous interest in all of this by the people who work under the direction of the Canadian welfare council. I think we should get over this notion of just working on one piece of legislation today and another after the next election and thinking we have solved the problem. We have got to get together and integrate the whole program.
I welcome strongly the introduction of this legislation. I do not think I am overstating it when I characterize it, as I have tried to, as entering upon a new phase in old age security; but I hope we will soon step up our pace in this sort of thing, that we will really start to achieve adequacy in the old age field, that we will integrate it with the other aspects of social security and social welfare so that it will soon be really true that there is a good life for all our people.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on the Canada pension plan. I am happy to hear that the spokesman for the New Democratic party and the spokesman for the Social Credit party are in favour of the plan. I regret, however, that again it is the Conservatives who are against this major piece of social legislation. History again is repeating itself.
This plan of social insurance, promised in our election campaign and delivered within the first 60 days of decision by the twenty sixth parliament of Canada by the courageous and enlightened leadership of the present Prime Minister, will increase the benefits to our senior citizens now and much more in the future as average wages and accumulated benefits increase. Members of this house will want, I am sure, to commend and thank the Minister of National Health and Welfare who has in so short a space of time worked and persevered with her advisers in the Department of National Health and Welfare to make this pension scheme possible. In the tradition of previous Liberal ministers of
28902-5-1521
Canada Pension Plan
national health and welfare the present minister is making available to the senior citizens of this country the benefits of the philosophy and the reform policies of the Liberal party, which strives for the attainment of security and dignity for every Canadian citizen.
In our industrial society the age of 65 is often being accepted as the compulsory age for retirement. Yet we are a work-oriented society. Unfortunately a man in retirement often loses not only his self-esteem and social responsibility but above all his financial income. The solution to this problem is not to throw to our senior citizens a bribe of a few dollars in old age pension before each election. The solution in the economic aspect of retirement is an actuarially sound contributory pension system with benefits designed to provide a decent retirement living. The Canada pension scheme is thus designed to give our senior citizens in retirement a comfortable living.
As the minister stated this afternoon, a realistic minimum level of pensions is too difficult to achieve in a country like Canada merely by increasing the flat rate pension. Living costs vary between city and village and between different regions of the country. The purpose, therefore, of the Canada pension plan is to make available reasonable minimum levels of income for all Canadians at normal retirement ages, and within the plan there will be room for the possible continuation and extension of other private pension plans to provide benefits over these minimum levels.
The main feature of the plan, Mr. Chairman, will provide a flat increase in the present old age pension from $65 to $75 per month at the age of 70. The $10 raise will be paid out of the fund and it is estimated to be $116 million per year. The earnings related portion of the pension based on contributions, plus the flat rate pension, would both be available at any age between 65 and 70 depending upon the choice of the contributing pensioner. The rate of contribution during the ten year transition period will not exceed 2 per cent of the earnings on which contributions are made, as stated previously by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, contributions will be deductible from income tax as now exists for private pension plans. Self-employed people will be encouraged to join the plan. They will pay the full 2 per cent of the first $4,000 of their earned income. At existing wage levels the total monthly pension available to a single person at age 70, whose average monthly pensionable earnings were $333 per month, will be $175 per month,

Business of the House which is comprised of a graduated contributory part of $100 plus the $75 per month flat rate pension.
An enviable feature of this Liberal plan is that at every level the Canadian pension will be higher than United States security payments. In comparison a United States citizen receives only $112 per month at the age of 70 based on monthly earned income of $333. I assure hon. members that the present plan will be entirely self-financing and therefore no burden at all will be placed on the national treasury. May I call it ten o'clock?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the house leader what the government proposes for tomorrow, and if he is able to tell us, for next Monday and Tuesday?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, I believe, the government would like to take the committee stage and third reading of the customs tariff bill on the understanding that I think was arranged with hon. gentlemen opposite, that this was really largely a formality. Then, we will go into committee of ways and means to consider the income tax resolution. Should that be completed, we would go on to the excise tax resolution. I am sure that we would not go beyond those two before six o'clock.
I wonder, sir, if I might be permitted to clear up what I was told was a misunderstanding, perhaps not so much of the house
but at the table, about the hours for the rest of the month? I think I perhaps expressed myself rather loosely last night. I believe I am correct in saying the understanding was that the hours would be the same as they have been this week, and that would apply also to private members hour being available for government business on every day except Thursday.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That was my impression last evening.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the Secretary of State formally, now that Your Honour is in the Chair, if he will consider providing at an early date another day's debate on the resolution we have been discussing, so that the chairman of the committee of the whole could have an opportunity to give his ruling on the proposed amendment?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should be glad to bring that suggestion to the attention of my colleagues. I am sure hon. gentlemen realize that I could not vary the business the government had agreed upon in this way without consultation. I do not believe that I could recommend that we interrupt the consideration of budget resolutions, except possibly for the tax bills, until they are completed. Of course, the sooner they are completed the happier the government will be.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, July 19, 1963