1964-11-09

Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. leader-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: The right hon. leader of the government wishes to make a short announcement.
In accord with the understanding reached at the party leaders' meeting this morning I wish to announce merely that after three separate discussions and in spite of our best efforts, we were unable to agree on a program or timetable of work for the rest of the session.
Speaking on behalf of the government I should inform the house, as I promised to do, that the government considers the following matters should be dealt with before Christmas, and I give them not necessarily in order of time priority. First, estimates; redistribution bill; report of the flag committee; the labour standards bill and the pensions bill.
The order of business proposed for this week has already, I think, been given to the house. Today, as the house knows, we will be dealing with the pensions resolution, and tomorrow and the rest of the week-on Wednesday the house will not be sitting- redistribution and estimates. It should be possible, I believe, to deal with the matters I have mentioned in a month or so. If we do better than that and there is additional time before Christmas, there are other measures on the order paper which could be brought forward. I also have to make the customary and necessary reservation that any program of work is always subject to change due to any emergency developing.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbalcer (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, there are one or two references I intend to make in reply to what the right hon. leader of the government has said represents the situation. We were together on three occasions, and I think it only proper that I should say at once that
in so far as the objective is concerned as set forth by him, regarding what might be done before Christmas, I think each and every one of the matters referred to is necessary, and there is no reason why redistribution, the pension bill and those matters to which he referred other than the flag should not receive immediate attention.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: In so far as the flag question is concerned, I did not intend to go into that matter until I got the helping hand or the helping voice of some hon. gentlemen opposite. Certainly our attitude throughout was one of opposition to the three maple leaves.


Mr. Matheson:: The royal badge.


John George Diefenbaker: We took our stand. Those sitting opposite said we were wrong; then when the committee met the Liberal members all agreed that we were right.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: We were unable to agree with the suggestion that we should apply to ourselves a self imposed closure, but my own feeling is this. In so far as the flag debate is concerned, this represents the views of my caucus, the caucus of the Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I think quite a number wish to express themselves on this matter. That does not mean they will be repeating themselves more than once, but they have their views to express and they do not intend to have imposed on them anything in the nature of a closure, other than, of course, if the government chooses in its wisdom to bring about that measure; and we will come to that matter if it arises.
We do feel, however, that in order to expedite the business of the house Canadians as a whole would expect us in this house to vote on the question of whether there should be a plebiscite. A resolution was before the house; it was amended, and two subamendments were moved. One of the subamendments was dealt with on September 1. In so far as the subamendment that still stands is con-
9878	HOUSE OF
Business of the House
cerned, and the amendment, we would like these voted on. As far as the Conservative party is concerned, Her Majesty's loyal opposition-


John Ross Matheson: Not very loyal.


John George Diefenbaker: -there would be no debate on that question at all. I do not know whether that interruption came from the putative father of confederation, but if it did all I can say is this; that it was he who said that the three maple leaves flag was in the tradition of the country and represented everything, and then he swallowed himself on it in committee.
In so far as our desire for a plebiscite is concerned, we do not want to debate the amendment or the subamendment, and to expedite matters I give the undertaking that if the government will give an opportunity for a vote on the amendment and subamendment we will vote on those amendments without any further discussion on our part. In so far as the resolution as it stands is concerned, we would then give our consent and approval to its immediate removal from the order paper. In other words, we want to give Canadians an opportunity of knowing what is the attitude of the House of Commons on the subject of the plebiscite, which according to a private television poll, a very large poll, has the support of 64 per cent of the Canadian people. I refer, of course, to Telepoll. We would then proceed with the recommendation of the committee and deal with it, not in a spirit of obstruction by any means-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: It was not obstruction before, Mr. Speaker, because what we said turned out to be the view of all the Liberal members of the committee. I am sure that we, as all members of the house, will do our part to the end that these matters will be decided in time in a reasonable and fair manner, so that we may get on with the calling of the next session by the government.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party regret that we have not been able to work out a satisfactory timetable for the business of the house for the balance of this session. However, I should like to stress two things which as far as this party is concerned are well known. We are desirous of accomplishing two things, and I place them in their order of importance.


First of all, we are desirous that a limited legislative program be completed before the end of this session. We would place as the essential items in that program the Canada pension plan, the labour standards act, the redistribution bill and the estimates. We think those matters ought to have top priority.
Second, we are interested in having the report of the flag committee disposed of. Indications are that there is very wide support in this house for that report, including support from members of all political parties in the house. I am told that at one time on a vote all 14 members of the committee voted in favour of a single maple leaf flag. However, it is not my intention to discuss the flag question at the moment but simply to say that we are quite anxious to see the flag question disposed of. But we are not prepared to pay as the price for disposing of the flag question the sidetracking of any of the legislative items which I have mentioned.
For that reason I do hope that the items which the Prime Minister read out are not necessarily to be taken in the order in which he read them. We would hope that redistribution, the labour code and the Canada pension plan can be disposed of before we deal with the report of the committee on the flag. I see no reason why we cannot dispose of all the items, including the flag question, but I do make a special appeal to the government not to allow the debate on the flag committee report to prevent us passing the other more vital and important items. I also hope that when the flag question comes up, even though we have not been able to agree on a limitation of time we will have the co-operation of the official opposition in disposing of it with the greatest possible dispatch.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, if every party in this house had shown good faith in determining the legislative program to be passed before the end of the session, we could have reached an understanding and settled the problems which face us at this moment.
After attending a meeting, I believe that it was especially good faith which was lacking on the part of the official opposition. Only a few items remain to be discussed before the end of the session. This year we have already beaten the record for the length of any session. We discussed the flag issue for more than 22 days, and it still seems to be the stumbling block. In my opinion, this is a

lesson for the Canadian people, because if the 265 members in this house cannot come to an agreement, how can we expect any agreement in Canada on the most important problems?
Mr. Speaker, I say that bad faith in some quarters prevented us from coming to an agreement and that will happen again in this house as well as throughout the country.
For instance, again today at noon following the very sensible statement made by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) challenged the government with regard to the imposition of closure. Such a stand is an obvious proof of bad faith because the government has not talked about closure yet.
When the leader of the official opposition states that 30 members of his party want to talk on that matter, that means of course 15 hours of debate or roughly three sitting days.
I feel that things should be settled once and for all because the four other parties were ready to agree to the suggestion that the bills dealing with the pension plan and redistribution as well as the labour code be adopted first. If it had been possible to come to an agreement on the consideration of the estimates, we could have ended this session and passed all the items which have yet to be considered.
I believe that it would have been very easy to come to an agreement, and if we did not reach one I think that all those party leaders' meetings should stop as long as good faith is not the basis for discussion between the leaders of the political parties in this house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, certain questions of substance have been raised and certain questions have been addressed to the government about the procedure that might be followed. I can deal with them immediately so as to clear up the points that have been raised.
In so far as the proposal made by the right hon. gentleman is concerned, that we should deal with the amendment and subamendment to the resolution on the flag, which was previously before the house, before we deal with the report of the flag committee, as I have already stated we are quite agreeable to that providing there is a time limit on the debate on the subject of the flag committee report.
So far as the proposal of the leader of the New Democratic party is concerned, that the 20220-625
Question of Privilege
pension bill be given very high priority, even before the flag discussion, with the understanding that there would be a time limit on that discussion we are very glad to accept that proposal, as I announced at the all party meeting.



UNITED NATIONS


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house I should like to table a communique, both in English and in French, issued following the conference on United Nations peace keeping operations, which took place in Ottawa from November 2 to November 6, and ask that it be made an appendix to today's proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree that the communique shall be made an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of communique above referred to, see appendix.]



STANDING ORDERS


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (for Mr. Asselin, Noire Dame de Grace) moved: that the third report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on Thursday, November 5, 1964, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question of privilege which affects all members of the house and particularly the people of the province of Nova Scotia and the constituency I represent. It has reference to a press report in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of last Saturday, November 7, dealing with a statement by Premier Robert Stanfield. The report reads in part as follows:
Premier Robert Stanfield yesterday scored what he termed "federal authorities" and "federal sources" for premature disclosure to the press of secret negotiations that have been going on concerning three industries interested in settling in the province.
Reference is made to a proposed car plant for the Sydney area of Cape Breton, a

Question of Privilege
recording machine manufacturing company for Halifax, namely the Clairtone company, and a pulp and paper mill for Pictou county. The premier went on to point out that negotiations had been going on between the provincial government and these companies, and that disclosures had been made to the press by what he referred to as federal authorities and federal sources in Ottawa. The article goes on to report him as saying:
"Yesterday when I read the federal disclosure regarding Clairtone I understood for the first time the depth of Angus L. Macdonald's exasperation with Ottawa."
I hope it will not be repeated. My question of privilege is that when questions were asked of certain ministers during debate in the house with regard to industries which had signified their intention to settle in designated areas, those questions were not answered because we were told it might prejudice the negotiations. Apparently these ministers have now seen fit to allow some of their officials, referred to by the premier as "federal authorities" and "federal sources", to disclose this information, thereby making it possible that the negotiations will break down and these industries will be lost to the province of Nova Scotia.
I therefore submit to the Prime Minister that this practice should be stopped, that it should not take place again in the future, and that these federal officials and sources should wait until negotiations are fully completed and the province is assured of these industries. I point out particularly that it has been stated that the Scott Paper Company proposes to settle in the county I represent, a county of high unemployment for many years. This is an excellent opportunity, and I hope that industry will not be lost to the good people of that historic county.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the first point I want to make is that this is, of course, a very fraudulent question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Why?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -because it is based upon a political speech made by the premier of Nova Scotia at the annual meeting of the provincial party for the purpose of restoring the sagging spirits of the party members.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor.


John George Diefenbaker: -the minister should know that the word "fraudulent" is improper and must be withdrawn.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I used the words "fraudulent question of privilege", and I think those words were at one time used by a former Speaker of the house. I shall be glad to draw that to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask for your ruling on that, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman does not even know the rules when he rises during a question of privilege.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I had the floor on a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Pictou.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, I happen to have the floor at the moment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the use of the word "fraudulent" is a little strong, but I think feelings were strong at the time. I do not see that any particular damage or harm has been suffered at that moment.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, you have ruled the word "fraudulent" is not unparliamentary, and that is all I wanted to know. I want to say that that word, on the basis of all the previous records of the house, is not permissible, but whatever Your Honour rules will be accepted.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I was not ruling on the question of privilege because there was no motion proposed. Therefore there is no question before the house at the moment. On the use of the word "fraudulent", I shall have to consult the authorities and make up my own mind.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the statements made by Premier Stanfield were, of course, vague and general, and quoted federal authorities and federal officials. I challenge Premier Stanfield to produce cases or instances of either ministers or officials of government departments making statements or being responsible for leaks about these proposed developments in the province of Nova Scotia. If cases are cited they can be taken seriously by the house and the govern-

ment, but until that time they are completely unsupported.
I believe that in the next day or so it will be possible to demonstrate the exact source of these leaks, much to the embarrassment of my hon. friends across the way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman went quite beyond his rights, but we will be very interested in finding out whether the leaks to the Toronto Star regarding Banks came from his side of the house.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notice of
motion:
November 5-The Minister of Labour-The following proposed motion:-That the standing committee on industrial relations be empowered to hear and to examine members of the board of trustees of the maritime transportation unions concerning the acts performed and the facts found in carrying out the duties entrusted to them by the Maritime Transportation Unions Trustees Act and to report to the house from time to time.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Flemming (Vicloria-: Carleton):
In connection with a recent announcement of a grant of $10,000,000 for highways by the Atlantic development board, to be expended in the Atlantic provinces (a) what are the details showing locations of highways to be improved and estimated expenditure at each location (b) is any portion of expenditure to be matched by any provincial government?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I have been advised by the Atlantic development board that the detailed arrangements have been worked out with the governments of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick as to the use of their share of the $10,000,000 grant for highways from the Atlantic development fund. The share assigned by the board in each case is $3,000,000. In Newfoundland and Nova Scotia the prov-20220-625J
Questions
inces are paying 50 per cent of the cost of specific sections of highways, while in New Brunswick the proportion will be 75 per cent federal and 25 per cent provincial, which will inevitably result in a shorter mileage in that province than the other two. The proportion of cost to be borne by each province was, under the policy, negotiated with each province separately. However, final agreements have not yet been signed. As soon as this has taken place the details of locations and estimated expenditures at each location will be made available. Discussions are still proceeding with the government of Prince Edward Island as to the use of that province's share, which is $1,000,000.


STUDY OF CAUSEWAY, LABRADOR-NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): 1.	Have surveys been made, by employees of the federal government or by Independent oceanographers, in the strait of Belle Isle, with a view to studying the possibility of constructing a causeway nine miles long in a body of water 150 feet deep between Labrador and Newfoundland?
2.	If so, what were the conclusions of such surveys with respect to preventing cold water currents from penetrating into the gulf of St. Lawrence and adversely affecting the weather in the marl-times and the province of Quebec?
3.	If no surveys have yet been undertaken will consideration be given to ascertaining the pros and cons of a project which could be undertaken by the federal government to connect Newfoundland to the continent through the extension of the trans-Canada highway, the construction of a railway line by the C.N.R. and the installation of electric transmission cables?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: 1. No survey has been conducted for this specific purpose; however, surveys have been made by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys to assess seasonal temperature and salinity conditions, to forecast ice freeze-up and breakup, and to study the movement of water through the strait.
2.	The results of these studies to this date indicate that the flow of water through Belle Isle strait varies in direction and speed across the strait, and fluctuates in time in response to meteorological changes. These variations in time and space are such that there is no clear evidence that on the average there is any substantial cooling of the waters of the gulf of St. Lawrence because of the net flow through Belle Isle strait.
3.	A survey of this magnitude would require decisions by the government as a whole.

Questions


* APPLICATION OF FEED GRAIN POLICY TO NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Before the Minister of Forestry announced the "interim policy on feed grains" in July, was any consideration given to any benefits this policy would have for farmers in northwestern Ontario, i.e., between Nipigon and the Rainy river, Dryden, and Kenora regions and, if so, what are these benefits?
2.	If no consideration was given to such benefits, for what reasons?
3.	Was any consideration given to providing freight assistance for feed grains transported from Manitoba by truck to northwestern Ontario points and, if not, what explanation is there, in detail, for not going forward with such an arrangement as policy, particularly in view of this geographical juxtaposition, contrasted with the isolation of northwestern Ontario from normal eastern distribution points?
4.	What steps did the government take to explain to farmers in northwestern Ontario how the new interim policy would affect them, including the dates of any press releases, their contents, and any information that went forward to truck shippers who transport in and through northwestern Ontario?
5.	If no steps have been taken, for what reasons were they not taken?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: 1.	For eastern Canada the feed grain policy applies to transportation from Fort William/ Port Arthur to points east thereof. Transportation charges west of Fort William/Port Arthur are not assisted under the policy as such charges are reflected in correspondingly lower prices at the various assembly points in the west.
2,	3, 4 and 5. Answered by 1.


FERRIES IN BORDEN-CAPE TORMENTINE SERVICE
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What ferries are now in operation on the Borden-Cape Tormentine service?
2.	On what date was each placed in service?
3.	What was the cost of construction of each boat?
4.	In each year from 1953 to 1963 inclusive, what was the total operating cost for all ferries in operation on this service?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1 and 2.
Date placed
Name of Vessel	in service
5.5.	Prince Edward Island	1916
M.V. Abegweit	1947
5.5.	Scotia II	1956
(S.S. Scotia II was transferred from strait
of Canso service. This vessel was built in 1915).
M.V. Confederation	1962
3.	S.S. Prince Edward Island, $878,484; M.V. Abegweit, $7,067,710; S.S. Scotia II, [Mr. Lamontagne.l
$348,948; (The sum of $500,856 was spent on the Scotia II in 1956 on being transferred to the P.E.I. service). M.V. Confederation, $3,436,932.
4.	1953, $2,113,200; 1954, $2,024,078; 1955, $2,413,882; 1956, $2,214,010; 1957, $2,668,078; 1958,	$2,650,985;	1959,	$3,290,053;	1960,
$3,372,344; 1961, $3,795,857; 1962, $4,136,358; 1963, $4,263,481.


PROVINCIAL EMPLOYEES IN GOVERNMENT, SCHOOLS AND MUNICIPALITIES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,066-Mr. Gelber:	(Supplementary)
1.	What is the most recent information in the Department of Labour on the number of persons employed by each provincial government, and the average annual wage for each province?
2.	What is the most recent information in the Department of Labour on the number of persons employed in each province in primary and secondary schools, and what is the average annual wage for each province?
3.	What is the most recent information in the Department of Labour on the number of persons employed in municipalities in each province, and what is the average annual wage for each province?
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Part 3 only. The number of employees given in the previous reply as shown on page 9409 of Hansard, for Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia should read 29,125, 45,168 and 11,159 respectively. The gross earnings for Quebec and Ontario should read $131,521,016 and $194,095,601 respectively.



WHYCOCOMAGH INDIAN RESERVE WATER SUPPLY

['1. This information is not yet available.\n2. This information is not yet available.']
Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No. There are four good wells on the Whycocomagh reserve with properly installed hand pumps set on concrete blocks. Officers of the Department of National Health and Welfare tested the water from these four wells in mid August of this year and found it suitable for domestic drinking water. However, the water from three of these wells does have a turbid appearance and the Indian residents have refused to use it, and insist on getting their supply from surface wells, springs and brooks.
Samples from these sources have been tested and have been found to have a high coliform count. The superintendent of the Indian agency has been advised of this situation and requested to instruct the residents of the

reserve that all water from surface wells, springs and brooks should be boiled for 10 minutes before being used for drinking purposes.



Mr. Priltie: Has a request been received from the corporation of the township of Richmond, B.C., for the acquisition by the township of the recreation hall of the former R.C.A.F. station, Sea island, B.C., and, if so (a) has the government department concerned entered into negotiations with the township of Richmond (b) what is the present status of such negotiations?


Jean-Charles Cantin: A
request was received from the township of Richmond, B.C., to lease building No. 77 (recreation hall) at the former R.C.A.F. station, Sea island, B.C.
The Department of Transport is dealing directly with the township of Richmond in the matter.


OFFICERS RETIRED WITHIN TWO YEARS OF NORMAL AGE
Mr. MacEwan: How many of the officers, who are to be advised in November that they will be prematurely retired, are within two years of normal retirement age of their respective ranks?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Eighteen.


AIRPORT RESTORATION AND REPAIR, MONCTON AND QUEBEC
Mr. Marcoux: 1.	Has the Department of Transport authorized the restoring and enlarging of the airport in Moncton, N.B., at a cost of $1,127,000?
2.	Does the department intend restoring and enlarging the airport in Quebec city?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. A contract was awarded on October 1, 1964 in the amount of $1,127,250 to effect alterations and extensions to the terminal building at the Moncton airport, N.B.
2.	A contract was awarded during the first week of October, 1964 in the amount of $202,000 to reconstruct and improve the airfield drainage system at the Quebec airport.
Questions


EFFECTS OF CONSUMPTION OF FLUORIDATED WATER
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
Has the government conducted or supported research into the effects on human physiology of the consumption of fluoridated water for periods of 20 years or more and, if so, what have been the findings of each such study?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The Department of National Health and Welfare, in its studies over the past 16 years, primarily investigated the dental effects of water fluoridation. However, no ill effects of a systemic nature attributable to the presence of fluoride in water supply has been reported by the health authorities or by the practising physicians in the fluoridated cities studied by this department. The physiological aspects of fluoridation have of course received a great deal of careful scrutiny in the world scientific literature.


PUBLIC SERVICE DEATH BENEFIT PLAN SURPLUS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	What has been the surplus accumulated under the supplementary death benefit plan (Public Service Superannuation Act) in each of the last five years, and to what purpose have these funds been used?
2.	Has consideration been given to a reduction in premiums for this plan?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. The excess of income over expenditure in each of the last five years has been
	Public	Regular
	service	forces
	death	death
	benefit	benefit
	account	account
1959-60	$ 538,334	$1,429,5561960-61	2,422,807	1,538,1271961-62	1,261,588	1,580,4001962-63	1,247,740	1,738,7611963-64	1,144,768	1,775,987
These amounts have been used to build up the contingency reserves.
2. Yes.


NEW INDUSTRIES IN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	What industries has the Department of Industry assisted in establishing in Saskatchewan since it was first set up?
2.	How many employees are there in the department?

Questions
3.	What is the salary range for employees within the department?
4.	How much has been spent on research or developing industries in Saskatchewan since the department was established?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1. The Department of Industry does not attempt to duplicate the industrial promotion activities of either the provinces or the municipalities. However, representatives of the department have been working with provincial officials and industry representatives in support of various projects in Saskatchewan to encourage the expansion and improved competitiveness of a number of industries, including food processing and manufacturing of wood products. In addition, officials of the area development agency have been working with provincial officials and industry representatives on various regional projects of interest to Saskatchewan.
2.	Three hundred twenty eight (Oct. 29/64).
3.	$2,280-$23,000.
4.	The day to day duties of departmental officers include a wide variety of activities and it is impractical to keep detailed accounts allocating their time to each of these tasks. Therefore, statistics are not available on the costs of specific activities such as research or consultations with government officials and representatives of industries in individual provinces.


CONTRACT FOR REPAIRS, BAILEY'S BROOK, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: What repairs are being carried out under the present contract at Bailey's Brook, Nova Scotia?


Hon. J. P. Deschateleis (Minister of Public Works):: The present contract at Bailey's Brook, N.S. includes the following work: A 125 foot length of the east pier near the inner end is to be completely replaced with a timber pilework type structure. Construction of a timber bulkhead wall 50 feet in length situated about 600 feet from the outer end of the east pier. Reconstruction of the superstructure of the outer 661 feet of the east pier. Replacement of the west breakwater superstructure over a length of 80 feet commencing 20 feet from the outer end of the breakwater.


IMPORTS AND EXPORTS, CANADA-COMMON MARKET COUNTRIES
Mr. Balcer: Calculated in dollars, what was the extent of imports and exports between the countries of the common market and Canada for each year since 1947?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Imports and exports between the countries of the common market and Canada, calendar years 1947 to 1963.
Federal
Belgium and Republic of
Year	Luxembourg Germany		France	Italy	Netherlands
		(Thousands of dollars)			
1947 Imports	9,952	496	8,467	3,859	3,325Exports	52,856	5,903	80,758	35,643	55,8991948 Imports	13,456	1,338	12,443	6,939	4,998Exports	33,324	11,776	92,350	32,129	43,7501949 Imports	18,887	6,696	13,061	8,925	5,431Exports	56,896	23,046	35,705	12,357	13,8691950 Imports	22,680	10,658	14,423	9,292	7,946Exports	66,792	8,584	18,232	15,383	8,6351951 Imports	38,473	28,835	23,085	13,994	10,854Exports	94,720	36,827	46,426	48,814	26,4501952 Imports	32,902	20,313	18,388	11,406	12,990Exports	104,622	94,659	48,316	52,803	41,5871953 Imports	28,823	30,989	21,407	14,073	17,788Exports	69,768	84,251	32,216	33,254	41,8951954 Imports	24,794	40,413	21,331	14,781	18,528Exports	55,222	87,614	33,589	25,351	40,0811955 Imports	28,854	52,215	24,364	18,307	19,073Exports	56,720	42,736	42,419	27,532	48,1791956 Imports	52,379	84,430	31,719	24,644	21,524Exports	58,146	134,520	53,236	37,707	54,8591957 Imports	43,681	92,527	34,987	32,536	21,690Exports	60,584	154,521	57,492	62,889	70,194Year	Federal Belgium and Republic of Luxembourg Germany	France	Questions Italy	Netherh1958 Imports	35,759	(Thousands of dollars) 102,644 40,007	32,150	26,905Exports	69,948	201,902	45,506	29,890	75,0201959 Imports	44,786	123,905	56,940	37,656	29,154Exports	56,813	130,323	43,682	31,981	54,2961960 Imports	41,401	126,988	50,121	42,843	31,456Exports	69,495	167,561	73,585	68,917	63,0751961 Imports	44,780	136,530	54,280	49,140	33,493Exports	76,794	191,500	73,120	68,337	62,1071962 Imports	48,672	141,198	56,160	51,859	37,049Exports	69,003	180,444	59,214	75,406	77,7881963 Imports	47,342	144,023	58,170	55,303	36,736Exports	78,305	175,903	65,649	78,432	88,765EXPORTS AND	IMPORTS, CANADA-U.S.	Year	$'000


Mr. Balcer: Calculated In dollars, what was the extent of imports and exports between the United States and Canada for each year since 1947?


Mitchell William Sharp: Imports and exports between the United States and Canada, calendar years 1947 to 1963:
1962
Imports
Exports
Imports
Exports
Imports
Exports
3,863,968
3,214,518
4,299,539
3,744,664
4,444,556
3,913,352


EXPORTS AND IMPORTS, CANADA-U.K.
[Stage Direction]
Year		$'000
1947	Imports Exports	1,951,606 1,052,5601948	Imports Exports	1,798,507 519,7131949	Imports Exports	1,915,227 1,525,3261950	Imports Exports	2,089,531 2,050,1781951	Imports Exports	2,752,087 2,332,4791952	Imports Exports	2,887,628 2,344,8071953	Imports Exports	3,115,301 2,457,4821954	Imports Exports	2,871,279 2,359,0791955	Imports Exports	3,331,143 2,600,5391956	Imports Exports	4,031,394 2,863,5711957	Imports Exports	3,887,391 2,920,8341958	Imports Exports	3,460,147 2,895,7951959	Imports Exports	3,709,065 3,181,9031960	Imports Exports	3,686,625 3,036,416
Mr. Balcer: Calculated in dollars, what was the extent of imports and exports between Great Britain and Canada for each year since 1947?


Mitchell William Sharp: Imports and exports between Great Britain and Canada, calendar years 1947 to 1963.
Year	$'000
1947 Imports	184,207
Exports	749,170
1948 Imports	293,535
Exports	685,015
1949 Imports	302,420
Exports	706,364
1950 Imports	400,811
Exports	470,512
1951 Imports	415,194
Exports	634,353
1952 Imports	351,541
Exports	749,653
1953 Imports	445,441
Exports	666,423
1954 Imports	382,229
Exports	655,936
1955 Imports	393,117
Exports	772,314
1956 Imports	476,371
Exports	816,834

Questions
Year	$'000
1957 Imports	507,319
Exports	726,049
1958 Imports	518,505
Exports	776,668
1959 Imports	588,573
Exports	794,271
1960 Imports	588,932
Exports	924,941
1961 Imports	618,221
Exports	921,213
1962 Imports	563,062
Exports	919,943
1963 Imports	526,800
Exports	1,014,925


*BILINGUAL CAP AND UNIFORM FLASHES, CUSTOMS SERVICE
Mr. Pigeon: Is the Minister of National Revenue considering the possibility of having bilingual wording on cap and uniform flashes for Canadian customs officers and, if not, for what reasons?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: The official badge worn by uniformed customs officers is bilingual. It is in the form of a gold coloured metal shield bearing a crown, the words "Canada", "Customs- Excise", "Douanes-Accise", and an identification number. Consideration is presently being given to a new uniform cap which will not embody any wording except "Canada". Customs uniforms do not bear flashes.


CANADIAN BANK SHARES
Mr. Latulippe: As of October 1, 1964, what was (a) the number of shares issued by each of the chartered banks in Canada (b) what was the par value per share of each of the banks and the value of all the shares issued by each bank (c) for each of the banks what was the market value of each share of each bank, the total for each bank and the total for the eight banks (d) what is the number and the par value of the Bank of Canada shares (e) what is the market value per Bank of Canada share, and the total market value of all Bank of Canada shares?


Lawrence T. Pennell: (a)	(b)	(c)	(c)Number	Par value	Market	Totalof shares	of all shares	value of	marketissued	issued	each share	valueBank of Montreal	6,075,000	$60,750,000	$69	$419,175,000The Bank of Nova Scotia	3,000,000	30,000,000	77	231,000,000The Toronto-Dominion Bank La Banque Provinciale du	3,000,000	30,000,000	69	207,000,000Canada	900,000	9,000,000	58	52,200,000Canadian Imperial Bank of	69,680,000	68	473,824,000Commerce	6,968,000	66,528,000	77	512,265,600The Royal Bank of Canada	6,652,800	12,000,000	77	92,400,000Banque Canadienne Nationale The Mercantile Bank of Canada	1,200,000 400,000	4,000,000	10	4,000,000
Notes (b) All bank shares have a par value of $10 each. The issue prices have varied but for many years have been substantially greater than par.
(c)	Approximate, based on stock exchange quotations, with exception of The Mercantile Bank of Canada which is not listed and stated here at par. Total market value $1,991,864,600.
(d)	100,000 shares, total par value $5,000,-
000.
(e)	All shares are issued in the name of the Minister of Finance to be held by him on behalf of Canada and are not marketable.


INCOME TAX PAID BY PERSONS OVER 70
Mr. McCutcheon: 1.	How many Canadians 70 years of age and over paid income tax in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1963 in the (a) province of Ontario (b) province of Quebec?
2.	What was the total amount of money paid in income tax by the people in this age category in the same year in the (a) province of Ontario (b) province of Quebec?
3.	How many people in this category received a return on the tax paid in the same year in the (a) province of Ontario (b) province of Quebec?
4.	What is the percentage of the money received in tax from Canadians in this category to the total

amount of money paid in old age security to all Canadians over the age of 70 years in the (a) province of Ontario (b) province of Quebec?


Edgar John Benson: The following answers are based on returns filed for the 1963 calendar year, processed up to and including October 29, 1964.
1.	Filers over age 69 in Ontario, 66,194; filers over age 69 in Quebec, 25,166.
2.	Tax paid in Ontario, $31,602,624.29; tax paid in Quebec, $16,943,658.74.
3.	Received refunds in Ontario, 13,162; received refunds in Quebec, 5,010.
Inquiries of the Ministry
4.	Ontario, 11.26 per cent; Quebec, 10.29 per cent.


FATAL MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS
Mr. Mather: What was the percentage of fatal motor vehicle accidents, in relation to the number of licensed motor vehicles in Canada, in the years 1943, 1953 and 1963?


Mitchell William Sharp: 
STUDENT LOANS
Mr. Howe (Hamilion South): 1.	As of September 30, 1964, how many students In each province and territory have been granted Canada student loans?
2.	In each province and territory, what was the total of loans as of September 30, 1964?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1. This information is not yet available.
2. This information is not yet available.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Hamilion: 1.	What were the values and quantities of rice imports into Canada for each of the last ten years by country of origin?
2.	What has been the value of all grains exported by Canada to China for each of the last ten years?
Return tabled.


SHIPPING STATISTICS, PORT OF CHURCHILL
Mr. Korchinski: 1. On what date in 1964 did the shipping season commence at the port of Churchill?
2.	On what date in 1964 did the shipping season end at the port of Churchill?
3.	How many ships loaded grain at the port of Churchill in 1964 and in what country was each ship registered?
4.	What amount of grain was loaded each day in 1964 at the port of Churchill and what was the destination?
5.	To what countries were shipments made from Churchill in 1964 and what amount of grain was shipped to each?
6.	What was the total amount of grain shipped during the entire season of 1964 and 1963?
Return tabled.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I ask that my question No. 1,550 be dropped, so that it can be rephrased and thus more readily answered.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent?


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



HAL BANKS-REPORTED CONTRIBUTIONS TO CAMPAIGN FUNDS OF LIBERAL MEMBERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, following the expression of views by the Toronto Star regarding Mr. Hal Chamberlain Banks and certain contributions that he made to some Liberal members of the house, I ask the Prime Minister whether this report has come to his attention and whether an examination has been made of the records in the Department

Inquiries of the Ministry of Labour in this respect. Possibly the Prime Minister would speak up and clear up this matter immediately.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to speak up on this interesting matter at the invitation of my right hon. friend, and to remind him there is a motion on the order paper for the production of papers, which I hope will be dealt with on Wednesday. In fact there is no reason why it should not be dealt with on Wednesday; and if there are papers dealing with this matter that can be tabled at once, this can be done so that my right hon. friend's understandable curiosity about what appeared in the Toronto Star will be satisfied.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I knew the Prime Minister would feel that way toward the article in the Toronto Star, and I am sure the hon. members who were delighted to receive these fortuitous payments will be equally anxious that the fullest information be given to the house.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I have a question for the Prime Minister supplementary to that asked by the Leader of the Opposition. With respect to moneys received by Liberal members from Mr. Banks, could the Prime Minister, in order to avoid a motion to adjourn the house to discuss this most urgent and important matter, assure the house that Thursday or Friday will be set aside to debate the estimates of the Department of Justice?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Certainly not. I welcome the hon. member back to the house, but if he wishes to make a motion of that kind, that is his responsibility.



REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF STATEMENT RESPECTING MEMBER FOR WINNIPEG SOUTH CENTRE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister like to take this opportunity of withdrawing the false charge he made in his recent Hamilton speech, that I made a speech in Edmonton and used words to the effect that the Tories would bring the government to heel on interim supply?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, but I will be pleased to get the report as it appeared in the newspaper in question and read exactly what the hon. member said as reported in that newspaper. If

my hon. friend had given me notice I would have had it before me now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, does the
Prime Minister consider that he is now casting doubt on the accuracy of the report of an experienced member of the press gallery, Mr. Victor Mackie, who has seen the transcript of the Prime Minister's speech and was present when he delivered it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, but I do happen to have the quotation from the Edmonton Journal of October 3 as it appeared in an article written by Mr. J. It. Walker of the Southam news services, who was reporting on no doubt a very interesting speech made by the hon. member in Edmonton on that or the previous day. This is what Mr. Walker has to say:
Conservative house leader Gordon Churchill said in an interview Thursday that "no decision has been made" on how the party would handle interim supply, but he admitted that the possibilities of holding it up until the government came to heel on the flag question had crossed party minds.
"I can foresee a crisis in November", he said. "But thee we have had crises before in this session and they have backed down."
Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to back down on this one, or come to heel.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour regarding the one day strike by longshoremen in the province of Quebec, who claim that the shipping federation has refused to honour the implementation of the pension plan recommended by Judge Lippe. I want to ask the minister whether his department is doing anything about this, particularly in view of the fact that the men went back to work because they accepted Judge Lippe's report in good faith. I also ask the minister what action he is taking to see that the shipping federation honours its part of the bargain entered into at that time.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have had a meeting with representatives of the longshoremen which I interrupted to come into the house. I hope to meet them again later in the day, or to be in touch with them, with the prospect in mind of making a proposal that might be a

basis for resuming discussions between the parties.
The dispute centres on pension and retirement funds affecting five ports in Canada and the action taken by the trustees with respect to the Lippe report. It is a complicated question, too extensive, I think, to be gone into on orders of the day.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister if he has had any discussions with representatives of the shipping federation to ascertain whether they are prepared to re-examine the somewhat arbitrary position they seem to have taken in repudiating their earlier agreement to carry out this part of the recommendations of Judge Lippe?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I did have a telephone call from the secretary of the shipping federation advising me of his intention to send me a telegram containing certain proposals. I expected I would have received these proposals before I came into the house. When I do receive that telegram I hope to be able to consider it in relation to the representations made by the longshoremen, with a proposal for a possible meeting.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour.
Could the minister tell the house whether this one day strike on the part of the longshoremen in the St. Lawrence harbours is legal?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have not received legal advice on this question up to the present time. Presumably if I had I would not be permitted under the rules to answer that question, because it is a legal question.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour a supplementary question?
As the latter stated that the leaders of the longshoremen's union of Montreal harbour which, if I am not mistaken, is represented by Mr. Asselin and Mr. Tremblay who are now in his office to discuss the pension plan, could the minister also ask those two union leaders whether they would allow an inquiry into the administration of this fund, as asked by a group of Montreal longshoremen, whom I brought to his office about two weeks ago, and who wanted an investigation on the management of that pension plan?
20220-626*
Inquiries of the Ministry


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be glad to draw the views of the hon. member for Lapointe to the attention of the delegation later today.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I direct another supplementary question to the minister? At the same time, could the Minister of Labour ask those two trade unionists whether they could not accept among their membership the few dockers who were ousted from their union because they wanted to become members of another union?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That question also will be noted.



AVAILABILITY OF WORKING PAPERS OF , LABOUR-MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE '

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to address to the Secretary of State. I should like to ask the minister whether the background papers prepared for the current labour-management conference, which is being sponsored by the economic council of Canada, are available for distribution to the members of the house for our information and, I hope, edification.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I am happy to say that the working papers are available on request to the economic council. I should also like to add that the conference reports which will be published as soon as possible after the seminar will contain these working papers, and the published reports will be made available to all hon. members.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice a question? Could he inform the house of the results of his discussion with the Quebec minister of justice, Mr. Wagner, concerning Mr. Arsenault's charges relating to the presence of communists and communistic activities within the C.B.C.?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in view of my talks with the attorney general of the province of Quebec, I am now in a position to tell the house that the R.C.M.P. is making an investigation to obtain from provincial authorities, and from any person who may have made statements on that matter, all the information that might be made available to the authorities.



REPORTED STATEMENTS RESPECTING COMPETENCE OF STAFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State. I should like to ask him whether the C.B.C. has sought information from Mrs. Jean Desprez in order to know who were those C.B.C. employees who are rubbish and deadwood, incompetent and good for nothing, as she recently stated, during a t.v. program, and whether the Secretary of State has obtained the results of such an investigation?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I brought the hon. member's request to the attention of the C.B.C. authorities but I have not yet received an answer.



PUBLICITY ON NEWS BROADCASTS FOR POLITICAL MEETINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Secretary of State.
In view of the fact that last Saturday the Quebec city local station of the C.B.C., on the occasion of the regional news broadcast at 11 p.m., took the liberty to advertise a public meeting of the R.I.N. under the chairmanship of Mr. Bourgault in Quebec city, and in view of the fact that it was the first time that the C.B.C. advertised the meeting of a political party, would the Secretary of State inquire whether that is a new policy of the C.B.C. and whether the other parties, the Liberal party, the Conservative party and the Creditistes, will now be able, like the R.I.N., to have their public meetings advertised on the C.B.C. news?


Maurice Lamontagne: I shall be glad to do so, Mr. Speaker.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the Canadian government intend to support the reported United States decision to stop all her aid to the principal technical assistance programs of the United Nations in an alleged attempt to solve the serious problem of the organization's constitutional and fiscal integrity?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the hon. member for Oxford would not expect me on behalf of the government to say we intended to support a reported decision. We would wish to make sure, first of all, whether the government of the United States has in fact reached such a decision. If it has, and after we have had an opportunity to examine the report, then we will make up our minds as to the course Canada should follow.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us, then, whether there has been any consultation with the United States government concerning the possibility of the United States withholding aid to the United Nations technical assistance programs?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As of this date, no, sir.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Can the minister say when the government intends to complete the order in council which I understand is necessary to turn over the buildings and property of the abandoned mid-Canada radar site at Bird, Manitoba, to the province? If it has been completed, perhaps the hon. gentleman will so inform us.


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this is a question for the order paper.


Robert Simpson: I believe the minister was ready to answer. This is a matter to which great urgency is attached; it is necessary to get the buildings off the site very shortly.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not in a position to judge the urgency. Certainly it is only right to accept the statement made by the hon. member. Is the minister able to answer the question?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It is my understanding that the order in council has been signed.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I wish to ask the Minister of Transport whether he or his officials had any discussion with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines before the company announced that it planned to build a gas pipe line to eastern Canada through the United States.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was a complete surprise to me, sir.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Could the minister at least inform the house whether it would be necessary for this company to obtain an act of parliament or a private bill before being able to proceed with this particular project.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is, of course, a legal question to which I would hate to give an offhand answer. But I dare say an answer could be procured, and I will draw the question to the attention of my deskmate, the Minister of Justice.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder if the minister could at the same time give an indication of the government's policy in connection with such a project, in view of debates many years ago which he will remember, debates which bear upon this project and the location of oil pipe lines of a similar kind.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand that this is not an oil pipe line. I also have grave doubt as to whether this is a matter which properly comes within my administrative jurisdiction at all. But I will consider what the hon. member has suggested and see whether some appropriate reply cannot be made.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Jus-
Inquiries of the Ministry tice. Can the minister confirm to the house that he has entered into an agreement with the attorney general of Quebec as a result of which the attorney general of that province will have the right to review all Quebec parole files? If so, has he received any similar requests from the attorneys general of other provinces, and what have been his replies or what agreement has been reached?


Guy Favreau: The hon. member's question probably stems from a report in one of the Toronto daily papers. I may say that I had a discussion of a general nature in the course of a meeting which took place between the attorney general of Quebec and myself last Thursday on the occasion of an address which I delivered in Montreal. It is more than probable that the words in the statement which may have been made subsequently by the attorney general of Quebec in relation to the administration of the parole system have been misreported, because I am completely conscious and aware, and I am sure Mr. Wagner is also aware, that under the National Parole Act neither the commission nor the government may undertake to submit the decisions of the national parole boards to the approval or the veto of any outside authority.
Furthermore, I am aware that the question as to who ought to be consulted by the national parole board and when such consultation ought to take place is one of internal policy for the chairman and the members of the national parole board themselves. If, for instance, the parole board were of the opinion that it would be advisable to obtain the views of the attorney general of a province in a case where the public safety is involved, that practice would be up to the parole board itself to adopt, and not up to the government.
Anyhow, I could not have made any such undertaking as has been reported, because before our discussions Mr. Wagner and myself had told newspapermen that we would probably not be in a position to make a joint statement to them after our meeting because in that most informal meeting we were not permitted, and it would not have been appropriate for us, to bind our respective governments.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Rheaume:: Ask him to analyse the
answer.
9892	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the minister advise the house whether there has been any agreement of the parole board to consult the provinces? Is this now understood, namely that such consultation should be a matter of practice?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I just said there has been no agreement made by myself to the effect that the attorneys general would be, as a matter of course, intervening for the purpose of accepting or refusing the decisions of the national parole board. I may also add that there has been no formal undertaking made one way or the other, because I repeat that any matter such as who should be consulted, and when, is a matter of policy for the members and the chairman of the national parole board to decide upon. The National Parole Board Act gives them exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the matters placed before them, except as-


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


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere.


Mr. Remi Paul (Berihier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
In the course of a speech made last Thursday evening in Montreal, before the Canadian criminology society, the hon. Minister of Justice said:
Isolated reforms, dispensed with an eye-dropper, are useless: what we need is a truly grand charter of penitentiaries-a clear, systematic and over-all program.
Did the hon. minister mean, by these words, a complete and far-reaching revision of the present system of release of prisoners, and if so, will an appropriate legislative measure be submitted to the house during the present session, as well as the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has given me advance notice of his question.
However, I think it should have been put on the order paper.
I should like to say for the time being that since our penal system has gone through the first two stages of its evolution, the moment has come to establish an all-inclusive and integrated policy in the field of penology. Obviously, I shall be making recommendations to my colleagues in the course of this session. As I said, though, the two com-
IMr. Rl*6aume.l
mittees I mentioned will have to meet and submit a report before any final policy is worked out. If the question of rehabilitation can be taken up right now, I feel immediate steps should be taken and that they should take into account the rehabilitation of prisoners as much as possible. I am considering the immediate introduction of amendments such as the disposal of penitentiaries like the one at St. Vincent de Paul.


Mr. S. J. Enns (Porlage-Neepawa):: A
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister of Justice could tell the house how soon the committees he has mentioned both in the house and elsewhere, namely on justice and penal reform, will be established.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I said to the house, and I have repeated, that in my view the establishment of the parliamentary committee ought to be effected within a matter of days. As far as the other committee is concerned, of course the question of the fineness of the terms of reference will have to be settled, and it should be a matter of weeks.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE OF CONVICTED MURDERER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister about this matter the other day, and I realize he has not had very much time to look into it. It has to do with one James Meeker, who recently had his sentence commuted. I am not going into that question because the matter of the exercise of mercy in no way can be brought before the house, but I ask the Prime Minister this question. In view of the fact that two psychiatrists testified that Meeker would probably repeat his offences if he were set free, namely rape, torture and murder, and that his impulses are without concern for the effect on others and he is incapable of learning from experience, will the government not order that this man shall not be freed at any time, and that indeed in his case a life sentence shall be just that, in the interests of society and for the protection of others?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I told my right hon. friend, I think it was on Friday, that we were considering this matter in relation to this particular case and probably in a wider relationship as well. I discussed the matter with the

Minister of Justice this morning, and I hope he will be able to make a statement either tomorrow or at the latest the next day.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you.



POSSIBLE ACTION RESPECTING ONTARIO SUPREME COURT JUDGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Minister of Justice that he said he would make a statement to the house on the propriety of the continuance on the bench of Mr. Justice Lan-dreville. Is he yet able to make a statement with respect to this matter?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, for reasons which I will be pleased to discuss with my hon. friend I must say that I will not be in a position to make such a statement this week. However, I said I would make one, and I will do so on the first available occasion.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieite-L'Assomplion-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Could the minister tell us whether someone has been appointed to replace Mr. Robert Choquette as associate president of the centennial commission and if so, whether it is Mr. Lorenzo Pare of L'Action, as it is rumoured?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, nobody has yet been appointed to replace Mr. Robert Choquette who is leaving in a fortnight.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfort-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister aware of the fact that this year the over-all loss to farmers with regard to feeder cattle has amounted to $14 per head, representing the lowest price since 1962? Has the minister
Inquiries of the Ministry any explanation to give the house for this grave situation that has developed in the industry since he assumed office as Minister of Agriculture?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is probably time that some of these wild accusations were corrected.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harry William Hays: The average market prices for steers at Toronto during the month of October for 1964 and 1963 were as follows: choice steers were $23.70 in 1964 and $24.81 in 1963; good were $22.43 in 1964 and $23.76 in 1963. The particular kind that my hon. friend speaks of, medium and common, were as follows: medium were $20.64 in 1964 and $21.44 in 1963, or less than a cent a hundredweight less; common steers were $16.83 in 1964 and last year they were $17, or 17 cents per hundredweight less.
I might also add that this year the amount of beef consumed in Canada has been about 9 per cent more than last year. The figure is 27 per cent more than in the previous six years from 1957 to 1962. I do not think the stocker market is a good one. We all realize this, but at the moment we are on an export basis. We are consuming more beef in Canada than ever before in our history, and if it were not for our buoyant economy today, and had it been like it was in 1960, 1961 and 1962, we would be in great trouble.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I have grave doubt that the question was in order at all. It seems to me it should have been put on the order paper; it was not that pressing or urgent. I do hope hon. members will not start to debate this problem.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I have a question I should like to put to the Minister of Agriculture, and it is this. In light of what the minister has said-I might add that this is the same question I put last week, and I am glad the minister is here today so that I can put it in his presence-has he any immediate statement to make on steps to be taken which may alleviate the depressed position in which the farmers of eastern Canada find themselves?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I did invite the hon. member up to my office so that I could explain these matters to him. In so far as milk is concerned the price is almost 30 cents or 40 cents a hundred higher than it

Inquiries of the Ministry was when the previous government was in power. We have been able to get rid of all the butter they were storing and could not sell. So far as agriculture is concerned it will reach $3.5 billion this year, which is the highest on record. It is a great deal higher than it was a year ago, and many times higher than it was in the years 1956 to 1962.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am not satisfied with that reply, and wish to debate it further at ten o'clock this evening.



QUEBEC-PROVISION OF FEED GRAIN STORAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture or to the Minister of Forestry, who is responsible for feed grain at present.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture stated that the previous government did nothing for the eastern farmers, would the Minister of Forestry tell us when eastern farmers will be in a position to take advantage of the storehouses which were supposed to be built and of a feed grain agency?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I think that if the hon. member took part more frequently in the meetings of the agriculture committee he would see that the matter is under active consideration.


Raymond Langlois: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
Since I am only one person, I can only be in one place at a time.
Now, because the present government had set up a flag committee I had to attend its sittings.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I revert to the question I asked earlier, as I did not receive a satisfactory reply. This time, however, I am directing it to the Prime Minister.
Does the government intend to provide feed grain warehouses in eastern Canada before the ground freezes over this fall?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this is also a question for the order paper.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have been asking

this question for a year and I am still waiting for an answer. I think the minister could at least give an indication of what the department is going to do, if they are going to do anything this fall, so that eastern farmers will know exactly what is what.



FEEDER CATTLE-REQUEST FOR PRICE PROTECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, November 5, I addressed a question to the Acting Prime Minister which he said he would take as notice and see that it was answered later. Perhaps I could pose the question to the Prime Minister today. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the federal government is going to move into the market to protect the level of prices on feeder cattle in western Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into that matter with the Minister of Agriculture.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Having heard that the minister granted recently a subsidy for a nurses convention which took place in Niagara Falls, I should like to know whether it is customary for the Department of National Health and Welfare to grant subsidies for such conventions?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This was a request from the government of Ontario under the health grants program. The grant was made in the ordinary way, it being regarded as a worthy project.



INQUIRY AS TO MEASURES TO COMBAT AIR POLLUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, notice of which I have sent him. In view of reported statements by officials of the meteorological branch of the Department of Transport to the effect that

air pollution is a threat to the future of mankind, will the minister indicate what action is being taken by the department to alleviate this problem?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid this is far too large a question to be answered on the orders of the day.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether any action has been taken to speed up the return of livestock cars from eastern to western Canada so the feeder and stacker cattle coming into the market places there can be shipped out to overcome this congested situation which has developed in some market places.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I think this question was asked the other day of the Minister of Forestry. We are taking a look at this, and if there is anything we can do we will certainly direct the matter to the attention of the carriers.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REPORTED STATEMENT RESPECTING POWERS OF PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice based on a speech made by Mr. Lucien Saulnier, chairman of the executive committee of the city of Montreal, to the Kiwanis club of Victoria, British Columbia, on November 3 last, in which he stated categorically that Quebec must "assume many powers which are essential to the normal development of the community, including social security legislation, radio and television, immigration and participation in drawing up external trade policies"; and also that "provincial states which so desire should be able to assume external jurisdiction in those areas which are theirs at home". Would the minister comment on this? Does he agree with it-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not in order under our standing orders.


Gerald William Baldwin: With respect, Mr. Speaker, this is the type of question asked of the min-
Inquiries of the Ministry ister in respect to the penal institutions, and it is following up the same matter of provincial powers. I submit penal institutions are a matter not as important as the question I am now posing to the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: The subject matter raised by the hon. member is of intense interest, I admit, but I do not think it is in order to ask that type of question at this time.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to an article in the last issue of the Financial Post which gives the views of a number of constitutional authorities, deans and professors of law, the great majority of whom oppose the proposed formula for amending the constitution recently agreed upon? In view of these opinions does the Prime Minister not consider that this matter should be referred to a parliamentary committee with power to summon witnesses and to discuss this most important issue before the formula is endorsed by parliament?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there will be a statement in a day or two on the procedure to be followed in this matter. Perhaps the article to which my hon. friend has referred, which is a very interesting one, can be considered, but in the meantime it might be referred to Mr. Fulton for his comments.



METHOD OF DETERMINING FEDERAL EXPENDITURES IN QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a rather important question to the Minister of Finance.
Since the report of the Minister of Finance on federal expenditures in each of the provinces and on the federal revenue accruing from every province was published last Saturday, could the Minister of Finance tell us whether the amount of $915,301,000 assigned on an equal per capita basis to the province of Quebec, or almost 50 per cent of federal expenditures in the province of Quebec, has actually been paid to the province of Quebec in 1961?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest that this question, important as it is, is one for the order paper.
9896	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would still like to point out that this report was published recently by the Minister of Finance in reply to a question put on the orders of the day.
It is precisely because it is a reply to a question on the order paper, but a reply which is neither clear nor precise, that I take advantage of the period allotted to oral questions today in an attempt to obtain precisions in regard to the reply given by the Minister of Finance.
Under the circumstances, I believe the hon. Minister of Finance should be asked to answer my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I still think the hon. member will obtain more enlightenment by putting his question on for discussion at ten o'clock.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I request that this matter be discussed at ten o'clock this evening.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I would much prefer to answer the question now if I may have your approval to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the fact this is obviously not my day, would the minister answer.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, all I want to say is this. The answer which was given to a question that became an order for return is very lengthy, preceded by ten pages of closely typed explanations as to how this complicated and complex tabulation was prepared. I might say that it has taken many members of the Department of Finance some five months to complete this tabulation, at a considerable cost to the country. I would be glad to supply my hon. friend with a complete copy of this statement. I think if he will read the ten pages carefully he will find the answer to his question.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
After having studied the report he speaks about, precisely because fuller particulars are required, can he tell us-this would not take too much time to answer-whether the $915,301,000 allocated on an even basis, per capita, were actually paid in the province of Quebec as mentioned in the report?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, as explained in the supporting memoranda there are categories of expenditures including, for example, expenditures on defence, which are made for the benefit or for the security of all Canadians everywhere. It is impossible to allocate expenditures of that kind accurately or fairly on a provincial basis; therefore they were allocated in this tabulation on a per capita basis.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put a further supplementary question to the minister? In view of the fact that the interest of one billion dollars paid each year by the Canadian government on its debt is included in that amount, can the minister tell us whether this amount of interest on the debt, which often goes 60 years back, is still paid to the United States or to other countries to the benefit of all Canadian citizens and whether that is included in this amount of $915 million?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It certainly is, Mr. Speaker. If we were to repudiate our obligations of this kind I think it would certainly react to the detriment of all Canadians.


Gilles Grégoire: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are beginning a debate, and this is precisely what I was trying to prevent a few minutes ago. May I suggest ten o'clock if the hon. member wishes any more information.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, which I will take only a minute to state. I would like to mention that I never suggested any debt repudiation, as the Minister of Finance hinted in his last statement.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance which I assure you is not calculated to arouse further debate. In view of the very interesting and important information in the document to which he has referred, would he undertake to have it reproduced in sufficient quantity so that it could be made available to members generally?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would be very glad to, Mr. Speaker.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of northern affairs. In view of his statement in Halifax that he is doubling the expenditures for historic sites there, will the minister say whether the same will be announced for Saint John and, if so, when?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we shall do the best with what money we have available.


Thomas Miller Bell: In view of the controversy there has been in this regard would the minister take this matter under consideration, particularly having in mind that we in New Brunswick think we have just as much history and just as much right to the same type of treatment that Nova Scotia is getting?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is entitled to this view from my department, that in light of the fact that we are arriving at our confederation centennial a great number of locations in all parts of the country are doing their best to draw the attention of the historic sites and monuments board to items of particular interest. The board met here two weeks ago and had a great number of submissions before it, and I think public opinion would support us at this time in setting aside more funds for these particular purposes than heretofore. Therefore we intend to apply to parliament for more money in this regard, and I think it will be forthcoming.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I say to the minister that if Saint John is included I will be glad to support that application.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Can he tell us if the penitentiary of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot is among those he talked
Inquiries of the Ministry about last week and if its construction will begin soon?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, an answer has already been given in the house to the first part of that question.
The last part of the question dealing with the construction of a penitentiary was allowed to stand.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Here it is. I would like to know if that institution will be built within two years, as stated by the minister last week. Yes or no?


Guy Favreau: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, whom I welcome back after his recent speech to the U.F.A. meeting in Alberta which opened with the admission that the last Liberal government deserved to be kicked out when it was. During the course of that speech the hon. gentleman said he was preparing legislation or giving consideration to a system whereby farm employees would be compensated during periods of unemployment or illness. Would the minister say whether the government now intends to bring farm labourers under the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first question I should like to say that perhaps I should have gone on to suggest that the previous government also needed to be brought down in so far as agricultural policies were concerned, because they did nothing for the eastern farmers.
In relation to the other question, we will have some very interesting legislation coming forward in the first part of next year which will be introduced in the usual way.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, will that interesting legislation include a method of placing farm labourers under the Unemployment Insurance Act in the way which was indicated in his speech?

Canada Pension Plan


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest that in view of the time that has elapsed this afternoon, unless there are some very urgent questions we get on with the business before the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I did not understand the suggestion, but when a minister makes a statement of policy outside the house we have the right in this house to ask what that policy is that has been announced.



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 be known as the Canada pension plan, to establish in Canada a comprehensive program of retirement pensions payable to contributors; to provide for the payment of supplementary benefits, including benefits for the widows and orphans of contributors and benefits to contributors who become disabled; to provide for the co-ordination of pensions payable under the Old Age Security Act with benefits payable under the Canada pension plan and for the payment of adjusted pensions under the Old Age Security Act beginning at any age from 65 years; to provide for the adjustment of pensions and other benefits in line with increases in earnings and the cost of living; to provide that funds arising from the operation of the Canada pension plan shall be invested in securities of the provinces, provincially guaranteed securities of provincial crown agents, and securities of Canada; and to provide further that all expenditures under the Canada pension plan, including costs of administration, shall be financed from contributions by employees and employers and from contributions by persons in respect of self-employed earnings.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, it is perhaps unfortunate that in dealing with this matter today the committee will only have a total of some four hours. However, since we are proceeding under the new rules and hon. members are restricted to 20 minute speeches, it is hoped that a great many members will be able to participate.
Earlier this year, Mr. Chairman, we had an opportunity to discuss a resolution similar to that now before the committee which preceded Bill No. C-75. However, the resolution which is before the committee today goes much further than the earlier version and introduces a social insurance measure of much wider scope. This more comprehensive program has been made possible by a number
tMr. Diefenbaker.]
of developments, many of which hon. members are aware of, which have taken place in the past several months.
It will be recalled that the earlier resolution dealt mainly with a contributory old age insurance program and that as well contained certain amendments to the Old Age Security Act to provide for the payment of adjusted pensions beginning at any age from 65 years onward. The resolution now before us provides in addition for the payment of supplementary benefits for widows and orphans of contributors, and benefits to contributors who become disabled. This, of course, represents an important new dimension in the Canada pension plan.
I should like to recite some of the history in regard to this matter in order to freshen the recollection of members of the committee. Soon after Bill No. C-75 was presented earlier in this calendar year, during this session of the house, the government of the province of Quebec exposed the details of its own proposed pension plan. When these details were exposed it was clear that the Canada pension plan as incorporated in Bill No. C-75 and the proposed Quebec legislation were much closer in detail than had been anticipated at one time. Many of the features of the Quebec plan as revealed at Quebec city attracted favourable comment from provincial representatives who were there. Clearly there was a common goal that there should be a national contributory plan, and as a result of that consensus a series of negotiations were then undertaken to reach that common goal.
As I mentioned, one of the features found most attractive in the Quebec plan was the provision of supplementary benefits mentioned as desirable by government speakers from the beginning but which were not incorporated in Bill No. C-75 for reasons of which hon. members are aware. However, at Quebec city and subsequently all provincial representatives agreed that these features would have to be included in a truly comprehensive scheme.
Hon. members of this committee know full well that under the British North America Act, federal jurisdiction in this area is confined to pensions for the aged, and it was quite clear that if we wished to be able to add benefits of this kind to a comprehensive national scheme we would have to have an amendment to the constitution. Indeed, the previous government had at one time sought approval for such an amendment.

Not very long after that, agreement was reached on the phraseology of an amendment to be presented. This resolution was presented to the house by my colleague, the Minister of Justice, was approved, transmitted to Westminster, and in due course passed there. That amendment meant that the jurisdiction which was provided under section 94A of the B.N.A. Act was extended in order to cover supplementary benefits as well as old age pensions.
Before going into a closer examination of some of the provisions in the bill I would like to draw hon. members' attention to a new and important development. It will be recalled that in the earlier bill, Bill No. C-75, there was provision to base pensions on current earnings levels. That approach has been retained in the new bill and, in addition, provision has been made for an upward adjustment of benefits if living costs rise.
Throughout, one of the criticisms made of the earlier bill was that it failed to provide for our elderly citizens already in receipt of pensions. Indeed, the Canada pension plan, as opposed to the amendments to the Old Age Security Act, which are also incorporated in the bill, following September last year was never intended to provide anything for those now in pension. It will be recalled that the original intent was that there be a $10 supplementary payment made to one million odd old age pensioners from the proceeds of the Canada pension plan. When it was made clear by the province of Quebec in August of 1963 that it would produce its own plan, legislation was introduced and passed with the approval of all hon. members, to increase pensions to $75 a month, without waiting to go on with the Canada pension plan.
Since that time a number of representations have been made to the government, not the least being remarks made by interested hon. members in this chamber. Therefore we have provided under the new Canada pension plan, in addition to the $10 increase which was granted just over a year ago, that all future old age security pensions will be pegged to the cost of living index and will increase automatically if living costs increase.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: This is a new departure in old age security. It is in response to the oft heard cry of those in receipt of pensions that they are unable to keep up with their own expenses if the cost of living rises as they have to depend on intermittent pension payments which may be raised at any time or may be held down to a certain level for some
Canada Pension Plan
years. We hope, and I know this feeling will be shared by members in all corners of the chamber, that this will provide not only a greater measure of security but will also protect the real value of the pension dollar for Canada's million-odd pensioners.
The Canada pension plan as described in this resolution provides, as I said, for supplementary benefits and this makes it a truly comprehensive social insurance measure. Up until this time we have in Canada used the social assistance approach as the principal means of aiding survivors and disabled persons. As hon. members know, since world war I there has been provided in the provinces the kind of legislation known as mothers' allowances to help out widows who have dependant children. In recent years the federal and provincial governments have cooperated to provide assistance as well to the disabled. But these are welfare programs based on a test of need or means.
This plan, the Canada pension plan, is one which provides help as of right rather than on a need or a means test, for those who suffer the loss of a loved breadwinner or those who find themselves disabled and unable to carry on work. I think hon. members will agree this is a giant step forward in Canada's social security program.
These disability benefits under the Canada pension plan will provide help in family crises when it is most needed. When the head of a family dies and leaves his widow with young children, she will be provided with a pension to help her through those difficult years. A widow 35 years old or over, even though she has no dependant children, as hon. members know, often finds it difficult to re-enter the labour force and obtain work. There is provision for a pension for her; and the older she is and thus the less likely to be self-supporting, the greater her need and therefore the higher is her pension. Nor have the orphans of contributors been forgotten. They will be entitled to draw a benefit, generally until they join the work force.
Then in addition-and this is a new feature -upon the death of any contributor a payment will be made to his estate, whether or not there is a survivor's benefit payable.
For those who become disabled there is at least the comfort of knowing that a pension will be payable, on a temporary or on a permanent basis as needed. This pension is also available to a disabled widow or widower.
While one basic change in the program now to be considered is the fact that it is broader in scope by the provision of these supple-

Canada Pension Plan
mentary benefits, the other important development is that the program in fact will be truly national in its application, whether administered by the federal government or by a provincial government. The plan will operate uniformly across the country, and rights to benefit under it will be completely portable from sea to sea. As such we have every reason to believe that it will prove an important instrument in reinforcing our national unity as Canadians.
In a country such as ours which has such a high degree of mobility of manpower, the desirability of one common approach to pension legislation is readily apparent. This was one of the key points stressed during the negotiations already referred to, particularly by the head of the government of Ontario.
Through the long months of federal-provincial discussions leading to the bill which this resolution precedes, most of the best features of the proposed Quebec plan and of the Canada pension plan have been incorporated into this new program, along with a number of suggestions put forward by the other provinces and by various groups in their representations to the federal government.
One of the important changes from Bill No. C-75 is the extension of coverage of the selfemployed on a compulsory rather than voluntary basis. Last year submissions were made to the Canadian government by a number of bodies, including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which made its submission on February 26. At that time that body asked that farmers be covered on a compulsory baeis. Several of the provincial premiers at the meetings which we have had also indicated concern that farmers and fishermen, ordinarily at the lower end of the earnings scale in many provinces, would not be adequately protected if coverage were left as entirely voluntary. The Quebec report favoured the approach of involuntary coverage, and that is the one followed in the old age and survivors' insurance program in the United States.
It will be clear that good arguments can be advanced for either approach, but on balance it appears in Canada there is a much broader support for the approach now incorporated in the new Canada pension plan. It is apparent that in this and in many other aspects of the program there will, of course, be honest differences as to whether one approach or course is better than another. But a great effort has been made to develop a program which will receive general acceptance by Canadians, knowing that in any plan which is as complex and attempts to be as compre-
[Miss LaMarsh.l
hensive as this one there will be some reservations on one point or another.
There is another change. The level of benefits provided for retirement is higher in the new bill than under Bill No. C-75. This was indicated in the white paper which hon. members have had a chance to study since August, and it will be noted when they see the new bill. This higher level of benefits has resulted from an adjustment of the maximum pensionable earnings and of the percentage of those earnings which was used to calculate the amount of the retirement benefit. This means that a maximum monthly retirement benefit of $104.17 is now proposed. This, combined with a maximum old age security payment of $75 a month, will make the over-all maximum pension $179.17 at age 70. I hope this increase in benefit will commend itself to all hon. members. Some will say it is too-low; others will say it is too high. However, we have balanced as carefully as we could all of the factors involved-Canadian wage levels, our economy, the cost of living and so forth

and on balance we decided that this represents the most reasonable benefit provision. The figure I quoted is, of course, the maximum and it is perfectly true that many people will receive somewhat less, depending, naturally, on the amount of contribution they have made in the course of their working lives.
For the average contributor, there is another change. The new program now envisaged being a richer one, there is a somewhat higher rate of contribution required. This higher rate of contribution will make it possible not only to finance the more generous retirement benefit, and the new survivors' and disability benefits, but will also result in higher investment reserves. These reserves will be made available for investment in obligations of provincial governments or of any agent of Her Majesty in the right of a province if that is guaranteed by the province. There will be interest on these reserves which are utilized by the provinces and this interest will go to the credit of the Canada pension plan and help finance it. These funds, moreover, will be very helpful to the provinces in the development of their social capital for such purposes as schools, roads, sewers, and hydroelectric projects, as well as for such developments as may desired in the provinces in the field of health and welfare, all in accordance with the scale of priorities of the provinces themselves.
The proposed legislation will also deal with the question of safeguards to the provinces,

and restraints in relation to future changes in the Canada pension plan. If the federal legislation dealt with a matter exclusively within federal jurisdiction, such provisions would not have been included. In fact, however, as hon. members know, parliament's power to legislate pensions is subject to the limitation that it must not affect present or future provincial laws. This gives to the provinces a legitimate day to day interest in the Canada pension plan, now, as well as in the future.
Special attention has been given to fulfilling the need for the closest possible coordination between the Quebec plan and the Canada pension plan. Suppose, for instance, a contributor has been paying into the plan in Quebec while he lived and worked there, and that he later went to live and work in another province where he paid into the Canada pension plan. From which authority will he draw his payments when he retires? When his pension becomes payable, under an agreement we have worked out with the Quebec authorities, he will receive one cheque to cover his total benefits; it will not matter to him where he worked-whether he stayed in one place all his life or whether he moved across the country. The act will determine which of the two jurisdictions will pay the pension and there will, of course, be provision for reimbursement from one to the other. It will be obvious that arrangements of this kind are essential for the highest possible co-ordination between the two plans, and this has resulted in a bill containing 125 clauses, a bill which is long and extremely complex.
When the bill goes to the joint parliamentary committee which it is proposed to establish, members of this committee will have before them, in addition to the white paper and the bill, actuarial and economic studies of the Canada pension plan for their information. When hon. members have a chance to see the bill this evening and when the public as a whole becomes familiar with the provisions of the new pension plan I feel sure the measures will receive a warm response-certainly it will be warmer in some places than in others-from almost all in the country.
It seems to me we are taking today a most important stride toward social security in our country, a stride of which all Canadians may be justly proud. It is one which is intended to provide not only an opportunity for the individual to help save for his own future dignity but also to help him provide for those who are normally dependant upon
Canada Pension Plan
him. I hope it will do much to bring not only members of the House of Commons together, members of this committee and of the special committee, but that it will do much to bring together all Canadians working under one plan to provide for their own and one another's security.


Mr. Monleilh:: When she rose to make her statement to the committee, the minister I noticed received very warm applause. I was pleased this was the case because I knew she would need this encouragement after so many previous ill-fated efforts.
I believe the hon. lady indicated that the supplementary payments to which she referred had been urged on previous occasions by her own supporters. My recollection is that speakers from the government side of the house mentioned those supplementary payments only very occasionally in the course of previous debates; that it was, actually, opposition speakers who pressed for a recognition of the need in this regard.
I was very pleased to hear the minister's statement concerning a cost of living index adjustment to present recipients of old age security payments. This is a matter about which we have been greatly concerned in the past-something which was completely ignored in previous efforts.
I wish, now, to reiterate the stand I took on March 17 last when I stated that the party to which I belong is in favour of a Canada pension plan. Let there be no misunderstanding. The Progressive Conservative party- the government in power at that time- started this whole program rolling back in 1958. We have always stood for this type of guarantee, for this type of guarantee against fear for our older citizens as old age creeps on. At least the government has seen fit to bring in a plan which includes many of the additional benefits we have always advocated.
I ask, first of all: Why is this resolution before us? I believe that on a previous occasion-I do not recall whether it was in reply to a question by myself or not-the minister indicated that there were preliminary administrative costs which were being borne out of the general revenue prior to the actual inception of the plan? Am I right in that supposition? In other words, all the administrative expenses having to do with the Canada pension plan, present and future, are being met out of contributions. If that is the case I do not see why this resolution is before us at all-there is no expenditure involved by the government-unless it is to

Canada Pension Plan
justify what might be considered another tax. I do not see any other reason for it.
I understood the minister to say that the committee is not going to be set up until after the bill receives second reading. I would plead with the minister to reconsider this course. I really and honestly believe that a proper consideration, examination and study of representations from people across Canada should be made on the Canada pension plan and on the bill which is coming forward, which I understand contains 125 sections, and that to achieve this it would be much wiser to send this bill to committee before it receives second reading. If we go through second reading the government becomes committed to certain clauses which may, in the long run, if this matter is sent to committee, be proven ineffective; it might be proven that the bill would be better off without them. I know the minister will say that if this is the decision of the committee she will be very happy to give consideration to possible changes. I think that right from the first time a pension plan was put before us on July 18, 1963, there were indications both from the Prime Minister and the minister that they would study recommendations made, and so on; but I think good faith would be proven if this bill went to the special committee before it actually received second reading and the government's position became hardened and more difficult of adjustment. I would like to ask the minister -she may reply now or at any time-whether she proposes to have this committee set up and operating before Christmas.
The minister gave some of the history of the Canada pension plan. I believe the history she gave started with the conference in Quebec and I would like to give a little of the previous history. We all recall that on July 18, 1963, the first version was brought before us, and we also recall the very political approach taken by the minister at that time.


John George Diefenbaker: Partisan.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, a very partisan approach. She has been much more reasonable and humble today. In fact, she was also much more reasonable and humble on March 17 last. I am sure she learned her lesson.


An hon. Member:: She is mellowing with age.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Maybe it is that she is mellowing with age, or office. However, Mr. 
Chairman, I would like to recall one or two phases of the plan that was put before us at that time. We recall that there was no funding in that particular plan. At the moment there is a complete reversal. It did include a possible $10 increase in old age security at some time in the future, but the minister was not sure just when that would be. We recall that later that day the right hon. Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment after having pointed out the election promises of the Liberal party prior to the April 8 election and the fact that they were not being fulfilled. One of those election promises was an immediate increase in old age security of $10 per month. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition moved that amendment, and of course we came to the end of the day and nothing was done.


John George Diefenbaker: Every Liberal member voted against it.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, I understand that every Liberal member voted against that amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: Against that increase.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, they voted against the recipients of old age security receiving this increase. There was a level of $4,000 maximum income. The blind, disabled and those receiving old age assistance were completely ignored at that time; and there was no opting out by provinces. There was issued a white paper giving a supplementary outline of the scheme presented to us. I could mention what I believe were some excellent advances made by the previous government in the health and welfare field, including the start of the actual Canada pension plan which we are seeing here today; however, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to do that because my time is limited.
I would, however, continuing the historical angle of this plan, mention that when we came back on September 30, 1963, the government had not prepared the business for the session. This matter first came before us on July 18, 1963, and due to our insistence it was subsequently finally agreed that an amendment be brought forward for an increase of $10 per month in old age security. However, at that time the blind, disabled and those receiving old age assistance were still excluded from the increase. We were certainly in favour of this increase and we voted for it. But what was the price to the taxpayer? The government had in their election literature indicated that this was going to be financed

Canada Pension Plan
out of the contributions to the Canada pension plan; but instead of that the taxpayers across Canada today are paying something over $100 million extra in taxes.
I mentioned earlier that the minister was very humble on March 17. That day the resolution preceding Bill No. C-75 was passed and the bill was given first reading. Then, as the minister mentioned, the Quebec conference took place and Quebec unveiled their plan. Apparently after the conference was over there was some really high pressured wheeling and dealing going on for a period of days at least; I understand there were several meetings. Then eventually a compromise was announced as between the Quebec plan and the government's plan. On April 20, 1964, the Prime Minister tabled letters to the provinces asking for consent to amend the British North America Act, and this was eventually received. Now we have the third version before us. On March 17 last I asked the minister whether those were to be the minister's last confident words on this pension plan. I did so because of the boastful but completely incompetent presentation which she had brought forward on July 18. Events certainly proved me to be correct in asking her at that time. I am sure she thought they were her last words, but events proved otherwise.


John George Diefenbaker: Two revisions since.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I hope the future holds for this plan the very best of everything. We want to see it in committee and we want to get it there fast.
I have read, Mr. Chairman, all the material available, and in particular the white paper. I should like to ask the minister, because I do not doubt that this question will be raised later in the debate, whether she has given proper consideration to any conflict with the Hall health report and the extra cost involved in this pension plan. I do not suggest that she has to answer but I am wondering, had she received the Hall report concerning health services before having embarked on the pension plan, which one she would have chosen. Or would she have chosen both? Certainly it would be to the advantage of all Canadians to choose both; but at the same time I suppose the Minister of Finance has put some brakes on the minister, and I also expect that the finance officials will be before the committee when it is set up.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in referring to the white paper may I say that the necessary amendment to section 94A of the British
North America Act has certainly made this a worth-while plan in comparison with the plans put before us before. You will recall that the government of which the Leader of the Opposition had the honour to be the head had attempted to get this particular amendment passed, but had not been able to do so. However, under this new plan widows under 65 years of age and their dependants, and the disabled, are going to receive benefits which were not possible previously. There is a section entitled "Main features of the pensions" on page 7 of the white paper. These provisions can hardly be recognized from the previous efforts. With regard to timing, retirement pensions will begin in January 1967. This is, of course, a year later than had previously been anticipated by the minister and promised on July 18, 1963.
There is one point which disturbs me, Mr. Chairman, and it is this. I am not prepared at the moment to say that this is not the correct thing to do, although surely study in committee will clear the point up somewhat. The self-employed will be compulsorily included in the plan. This means that an average of 3.6 per cent of all earnings by self-employed workers will be paid into this plan-not 1.8 per cent as with employed persons, but 3.6 per cent. I think this is going to be found quite a drain on the capacities of various self-employed people and I think it is a matter which will have to be looked at. With regard to adjustments for increases in the cost of living, as I said earlier we were very pleased to see that the minister has included a cost of living adjustment for those receiving old age security. This was a woeful omission from previous presentations.
However, there is one class of person who I think should be considered in this matter. I heard a young fellow of 18 years say the other day, Mr. Chairman: "I am going to pay into this pension plan for 52 years and not get one cent more out of it than the person who has been paying into it for ten years". I know there is a cost of living adjustment and so on, but that is the fact and I think our young people will look at this.
Then there is a section headed "Adjustment for earnings after retirement". It indicates that pensions can be reduced if a person has earned income of over $900 a year, no matter from what source it may come. For example, a person might retire from a job and then become self-employed after the age of 70 and make $900 a year. He will therefore have his pension reduced.

Canada Pension Plan
I see my time is up. May I say there are many changes for which we have asked earlier affecting disability pensions, widows under 65 years of age, disabled persons and so on. I should like to know how many provinces are actually committed to the scheme.
There is one other section I should like to mention in relation to other retirement plans. This whole section rather blandly assumes that integrating existing private pension plans with the Canada pension plan will not be a great problem. I suggest that it is in this area that most of our immediate headaches are going to arise. I suggest that consideration should be given to allowing public plans, such as the civil service superannuation plan and those private plans which are of exceptional standard, to remain out of the Canada pension plan. My purpose in suggesting this is because we do not want to see any individual's pension or pension arrangements suffer as a result of this legislation.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Chairman, we welcome the introduction of this resolution and we are prepared to welcome the bill which will be introduced at the end of this day's sitting. I confess that it gets a bit difficult to express one's welcome with the same warmth after he has done it two or three times already; but despite the tarnish that time may have put upon the proposed Canada pension plan it is still true that we are launching upon a piece of legislation which is extremely important in terms of improving the lot of all of the people of this country.
Some of the things one might say on this occasion need not be said because they were said on July 18 of last year or March 17 of this year. Therefore, perhaps the minister can take as read the fact that we are glad to have this plan back again. We are glad to have the improvements which were indicated in the white paper which was tabled in August, and we are glad to hear of the two or three additional improvements that the minister announced today.
Mr. Chairman, perhaps the thing that needs most to be said at this time should be directed not just to the Minister of National Health and Welfare but to the government as a whole. What is most needed is that this legislation get passed at this session, and it has a long way to go. Thanks to the new rule under which we are operating, the debate at this stage can last only for this day. But the bill still has to go through second reading, to the special committee which is to be appointed, and it then has to come back to the committee of the whole house, and then

go through the third reading stage. We are already away over time in this session, and no one knows how long it is going to last.
I am still relying on the undertaking that the Minister of Justice gave on July 6, at which time he was the government house leader. He made it clear that the government would see to it that the completion of the legislative process with respect to the Canada pension plan would be effected before the end of the present session. It was for that reason the leader of this party, earlier this afternoon, urged that second reading of the Canada pension plan be given priority above the motions for concurrence in the reports of the special committee on the flag. I suggest to the government that if it puts the flag debate-which may last for a number of days-


An hon. Member:: Or weeks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -or weeks, someone suggests-ahead of second reading of the Canada pension plan, that might result in the Canada pension plan not getting to the special committee until well on in December. When one considers the delays that can take place there he must realize that we may find ourselves at the end of yet another session without this legislation on the statute books. Therefore, I urge not only upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but upon all members of the government, that top priority be given to getting this legislation through, and that means calling the bill for second reading soon.
I am afraid the hon. member for Perth has not assisted the minister in this regard by suggesting that the bill be sent to the special committee before second reading. After all, there is in our rules standing order 77, which requires that all bills be read a second time before they are committed. That being the case, we must complete the second reading stage first. We have to agree to the bill in principle before it goes to a committee. The government can co-operate in this regard by bringing on second reading stage at an early date, and we as members of the house can cooperate by limiting our debate at that stage to two or three days-surely that is enough- so we can get it to the special committee.
We have indicated on previous occasions that there are many things about this legislation that are good. It is not necessary for me to go into all the details, but I think it is not inappropriate for me to mention two or three of them at this time. What I like most of all about the Canada pension plan-about the

two stage plan which we are now developing tor Canadians in their years of retirement-is that we are trying to reach a position where we are providing pensions that are adequate.
Long ago we accepted the responsibility ot government to do something about old age. A decade or more ago we accepted the principle of universality. Now we are trying to do something to bring pensions up to the level of adequacy. I do not suggest that the levels which will be achieved by combining the Canada pension plan, at its best, with old age security, at its present level, are really the last words in adequacy, but at least we are talking about pensions of quite a different order from that which seemed to be accepted a few years or decades ago. I hope that, having accepted the principle that retirement security should be on the basis of adequacy, we will go on improving that basis, finding ways and means of raising the levels of our pensions so that all Canadians can look forward to a retirement in decency and dignity.
I am also pleased that this legislation has been broadened in scope from what it was in its first two versions. Particular provision has been made for survivors benefits and benefits to persons who are disabled. It is good to include that sort of thing in pension legislation. Because of those things that are in this legislation, and because they are good, as I say, I trust there will be no slips, legislative or otherwise-no action on the part of the government to bring other legislation forward, and no obstruction on the part of members generally-to delay the enactment of this plan. Let us see to it that we get this good legislation through.
Despite the fact that the legislation is, as I have said, welcome and good legislation, there are two or three things about it which are not completely satisfactory from our point of view. However, these are not reasons for holding up the legislation. Even good legislation, once it is established, can be improved later on, and I believe that is what will happen to our old age pension legislation generally.
One of the things I think is a weakness in this plan is that it is neither a pay-as-you-go plan nor a funded plan. It is something in between those two concepts of old age pensions. For my part, it is too close to the latter.
Another thing I feel is a weakness in this plan is that, in so far as it does aim at the provision of a fairly substantial fund for public investment or development, there are two flaws. In the first place we are in effect taxing people at the lower end of the income
Canada Pension Plan
scale to provide such an investment fund. A portion of what people will pay as premiums into Canada pension plan will go into the investment fund. Investment funds controlled and administered by a public authority are good and we should have them, but something of the order of the Canada development corporation would have been a better way of doing this.
It is also true that this plan envisages the control and the planning of the investment fund to be entirely in provincial hands, and this is its second flaw. We feel that in the interests of unity and of building a strong nation, and in the interests of living and economic standards being at their best across this country, there should be more federal direction of the investment of public funds.
Another point I think is going to have to be worked on, to some extent, is the one to which the hon. member for Perth referred just before he resumed his seat, and that is the whole question of the relationship of the Canada pension plan to other plans. My concern is not the concern that the hon. member for Perth expressed. He wanted an opting out provision in respect of certain plans. I think that rather than that, a great deal more has to be done in terms of making clear the relationship which exists between this plan and other plans.
I know that the white paper tries to deal with this. The only paragraph in the white paper where capital letters are used to emphasize a word is a paragraph under the section dealing with the relationship to other plans in which it says that the funds of other plans "will NOT" be taken over by the Canada pension plan. That is a good use of capital letters, but it is still true that many people are being misled and some of them quite deliberately.
I know that certain organizations that have a vested interest in their plans or certain companies that do not want to improve the pension plans of their employees are spreading the notion that somehow or other the government, through the Canada pension plan, is going to take over their reserve funds and actually weaken their pension position. I have had people write me to tell me they can now retire at 60 or 62 under their plan and who want to know whether the situation is going to be worse, whether they are now going to have to work until 65 because of the Canada pension plan. That of course is false.
Maybe what I am asking for is a much better job of public relations, but I think it is more than that. I think it is a case of

Canada Pension Plan
making it crystal clear what the relationship is between the Canada pension plan and the other plans. It may be, Mr. Chairman, that this will turn out to be one of the principal advantages of our sending this measure to a special committee. I assume that everybody and his uncle will appear before that committee, including many of the companies, corporations and organizations that have these plans, and maybe as we have these people before that committee we can make this particular relationship clear.
I want to say a word, Mr. Chairman, about the welcome announcement that the minister made in her statement today to the effect that the bill we will get by tonight will provide that once the bill becomes law pensions paid under old age security will, including those now being paid, be subject to an increase in relation to the increase in the cost of living index. This is welcome news, and the applause the minister got when she made this announcement was well deserved. I hope that before the day is out we can get some details as to what will be the percentage of increase in the pension for a percentage point increase in the cost of living index. Will it be a percentage increase or will it be a flat dollar increase? At any rate, let it be taken as a fact that we welcome this improvement.
But, Mr. Chairman, let me say as strongly as I can to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and to the government as a whole that they must not think they have done the last job they need to do with regard to old age security because they have provided for this increase in relation to the cost of living index. The whole story of pensions over the years is one not just of raising pensions according to the increase in the cost of living index but of trying as a decent society to do the decent thing for our old people.
We have recognized that we have also had to increase pensions because of the increase in the standard of living, because of increased productivity. It is not good enough to say to people who are drawing $75 a month today that ten years from now their pensions will be $75 a month plus a percentage for the increase in the cost of living. In the meantime our productivity will have increased, our gross national product will have increased, the standard of living of Canadians will have increased, and those people will deserve to share in the increase. I say to the minister, I say to the government and to whatever government may follow the present government, that you have not finished with old age security because you have

arrived at $75 a month plus certain percentage increases. You are going to have to go beyond that, and the contention I have been making that we should aim at $100 a month for old age security by our centennial year, 1967, I suggest still stands.
I say again that we welcome this announcement. The only thing that could be wrong with it is that it might lull some people into the notion that we have now fixed up old age security for all time. This is not so. The minister has been in this field long enough now to know that that really is not the case. Not only is it insufficient to provide for these percentage increases so far as the future is concerned, but it is still true that unless something more than this is done for the people who are now 70 years of age and over and who are today drawing $75 a month there is really nothing in it for them. To tell us about the $10 that was given last year is old history by now. In the meantime the cost of living has gone up, in the meantime our productivity has increased and in the meantime other people have had their pensions improved. We have go to do something for people already on pensions as well as making things better for those who will do not too badly when this concept of a two stage pension plan is in full operation.
We also welcome the statement of the minister about the money that a person may have in the fund being available as a payment to his estate, and it may be that when we get the bill there will be two or three other improvements in it compared with what we had in the white paper that was distributed in August. All told, Mr. Chairman, we are making progress. I thought it was a good measure that was placed before us on July 18, 1963. I thought it was a better measure that we had on March 17, 1964, and it is a better measure still that we are now getting on the 9th of November, 1964. But, Mr. Chairman, at the risk of being a pessimist, may I point out that the original plan of July, 1963, envisaged people starting to draw pensions under the Canada pension plan on January 1, 1966. The present plan at its best envisages people starting to draw pensions on July 1, 1967. Already since this government has been in power senior citizens have lost one year of what they might have got and many others are having to take a reduction of 10 per cent or more from what they might have got because of that loss of one year.

Canada Pension Plan
I come back, therefore, to what I said when I first rose. I see that my time is up, Mr. Chairman, and I am ready to sit down. Whether it is the government's responsibility because it brings the flag before us before second reading of this bill, or whether it is the opposition's responsibility because it takes too long and does not let the bill get to the special committee, any such delay could soon compound itself into the kind of delay which will result in another year being cut off the pensions that our people could get under this legislation. If we agree that the legislation has been improved, and I do, if we agree that this is a good piece of legislation, and I certainly agree, then let us get on with it and get it on the statute books as fast as we can.


Mr. Lessard (Lake Si. John):: Mr. Chairman, upon undertaking the study of the resolution which introduces a pension plan on a national scale, it is well to realize that this measure will probably be the most important the present parliament will be called upon to study, for probably many years to come. It is important, due to the fact that it will bear directly on the income and the savings of the vast majority, not to say more simply of the whole nation, particularly of all Canadian workers.
As I come from Quebec, it might be well for me to mention that my province has decided to adopt a similar plan which its government will manage itself, in co-operation with the national plan.
One might be inclined to think that the representatives of the province of Quebec in this house should refrain from discussing the federal plan.
But I think that this is not so, since residents of the province of Quebec just as those of other provinces have to move sometimes in order either to go and work in other provinces or simply to stay there but change employment.
If, therefore, I deemed it advisable to participate in this debate in order to give you my personal views as well as those of our group, I may say, at the very outset, that like the majority of Canadians, we welcome quite optimistically this project.
To mention a single proof that this project has the support of the Canadian people, I might say that Telepoll made public a survey which it had undertaken across Canada on the appeal that such a project might have for Canadians. According to the data compiled
at that time, it seems that 72 per cent of Canadians preferred a federal pension program to a private or provincial pension scheme.
I think it is a clear indication of Canadian public opinion in this regard.
We may question the manner in which investigations were made when we consider that the bill will affect each individual and, in view of its scope, a most vital element: his savings and his financial administration.
I wonder why we did not think of holding a referendum in this respect, as some were suggesting in the case of the national flag. It is not that I want a referendum to decide on a pension plan, far from it, but since the pension plan will affect each and every individual in the country, we must give such a plan serious consideration and listen to representations which will be made by every organization in the country, so that we may be sure to know the prevailing opinion of the Canadian people.
Of course, we may find that by this bill we will once again be encroaching upon the freedom of the individual; however, the purpose of the bill is to help retired citizens.
How much will the plan cost and what effects will it have on the economy?
Press reports published since the plan was introduced show that some groups are against it. Of course, those groups are no doubt against it for personal reasons only; they know that the plan will affect them and that they may lose certain financial benefits they have been enjoying since the introduction of private pension plans.
I know it will be rather difficult to judge accurately the implications of such a hoarding of funds by the governments to finance the pension plan in question. But I sometimes wonder whether, during the first years of application of this plan, we will not have to undergo financial difficulties in this country, with regard to the development of our industries.
Up to now private companies, which were the only ones concerned in that field, have been accumulating large amounts for some years. These amounts were used for the industrial development of the country in a great proportion. Companies having pension plans for their employees placed the money collected with trust or insurance companies which, in return, granted loans to the industries in order to enable them to develop.
The workers who are not contributing to any pension plan but who will be called upon to do so tomorrow, will experience, in a

Canada Pension Plan
certain way, a reduction of the savings they used to deposit in the caisses populaires or in the banks or that they used to purchase private enterprise bonds.
I think that during the first years of implementation of this plan, our industries will have to look to other sources to finance their development and, during that period I think that we shall witness an increase in unemployment in Canada.
In the various studies made on that matter and in the reports I have, such a result is anticipated.
In 1960, private companies covered some two million workers.
The proposed plan will cover over six million workers. Of course, the sources to be drained into those pension funds, whether they be provincial or national funds, will be used to re-finance other government projects.
We are told that a great part of those funds will be re-loaned to provinces for their own requirements. In what fields will the provinces be able to invest those amounts? In the social field, or in public development? Very well. But will the provincial governments be in a position to withdraw from the public bonds market? As far as I am concerned, I do not think so, because their needs are continually increasing and knowing that they have at their disposal this new source of credit, they will certainly make full use of it.
Consequently, we will face strong competition on the public market to get the required money for industrial development. The consequences will certainly be numerous and very serious.
We have here the results of a study which was initiated at the request of the Quebec provincial government with respect to the implications of this proposed pension plan. In their report the economists say that it will make practically impossible the task of some small industries which now can barely make ends meet, because any increase in their production practically means bankruptcy for them. That will also bring about an increase in production costs, that is, an increase in the price of the finished product.
Again, Canadian producers will be in an unfavourable position to compete with the production of other countries. On the other hand, the result will be to encourage industries to turn to automation earlier in order to eliminate as many workers as possible in their plants, with a view to counterbalancing the increase in production costs. That will result in a taxation increase in various fields.

It will be very difficult to compensate over a short period the drawbacks which small and sometimes even large industries will have to suffer following the implementation of this pension plan.
According to the study by William and Mercer Ltd., which is recognized as one of the most important actuary firms in Canada, the creation of pension funds necessarily opens the door to inflation. Unfortunately, in their election campaign the political parties will try to outbid each other. One will promise more than the other in order to draw the votes of the electorate. Then the benefits will increase and we shall have, like in the United States, a 7 per cent charge, which it is intended to increase soon to 9 per cent, in order to finance a $65 monthly pension.
Just like in Sweden, which is a country regularly cited as an example and where the rate of contributions levied upon salaries has more than tripled during a short period in order to enable it to finance the cost of its pension plan, we shall see our own rates increasing sharply.
It is clear that we must help the aged to live decently, but on the other hand we must take into consideration the requirements of the younger generation to face its numerous and costly responsibilities. It is not at 60 that a man needs all his income, but rather between the ages of 21 and 50, at which time family responsibilities are onerous. I feel that, by imposing this contribution, we are simply adding to his burden which, I hope, he will be in a position to bear. Still, it will be necessary to explain to the young people, this generation of 20 to 35 or 40 years of age, the advantages of the system for, at this point, they see nothing except what they will have to pay, and as expenses tend to accumulate constantly, in my opinion we will have a hard time to convince them of the value of this plan.
We must also examine the problem from another angle. Will companies find it as easy to take in employees who frequently move from one plant to another, in view of the cost of administering that pension plan?
For instance, since Quebec will have its own plan, will not workers from Quebec wanting to work in Ontario or in another province for an indefinite period see the objections increase? Will employers in Ontario or another province not find it more difficult to hire people coming from another province? Will that not create or encourage to a certain extent discrimination against workers from this or that province?

These are all the points which will have to be considered.
Many people are wondering what is going to happen to the amounts already invested in private companies? What assurance will they have that they will not go bankrupt now that they are losing that income? None, actually. What assurance will they have that those company pension funds will not be nationalized by governments? There again, absolutely none. Time alone will tell.
I believe that at the present time many questions are being raised among the workers. Will private companies be able to provide pension plans which will supplement those proposed at present by governments? This is again an area where clarification is in order.
I shall limit myself to these few remarks at this stage and since it was agreed that the bill will be before the house later this evening, we shall then probably be in a better position to appreciate its implications.
In conclusion, however, I should like to quote the following recommendations submitted in a brief by the chamber of commerce of the province of Quebec:
The result of this pension plan will be to give rise to certain problems with regard to the liquid assets used at present by companies to finance their development. In addition, this situation might delay the economic development and affect the creation of new jobs.
In my opinion, that is one aspect of the bill which should be given careful consideration, because our economy is already quite weak and we should be most wary in that field. Indeed, we need social security but what we need even more, what Canadian citizens want before anything else is the right to employment, that is the assurance of being able to find work from the age of 21 approximately until retirement. If we do provide them with that opportunity, I am sure most Canadians will be, to a great extent, able to look after their own needs- and ensure their own security. At any rate, we will wait until the bill is introduced before making more detailed comments.


Mr. Perron:: Mr. Chairman, the proposed resolution which is submitted to us this afternoon has a wide scope, because social security, today, deals with one of the most important problems facing any government.
Since they entered parliament the Credi-tistes from all provinces have always led the way in favour of a healthy social security system.
Canada Pension Plan
The members of the Ralliement Creditiste have often and justly claimed for the aged an income which would allow them to live according to the means which the natural resources and industry of Canada can offer.
Mr. Chairman, mere desires, mere wishes, mere recommendations or paternalism can no longer be the sources of social security.
Today, the right to social security is universally recognized since December, 1948 when the universal declaration of human rights was proclaimed by the general assembly of the United Nations.
The first paragraph of article 25 of that declaration reads as follows:
"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control".
In the April, 1950 issue of a monthly bulletin published by the confederation of Christian syndicates of Belgium, the following question was raised: "What is social security?" And the following answer was given:
According to modem concepts, social security means the payment to workers of a replacement income when normal income resulting from work is lacking and in addition a supplementary income intended to achieve a satisfactory balance of family responsibilities.
The bulletin explains in this way the scope of the replacement income:
When a worker cannot be self-dependent, because of sickness, old age or for any other reason, he is granted a replacement income.
A replacement income: such is the meaning and scope of the resolution now under discussion.
By the way, I would like to make a remark with respect to the difference with what was said from the social view point during the last election campaign. A pension plan was mentioned then, but now old age assistance is spoken of, which is more in keeping with the existing needs; social assistance was also mentioned in the various provinces of the country.
Today, this is all being replaced by an old age and social insurance plan. What will be the limit of the government's responsibility? A bureaucracy required by the administration of private savings? Care will be taken to provide social security under a social insurance plan. That is not necessarily something close to the concept of the Christian

Canada Pension Plan
workers confederation of Belgium, about a replacement revenue.
A replacement revenue, when a man loses his job, also includes an income when he suffers seasonal or permanent unemployment. That also means to face automation which is developing more and more in the modern world, and help to widows must also be included in the social insurance plan we are advocating today, as well as assistance to disabled and other people.
At this stage, I should like to quote another report presented to the President of the United States, Mr. Johnson, on April 6, 1964. Here is a quotation from that report.
As a first step, it is vital to recognize that traditional relationships between employment and revenue are discarded. The economy of wealth can provide for all citizens comfort and economic security whether they are engaged or not in so-called labour. The wealth produced by machinery rather than by human labour remains just the same a wealth. Consequently, we recommend that society, through government and appropriate legal measures, clearly undertakes to provide every individual and every family with a sufficient income which shall be recognized as a right.
That was a recommendation of a recognition of rights through legislation in accordance with the needs or the wealth. Also:
Such recognition which we consider as essential to the social, political and economic order of the nation, we also consider as the only policy through which one quarter of the nation now being dispossessed or on the point of being dispossessed because of the lack of employment, can be associated with an economy of wealth. Such undeniable right to an income will replace all the patchwork of the present social measures, from family allowances to direct relief, in order to assure that no citizen in the United States will remain in the present stagnation.
That was the recommendation of a committee specially commissioned to look into the problems of society and the economic and political implications in the United States. That committee was made up of experts, actuaries, sociologists, presidents of private firms, thinkers, financiers. Those were the recommendations they had made in the light of those facts during their study of the basic legislation dealing with well-planned social security.
In the bill which will be introduced tonight, and which contains 125 sections, I find glaring discrepancies between the government's way of thinking or that of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) a year ago and today. At that time she said she was not in favour of a cumulative fund which would be administered by public officials. I wish to quote here the very words spoken by the Minister of National

Health and Welfare and reported in an editorial published in Le Devoir on September 28, 1963 Here is what she said then in Toronto:
And then, I am far from convinced that it is desirable for a government to dispose of such investment funds. This would be withdrawing too much money from the hands of individuals. The power of a government with so much money would be frightening. By controlling investment capital, the government would be in a position to control business. We would then be threatened with a kind of national socialism, as practised in nazi Germany:	free enterprise would soon be
stifled.
Those were the words of the hon. minister on September 28,	1963. She feared the
accumulation of funds under a plan such as that of the province of Quebec. Today, the hon. minister, in her preamble, advises that in view of transformations made in federal-provincial relations with regard to the almost marvelous plan, so to speak, which some experts of the province of Quebec submitted at the time of the conference, the federal government has changed its plan entirely. In fact, it has changed its old age pension into a social welfare scheme which even required amendments to the constitution, under section 94A, so as to enable the federal government to apply it in the other provinces with their consent.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize, as the minister admitted a little over a year ago, that is, in September 1963, that it is to be feared that too great a concentration of powers, representing private savings, in the hands of the state, could surely lead certain governments to go against the interest or the normal and legitimate aspirations of individuals. Such concentration of discretionary powers mentioned by the minister when she referred to national-socialism in Germany at the end of the last war might very well also, in a few years from now-in five, ten or 15 years-when some other government than the present Liberal government or a Conservative government would be in power, or some other government than the Liberal government in the province of Quebec, enable some dictator to direct the country's policy according to priorities established in government circles, thanks to capital accruing from personal and compulsory savings, priorities quite contrary to the aspirations of the people who will have provided the state with the necessary funds.
Therefore we are against this contributory pension principle, because we believe in social security in line with the tremendous

resources of our country and with its production potential.
Nobody in the ten provinces, has any doubt about the possibility in the year 2002 of providing with his daily bread at age 65 a person now 30 years old, whether he contributes or not to this pension fund, because nobody has any doubt about the tremendous production capacity that our industry, and therefore our country, will then have reached, thanks to the ingenious work of Canadians and to constantly developing technology in the field of productivity.
I understand that the minister says that most governments will probably welcome this decision with pleasure and joy, since the pension plan meets with the needs and aspirations of the Canadian people.
I would say it meets much more the needs of governments which have to resort to indirect taxation nowadays to get the money they urgently need because of a system under which a government must levy taxes or go into debt. As a matter of fact, under the guise of social security, our system forces governments to reconsider programs which just deprive Canadian taxpayers of part of their social security.
Mr. Chairman, a contributory pension scheme is nothing more than the nationalization of private savings. The government intends to make the plan compulsory for anyone who earns $600 or more when a family absolutely needs a minimum income of $4,000 to survive.
An income of $600 or more will be taxed under the pretext of ensuring in the year 2002 the social security of a family man who is 30 today. This pretence is a growing administrative burden in the field of social security and represents, when all is said and done, a burden for the small wage earner.
This burden may, of course, as the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard) pointed out, fall back upon private enterprise. Indeed, the latter will feel its effects, and more particularly the small businessman, because their sources of revenue will be dried up, and they will have to turn to the state or to the public fund when in need of money. As I pointed out earlier, such danger leads to totalitarianism.
According to the contents of the resolution, the funds accumulated by private savings will have to be invested in government bonds, in public administration according to the needs of social development.
Why always entertain the belief that private savings or capital are to be used to im-20220-627
Canada Pension Plan
prove social capital? Government bureaucracy serves to drain off savings in order to strengthen the state power.
While a resolution is submitted presumably to help the individual, the family, the orphan, the widow, the aged worker, more and more discretionary powers are given in the field of financing the private enterprise.
In its April 29, 1964 issue, Le Soleil gives a serious warning to those who preach this pension plan or a social insurance system. At this stage I would like to quote an extract from this editorial:
No contribution of 3 or 4 per cent is levied on the salaries of workers, independent or not, of small and large wage earners and of employers to finance a pension fund supposedly generous, without that affecting small enterprises which must already lay out money for unemployment insurance, workmen's compensation, round table committees and other services, including the levying of taxes, etc. Consideration must be given naturally to the social aspect of a program approved in principle by everyone but which must be developed and applied with caution. Services (all social) must be paid for and the person with money can secure such services more easily than the one who has not.
The small enterprises will be more affected than the large ones by the new pension plan. The well established and more automated industries have already set up an annuity plan for their employees, while many small enterprises have been able to stay away from them for different reasons. For them, the contributions to a pension fund will represent an additional expense.
Now, a rise in the cost of their products could greatly affect small businesses and even destroy some of them, and that would increase unemployment at least for some time.
The introduction of a national pension plan can, just as if taxes were raised, affect certain vulnerable industries, such as clothing, lumber, leather and the shoe industries and small manufactures. Contributions to the pension fund will affect, at least at first, revenues of small businesses which cannot increase the price of their goods as readily as big industries. In the long run, the increase in cost will be transferred to consumers, workers, everybody, through higher prices. As far as private pension funds are concerned, we may assume that they will not improve and that many of them will probably be integrated in the retirement fund.
Before the new retirement plan designed to further protect older persons, widows and disabled persons is put into force, we would be well advised to make a thorough study of the plan in order to remove its negative elements. It should not affect other means of saving money, private retirement funds or life insurance. We should always take a second look at all the implications involved in any large scale project, especially



S912 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Canada Pension Plan
when it concerns the welfare of the people and our economic independence. If we lay more emphasis on the public rather than the private sector, we might sap the source of energy and vitality of our economy. That should be borne in mind when considering the various opinions of experts on the industrial consequences of a retirement fund.
That is the opinion, Mr. Chairman, not of a person engaged in politics, but of the editorial writer of one of the ten most important dailies in Canada.
Once this social insurance plan is established, there is no way out, because we establish there in the field of social security, what has been established in the field of labour security, a plan called unemployment insurance or subsidies paid by the state when there is a depletion of funds and increase in the contribution-
The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Mr. Foy:: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I was very surprised at the remarks made by the hon. member for Perth, the very ungallant remarks, regarding our minister's age.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am sorry.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am sorry too.


Walter Frank Foy: I want to say that I admire greatly the minister's determination and strength, despite the opposition encountered, in bringing this very intricate bill to completion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Completion?


Walter Frank Foy: Canada Pension Plan
and then moving on to the Columbia river project, they must carry their retirement plans with them.
It should be noted that construction workers do not work the year round every year. They, like so many others, have their excellent years and their bad years. Therefore I believe it is fitting that the retirement benefits will be based on average earnings over a lifetime, with adjustments being made for the lean years and the overly good years.
Construction workers are just one segment of the working force of Canada that must face the problems arising out of being highly mobile men. Automation too is going to change the picture and location of many in the labour force of this nation. As more and more jobs become automated the need for skilled technicians to move in and get a project started is going to increase. These technicians are going to be a highly skilled mobile training force and their number will grow. They will need portable pensions.
I should like to digress for a moment to point out that the city of Sarnia in my riding is regarded as the most highly automated city in Canada. As the major petroleum and chemical industries located there automated, men were gradually processed out of jobs. I do not mean to imply that they were fired, to be replaced by machines. They continued on the job but as they reached retirement age they were pensioned off and quite handsomely too. The point I am making is that the city of Sarnia has automated and the phasing out of the labour force was handled without any major dislocation.
But as the process of automation is speeded up, so will be the phasing out of older workers and in some cases they will not be as fortunate as the people in my riding who worked for firms that provided pensions. They will find themselves out of a job with no visible means of support. They will swell the unemployment rolls. They will become the ancient mariners of our land, stopping passers-by to tell their tale of woe.
The Canada pension plan could forestall this by assuring them of an adequate income. They would not have to seek full time employment. Their many skills would be available to fill the gaps where part time help is needed. I think it is only right that this bill should contain provisions enabling a retired person to take on a part time job if he or she feels it is worth while. None of us likes to feel he is not needed. We all like to feel we are required and that we are useful and can do something meaningful. The legislation

under debate here recognizes this fact, with its provisions to allow a retired person to continue to contribute his skills to a limit which he himself can determine.
For all these reasons, for the dignity of old age, for the reward of a lifetime of toil, to enable the generation even now moving into the work field to find employment, to help ease the transition to automation, to make all Canada a market for a man's skills, to create capital for the further development of our resources but, above all, Mr. Chairman, because we all know we have a duty in conscience to care for the aged and the elderly, I urge upon the house the necessity for the speedy passage of this legislation.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 3 9A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock p.m. this day are as follows:
The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp), re feeder cattle prices; the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler), re the depressed position of eastern farmers.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr, McCuicheon:: Mr. Chairman, at the outset I should like to compliment the minister on finally getting this compulsory, contributory pension plan before us. I am sure it has been a trying period for her in being held back so much in her attempts to bring forth this major piece of legislation. I should like to tell her I enjoyed listening to her this afternoon, and may I say her reasonable, quiet approach became her.
I was also pleased to listen to my close personal friend, the hon. member for Lamb-ton West, who painted a beautiful picture of this plan, and I compliment him on a worthy presentation. Now I know why he was so successful in his previous business. I am in agreement with much of what he said, but in my opinion there are certain areas of this matter which should be examined under a bright light.
We all share the hope that this plan is more realistic, more palatable and a little more down to earth than were the previous ones. The white paper gives us a brief outline of the plan but of course it is couched

in the language of a well prepared sales brochure. In other words, it does not give too much actual detail but concentrates on glowing, descriptive features of the plan. I look forward to seeing the actual bill and to examining it very soon.
I was delighted to learn of our flat rate pension scheme being tied in with the cost of living index, but in my discussion of the resolution tonight I would like to examine it in the light of priorities. What should we do first? What are the social requirement priorities of Canada at present? What is the most important social action at this time? Is it on pensions? Is it on health or education?
The royal commission on health services has pointed out that by 1971 we will be spending $466 million annually on health services, and in addition that we will need $400 million for expansion of and additions to medical schools. In the light of this I propose to discuss what priorities should be undertaken.
So far as I am concerned the role of the federal government in social security should be to provide a floor for universal retirement, to provide a level below which no Canadian is forced or allowed to go. In this connection I pay tribute to our flat rate plan. It is expensive in its cost but it is cheap to administer. It is not related to status in life but is universally available.
I suggest improvements could be made in it. So far as old age security is concerned I believe our most effective step at this time would be to update the present plan, and as the minister mentioned this is being done to a certain degree. I believe it should be modernized, modified and overhauled. I believe the qualifying age should be reduced from 70 to 65 years, but the plan should be administered on an actuarial basis. I even go so far as to suggest that at normal retirement age of 65, when a husband proves he has withdrawn from the work force, his wife should receive her pension, and her pension could be easily adjusted to take into account any great disparity in age.
Quite a case can be made for the proposition that the older a person is the larger his pension should be. A bigger flat rate pension should be provided for those aged 80, and 85 years, because in many instances older people have had to spend their savings for extra help in the home and extra doctors' bills. In many cases the needs of people in this age group are greater than the needs of people aged 70 or 75 who may be able to look after themselves better.
Canada Pension Plan
I would favour a pension commission or board completely removed from politics, a board set up to administer the flat rate pension related to average earnings or, as the minister has already announced, related to the cost of living index.
There are great variations of conditions between the vast areas of this great country and in my opinion local conditions can best be met by local or regional governments. Therefore I propose that a modernization of our flat rate pension plan be considered first. I do not think I am completely alone in this view. For seven years the Canadian welfare council has said that other social schemes have priority. I do not say this is necessarily correct, but let us discuss this question openly and find out. We have only so much by way of resources to dispose of, and the setting up of a list of priorities should, I believe, be considered. I submit that the real order of priority in this country would probably be: education, medicare, and then pensions.
I personally favour a pay as you go scheme, a plan which does not build up huge funds to be administered by politicians. These pension funds are trust funds; I might even go as far as to say they are sacred trust funds, and they should never be under the control of politicians. Look at the list of investments for which these funds may be used. The provinces have the right to use these moneys and if they do not need them the remainder can be invested in dominion government securities. I deplore this method of looking after trust funds. I pay tribute to our life insurance companies and insurance companies generally for having done such a good job in this regard. I would prefer that trained, highly skilled investment experts removed from political considerations should have control over the investment features of any pension fund in which I was involved.
I am also concerned about the very high cost of administration which this plan will necessitate. The career of every citizen from the age of 18 to the age of 70 will have to be followed in the minutest detail. It will be a repetition of the experience of the business community-the Department of Industry at the front door and the department of inland revenue at the back door. Just look at how the numbers of civil servants have increased in recent years. I submit that the benefits flowing from this plan are not commensurate with the cost and will not make up for the ill effects of the disruption of existing plans. As I see it, the plan subsidizes those who are in least need; its greatest benefits accrue to

Canada Pension Plan
those who need them least. A welfare plan should take care of those who really need assistance. I think the people should be told the truth. All that a pension plan is, is money -money for future delivery. The government has no magic formula for administering pension funds better than anyone else. As far as I can see there is no economy which can be effected by federal administration as opposed to existing facilities. The only thing a government can do is to make it compulsory for everybody to belong.
According to the white paper, this plan provides nothing for people who are now over 70, though many of these people really need additional help. Further, it provides little for those who are over the age of 65. Finally, it does not look to me like much of a bargain for those who are 25 or under, because they will be paying for many years and getting no more out of the plan than a man who is 55 years of age.
I further suggest that those who need pensions most, as a class, are those who are engaged in seasonal pursuits-trappers, fishermen, construction workers, and so on. Taking into account their limited incomes, this plan offers little real benefit to them. Farmers and the self-employed are, I submit, being penalized. It is true that farmers can participate, as can other groups of self-employed people, but they must pay the whole shot. Groups of employees in industry pay approximately one half of the contribution made in respect of them; the employer pays approximately the same amount. This is, in truth, a payroll tax. The extra cost of doing business, the extra cost of production brought about as a result of the employer contribution must in large measure be passed along to the consumer. So I submit the farm people and the selfemployed who constitute a large segment of the economy of this country will be paying their full share, plus a bonus to the others in the form of higher prices for goods and services. I think this is unfair. I am not alone in this belief, because a former minister of transport, appearing before the joint committee, had this to say about the same question:
I think it is pretty clear that a tax on wages and salaries would have a very direct effect on cost of production. I would think if there were a payroll tax, paid by the employer, the tendency would be for it to be passed on in prices almost immediately.
Rest assured, this is a payroll tax. I suggest the self-employed and the farm people would be much better off under a modernized, up to date flat rate plan. This I submit would

go a long way toward alleviating hardship in the depressed areas.
On the basis of irregular earnings the pension, as I mentioned a few moments ago, amounts to little or nothing. On the whole it provides for those who are not in dire need. Let us consider one or two other points. In industry, contributory pensions have been a matter for union bargaining. Several union leaders have already stated that they would not consider the integration of existing plans with this new, compulsory Canada pension plan. I foresee labour-management disputes which will put an additional burden on business and on the economy in general. Some of our provincial governments are now concerned with legislation covering the portability of pensions within and between provinces. This is a matter which comes under provincial jurisdiction. If such arrangements are made, what excuse is there for imposing this scheme on a company which can prove that it has a plan equal to, or better than, the one proposed by the government? In 1950 the type of plan now put forward was turned down and the committee advocated a flat rate plan. Conditions change, I know, but by and large the same situation prevails today as prevailed then.
I deplore the fact that there is no factual actuarial report presented with this white paper-just an anonymous opinion that the economy can take the cost. It assumes a pension plan standing by itself and I submit the cost of the plan must be considered in toto, together with all the other costs of government. I quote Mr. John B. Meyer of the Montreal Gazette who on August 14, 1964 asked:
Can we really afford the claim upon income represented by the pension plan on top of present and future claims, particularly that represented by the recommendation of the royal commission on health services? This should be the starting point for any examination of the plan. It is ignored completely in the white paper.
Again, may I say a contributory compulsory plan is definitely worthy of consideration. I do not feel it is all bad; I think it can be overhauled and made to work. But I submit that, as usual, this government has given it the wrong priority. I suggest that a more appropriate priority would be to update and modernize our present plan, remove it from politics and then consider education, medicare and a contributory, compulsory pension plan, in that order.


Mr. Pepin:: Mr. Chairman, today there is a tendency in this house and elsewhere, to men-

tion at every turn "the government's capitulating to the provinces'' and, more particularly " to Quebec", as there is-I am sorry to say, on the other hand frequent talk of "Quebec's yielding to Ottawa" in some Quebec groups.
These detestable expressions of "yielding", or "capitulating" will, I hope, not be used in respect of the pension plan which the Minister of National Health and Welfare introduced this afternoon.
If there is to be any talk of "capitulation", it will be, I hope, to common sense, a yielding to the need of compromise which should necessarily govern the solution of political problems and to the new spirit which marks federal-provincial relations at this time.
Mr. Chairman, how did we arrive at the present situation? How did we come to the pension plan such as it is today?
At the time where inevitably, fortunately and dangerously also was developing the technique of opting out and contracting out a new technique appeared, which I could called the contracting in formula, an agreement between the central government and one or several provinces upon the passing of similar legislation.
In order to remind you of these facts, Mr. Chairman, in July 1963 the central government initiated a pension scheme; it was certainly its right. Some provinces indicated their interest in moving into the same legislative field; it was also their right. Then complex and lengthy negotiations started; all the Cassandras of the country uttered a unanimous opinion: confederation is in danger; it is even already dead, assassinated, as the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) would say.
After months of work during which politicians and federal and provincial officials did their best, a compromise was reached on a pension plan. In this atmosphere of optimism, a constitutional amendment was approved providing for benefits to survivors and disabled persons.
The provinces have two alternatives: they may either have their own plan or they may accept that of the central government. Essential parts of both plans are identical.
In short, those are the facts, Mr. Chairman. The proposed plan is a national plan, with all the benefits that this involves. It is a national plan without being exclusively a federal plan. It is national because it can be either a federal or a provincial plan; provinces can choose the federal plan or have their own provincial plan if they so wish.
Canada Pension Plan
For those who would be tempted in this debate to speak of concessions to provinces, to Quebec particularly, I would like first of all to reaffirm the priority rights of the provinces in the field of pension plans and, in the second place, indicate improvements to the federal plan following its merger, so to speak, with the Quebec plan.
For the others, that is those who would be tempted to say that this is a Quebec concession to Ottawa, I would like to mention the improvements made to the Quebec plan resulting from the merger with the original federal plan.
First, the constitutional aspect: as I said earlier, both the federal and provincial governments were perfectly entitled to introduce their own pension plan.
Section 94A, arising out of the amendment of 1951, and amended in 1964, reads as follows:
The parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to old age pension in Canada, but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law present or future-
I emphasize: present or future.
-of a provincial legislature in relation to old age pensions.
Because of that 1951 amendment the legislation on old age pensions had become a joint field like agriculture and immigration.
However, while in these two latter fields, section 95 grants a priority, a "paramountcy" to central legislation, section 94A recognizes the paramountcy of the provincial legislation, not only for the existing law, but for any future provincial law.
As soon as the provincial legislation is affected in relation to pension plans, the federal government must withdraw. This is provided by the constitution.
Therefore, I think it was impossible to have federal and provincial plans, both being government comprehensive plans.
I conclude and I think that this conclusion must be kept in mind during this debate: the federal government was not free to do as it pleases as regards pension plans. It had, and it has to agree with the provinces. It had and it has to do so in order to give the pension plan all the desirable scope, stability and efficiency.
An agreement was therefore achieved through the constructive will of the central government and through the good will of the provinces and of Quebec particularly.
The minister will be accused-it was done already this afternoon-of having attacked,

Canada Pension Plan
of having retreated, having amended, having altered. This afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition grumbled:	Two revisions, two
revisions.
The minister would have been accused of the opposite if an agreement had not been reached.
It would have been said then that she had lacked flexibility. It would have been said then that she was in favour of centralization.
The people will take all that into consideration and that is why they will not take away from the Minister of National Health and Welfare the popularity she now enjoys.
What has been the influence of the Quebec plan on the evolution of the final federal plan, a summary of which was given to us this afternoon? You understand that it would be necessary here to compare the two original plans, the Quebec plan and the final federal plan. I do not have enough time and I will limit myself to a few points.
First, in addition to remaining a social security plan, the present plan also becomes a source of capital. It has often been said that for the people of Quebec who want to have a hand in their own economic development, capitalization was essential, and I think we must congratulate the federal government and the other provinces for having understood that. I feel that the other provinces will also benefit from this change.
Second, "coverage", that is the number of assessable persons, has also grown. Such exceptions as the dependent workers, originally considered, have been set aside. Participation of self-employed workers, optional in the original plan, now becomes compulsory, as it is in the Quebec plan. Revenue will obviously be increased, as will the benefits. Had selfemployed workers been free to join the plan or not, only those with fairly high income would have done so and the social security aspect would have suffered therefrom.
Third, the assessable income is set at a minimum of $600 and a maximum of $5,000. You will remember that the original federal plan foresaw from zero to $4,500, while the Quebec plan provided for $1,000 to $6,000. The compromise of $600 will have for effect, we must say, to benefit the less fortunate people, since a person who, for instance, is paying benefits or contributions on $1,400 will receive an annuity based on $2,000, since the exemption will not be deducted for the calculation of benefits.
Fourth, the contribution rate has been increased. In the first federal plan it was 2 per cent at the beginning. It must be pointed out

also that it increased up to 4 per cent for salaried people and up to 3 per cent in the case of self-employed workers. Under the provincial plan, the basis was 4 per cent indefinitely. Under the present plan, the basis is 3.6 per cent of the contributive revenue of the self-employed worker. It is 1.8 per cent for the employee, and 1.8 per cent for the employer in the case of dependent workers.
But take heed. Because of the basic exemption of $600, the rate is, in fact, less than 3.6 per cent. Especially, the rate is a progressive one. It is very low for the small wage earner, i.e., 1.4 per cent in the case of an employee earning $2,000; the rate increasing as the earnings increase. I think the social security aspect will greatly benefit from it. As far as the economic aspect is concerned, it is also worth while, because the small employer will pay less than large industries, their employees receiving ordinarily smaller salaries than those employed in larger industries.
Fifth, the expected retirement benefits of 20 per cent are raised to 25 per cent and will be adjusted, as in the Quebec plan, according to a formula which is a compromise in itself. Its advantage is obvious.
Sixth, the original federal plan could not, in the absence of a constitutional amendment, provide for payments to "non-old" survivors. With regard to the transfer of the pension to the disabled, to the widow, to the orphan, as far as death benefits are concerned, the final plan follows-improving on it at times- the Quebec plan.
Once again, I must say that undoubtedly, without the compromise arrived at, the provinces, especially the province of Quebec, would not have approved the constitutional amendment obtained last summer. I feel that must be recalled.
Seventh, an adjustment formula concerning the minimum and maximum of the assessable income and the benefits themselves is added to the original federal plan, taking into consideration the cost of living to begin with and later on the index of salaries.
That formula is itself a compromise, but the idea to adjust benefits comes, I have been told, from the Quebec plan. The idea is of undeniable value since its result is to maintain the purchasing power of the pension, in periods of inflation, obviously.
Finally, a last improvement: the administration of the plan is improved; all sorts of compromises concerning, for instance, the appeal procedure, the inclusion of federal and provincial civil servants, have also been secured. Is that convincing enough? I believe

Canada Pension Plan
so. The federal plan benefits from its association with the Quebec plan. I would like to add also that the Quebec plan gains a lot from its association with the federal plan.
First of all, the date when benefits will be available is moved ahead, the transitory period is reduced from 20 to 10 years. Thus the services rendered the country by the persons who have now reached somewhat advanced maturity can be recognized.
Second, the amount of exemption is reduced to $600 from $1,000. This will allow participation to this pension plan by a greater number of those in the low-income bracket.
Third, benefits to the disabled, which were reserved for persons of 60 years of age or more in the Quebec plan, will not be available, after five years of contributions, to anyone 23 years old or more.
Once again, and I now conclude to allow the member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau) to be recognized, this is a compromise. In a compromise each party loses a little, but each also gains more.
Both the federal and the provincial plans are better than before April 1964. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) admitted that fact only a few hours ago.
And above all, Mr. Chairman, the whole of Canada is better off after the events I just mentioned. First, we have at last a pension plan. Then-and I think it is important-I feel that a new technique has been invented in the field of federal-provincial relations, which I called a while ago "contracting in," namely the agreement of the federal government and the provinces in order to pass together identical legislation.
Finally, this pension plan, which is another great achievement in the realm of cooperative federalism, proves once more the maturity of Canadian political leaders.


Mr. Cantelon:: Mr. Chairman, there is
hardly a person in this house who does not approve of a pension plan which will support those who need that support in old age, or in the cases of need that precedes old age. This being so one wonders why there was so much opposition to the plans previously suggested. The minister says that there are important new dimensions in the plan now. We are glad to hear this. It is hardly necessary to repeat that the opposition originally was not to the basic principles of a pension but to the failure properly to implement these principles in the first two schemes.
Now that this scheme has been hammered out by the opposition and been refined in the furnace of controversy, it begins to be a good plan. However, I think there are certain warnings that still need to be given and certain facts that it would be well for the people of this country to know and understand.
The basic principle of the plan is indicated in this quotation which I take from the government's white paper of August 1964, page 7:
Adequate levels of pensions cannot be realistically achieved, in a country like Canada, simply by increasing the flat-rate pension. Living costs vary greatly between town and country, and between different regions of Canada. What people need, if either retirement or the death or disablement of the head of the family removes their regular income, is related in part to the level of earnings to which they have been accustomed.
The Canada pension plan will therefore provide a retirement pension related to the earnings on which people have contributed. The scale of this pension will rise during a ten year transitional period to a level of 25 per cent of these earnings.
This is a good principle and one, I am sure, with which we all agree. However, we should not be carried away by this statement. It leaves the impression that a retiree will get 25 per cent of his earnings when he retires. This is only true with certain important qualifications. Some get more and some get less.
In fact, those whose earnings are below $5,000 yearly will at the end of the transitional period of ten years, and if the person retiring is 70 years of age, be paid 25 per cent of earnings on the earnings related pension, and on that alone. They will as well receive a further $75 a month from the old age security pension. A man then who earns $200 monthly would receive $50 earnings related pension plus $75 old age security pension, a total of $125 a month. This is 62 per cent of his previous monthly wage, and it is not a bit too much. The man earning $5,000 a year gets $416.67 monthly wage. His earnings related pension would be $104.17 monthly plus the old age security pension of $75, a total of $179.17. This is only 43 per cent of his previous monthly wage. The man earning $10,000 a year gets $833.34 monthly wage. His earnings related pension and old age security pension are the same as the man earning $5,000 a year, or again a total of $179.17. This is only 21J per cent of his previous monthly wage.
Thus this earnings related pension and the old age security pension are providing, as a little further calculation will show, at incomes below $8,600, a pension which is 25 per cent

Canada Pension Plan
or better of earnings prior to retirement. This is little enough since many pension plans strive to provide 70 per cent to a certain arbitrary maximum, at earnings based on that figure of $8,600. This pension then provides a pension which in many cases is below 25 per cent of earned income.
However, since this is a minimum plan, this is not surprising, and I do not think we should criticize it on that basis. It was not my purpose to do so, but I think these facts should be brought out. In fact it is a good thing that a pension scheme should pay higher percentages to low income groups so that these people may have enough money with which to live in reasonable comfort. It is necessary for those who are now in other pension schemes to keep these variable percentages in mind when considering what course they should follow with their present schemes in relation to the Canada pension plan.
For many years I was much concerned with the pension scheme for my profession in the province of Saskatchewan. When that scheme was introduced it was a good scheme related to earnings, but the depression of the 1930's almost wrecked it and had to be drastically revised on other principles in 1942. With the rising cost of living and rising salaries after 1945 there were years of struggle to have major increases introduced into the scheme. In 1957 major increases were obtained, but as the cost of living and salaries continued to increase another major redrafting was done in 1963 and the pension plan went back to the principle of relation to income. I mention this only to emphasize that thinking in the pension field changes, with the hope that a flexible attitude will be taken by the government when the bill is referred to committee for detailed study, and also the hope that the government will willingly accept the necessary revisions that are almost certain to come out of that study.
I mention it as well for another reason, and I think a very important one. There are a great many very good pension schemes in operation in this country. They have been hammered out through the years with much debate, and not always good humoured debate, until today they tend to do what they set out to do-protect the employees they cover and provide adequate pensions. The costs to the employees and employers are quite appreciable, and are distinctly noticeable in the reductions they produce in the salary cheques of the employees covered, as anyone who has been covered by such a plan and who has had

deductions made from his salary cheque will realize.
The Canada pension plan is going to upset all the carefully planned arrangements these schemes have evolved and tested throughout the years, and I think it is going to be a great deal more difficult to talk to the government than it was to talk to the employer, when modifications were desirable. I hope that by providing pensions for those who were not covered before, the Canada pension plan is not going to upset these plans. I am very suspicious about this because we hear that the federal civil servants and provincial civil servants are not going to be covered by the Canada pension plan. At least that is what the Calgary Herald of October 20 stated, and I should like to quote from that newspaper as follows:
When the federal government first broached the idea of a Canada pension plan, It emphasized that that it would be a universal scheme to which all Canadians would be required to contribute.
Yet, at the very outset, an exception was conceded-federal civil servants would remain outside the federal scheme, and their own plan would remain in effect.
Now, it has been revealed that provincial civil servants will be able to opt out of the plan as well. This seems most unsatisfactory. By what right should only provincial and federal civil servants be permitted to opt out and carry on with their own schemes? If this has to be a universal, compulsory plan, there is no justification for giving favoured treatment to any section of the Canadian public.. .there are many other Canadians who are not public servants who also have been contributing for many years to private and company schemes which are far superior to that which Ottawa is determined to foist on the nation.
The minister said today that the act is to be "truly national in its provisions" and that it "will operate uniformly across the country". These are strange statements indeed, if the newspaper is correct. Are these people then not to be in the plan? If they are not, then why are they not? Is it because they know that their own plans are better? What then about all the private plans that are good, are they to opt out completely, as the civil servants are allowed to do? If they are not able to do this then why, if civil servants can, are others not allowed to do the same? What about the broad base needed to carry the plan? I hope that in the negotiations carried on with the administrators of these plans the government will not be dictatorial and arrogant. Perhaps I am unduly pessimistic, but if I am, this government has only itself to blame. Its mistakes have been legion and its arrogances obvious. If the government is to continue this attitude, they may find that the

Canada pension plan is not the vote catcher they think it is.
The self-employed and the small businessman, in which group I include the farmers of my constituency, are going to have trouble with this scheme. The self-employed has to make the employer's contribution of 1.8 per cent, and also the employee's contribution of 1.8 per cent, so he will be paying 3.6 per cent for coverage for himself under the plan. He is going to notice this, just as the salary pensioner is going to notice his increased payments. Most self-employed create an estate which they expect will maintain them when they retire. Creation of that estate will be more difficult, due to this loss of income to the pension fund. It may be argued that the businessman or farmer will get it back as pension. This is true, but will the government make that money produce for the farmer as well as he would make it produce for himself? We all know it will not. The government will probably just sit on it or put it into bonds, which is nice and safe but not very productive, especially for the small businessman.
And are we sure that the rate will not be increased? My experience with pension plans suggests that it will need to be increased and the experience of the United States with a very similar plan resulted in the rate there having to be increased. I will never forget how I listened with amazement when the minister told us in August, 1963 what the benefits of the then Canada pension plan would be and what the rates to pay for those benefits would be. We all know what has happened to the benefits and rates, the one down and the other up. In the Canada pension plan they now seem reasonable but if any pension plan is to continue to fulfil its function of adequately supporting the pensioner with some relation to income its benefits and its rates will have to rise as the country goes forward.
There is a cost of living clause built into the Canada pension plan now, which will help. Then the minister tells us today that a cost of living provision will be attached to the old age pension too, and so it should be. But I am as certain as a man can be that the rates will need to be raised if we are going to get better benefits, and we will need better benefits in time. Yet the minister says that there are restraints in the present plan to prevent changes in the rates and benefits. This seems to forecast a battle. However, if the rates do rise the farmer and the businessman as well as the employee are the people who are going to feel the increases.
20220-628J
Canada Pension Plan
These are the comments I should like to make at this time. I am all in favour of a good pension scheme and so is my party. They had a study under way when defeated in 1963. My party showed its concern for the pensioner, with the assistance of the other opposition groups, by forcing the government to meet its promise to pay $75 a month to the old age pensioners. This government had tied that increase to the Canada pension plan. The old age pensioners would still be waiting for it and would have been $120 poorer today if the government had carried out its intentions.


Mr. Cashin:: Mr. Chairman, it is a distinct honour for me to participate in this historic debate today. We know that for the past decade or so this country has been noticeably unimaginative in its attitude toward social security. Since universal old age pensions were introduced in 1952 we have had only one major piece of social security legislation introduced in the House of Commons, namely the hospital insurance legislation introduced some years ago.
During this period successive governments did increase the benefits, of course, available under existing programs but this required neither great courage nor imagination. However, there was little evidence, and there has been little evidence up until now of an evolution of a sound philosophy of social security. The nineteenth century attitude which from time to time prevails in criticizing social security has left a legacy of myths about social security and the welfare state which are not only erroneous but, it would seem, have restricted governments in the past from taking a more imaginative and realistic approach toward the social and economic problems of modern society.
The lack of a sound, balanced approach to social security is admittedly complicated by the federal nature of our society. It is this very set of circumstances which has in the past and will in the future present some severe tests to the federal government. The present administration is to be congratulated for surmounting some of the difficulties inherent in our federal system which complicate the problem of attaining national standards in pensions and in other fields.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the achievement of bringing forth a national contributory pension plan which is truly portable is a testimonial not only to the progressive spirit of the present administration but also to its ability to cope with the problems of a federal

Canada Pension Plan
state. This is all the more remarkable when we note that this was brought about by a government in a minority position in the House of Commons and at a time when there is a great deal of controversy centered around the House of Commons and around confederation itself.
In the past decade Canada had two governments which enjoyed overwhelming majorities in the House of Commons. Yet neither of these administrations took this very fundamental forward step of providing this very basic part of Canada's social security system, a step forward, Mr. Chairman, which more than any other is in my opinion a realization of the need for a sound philosophy of social security. In the past year or so the matter of a Canada pension plan has been discussed at four federal-provincial conferences. In view of the constitutional division of powers it was impossible for the federal government to proceed as completely as it now has in this field. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, what we have seen over the past year has been co-operative federalism at work. Because of the sound and reasonable approach taken by this administration to the matter of federal-provincial relations we now will have a national pension plan which provides for portability between all provinces, and we also have the necessary constitutional amendment to provide for supplementary pensions for widows, orphans and disabled contributors. Therefore this government has not only introduced a great social security measure but in doing so it has brought Canadians of all origins closer together by crossing what seemed a year ago to be insurmountable obstacles. It is a great tribute to this administration's ability to cope with the difficulties inherent in our present political environment. It is also a great rebuke to those purveyors of pessimism and proponents of instant wisdom who have severely criticized our democratic institutions.
That these are times of controversy no one will deny. It seems to me, however, that in times of great change one hears all too much of the negative side of things. It is perhaps easier to succumb to fear than to summon the courage to cope with the situation. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we pay far too much attention to the prophets of doom.
The events of the past year which led to the introduction of today's resolution can only confirm our conviction that the present administration is providing us with calm and reasonable leadership that refuses to be deterred from its course by extremism from any quarter. It represents a great triumph for
[Mr. Cashin.l
moderation over extremism and gives one confidence that men and women of reason can, with patience and understanding, arrive at a common consensus. It is a great lesson in the art of government.
The white paper on pensions tabled in August gives us a good indication of the scope and the magnitude of this legislation. There are two significant features which represent an improvement over the original plan and which were achieved through negotiations with the provinces over the past year. These negotiations, as I have said, are a vivid example of co-operative federalism at work. First of all, this is now a truly national plan which provides for complete portability from province to province. This is an important step in providing greater mobility within the labour force. Workers must be free to move from job to job anywhere in Canada. Now they will be able to change jobs without losing their accumulated pension rights.
In our increasingly technical society change comes rapidly. It is not enough that we provide trade and technical schools for the training and retraining of workers; we must also ensure that change of employment will not jeopardize the security of the workers. The labour force should not be penalized by the changing nature of industry which requires a great mobility of the working force. A man ought to be free to change from job to job, to change from trade to trade, to change from area to area without severely risking his future security.
A compulsory, national pension plan which is completely portable is a significant step in insuring greater mobility of the work force. Of course, we realize other measures will have to be adopted at various levels in order to give a greater mobility to the labour force. The supply of skilled labour will require greater flexibility than hitherto has been the case, and in this age of technological change, as new skills come into demand, there will have to be qualified men and women to fill the jobs that will be vacant. This mobility not only means mobility from one area to another but it also implies workers having to change their types of work as older skills become obsolete. A proper environment must be developed in which the working man will be able to cope with these changes and reap the benefits from technological change along with the rest of society.
The second major accomplishment of cooperative federalism which is prominent in this plan is the inclusion of supplementary pensions for widows, orphans and disabled

contributors. This is a field which, prior to the recent constitutional amendment, was enjoyed entirely by the provinces. The white paper points out that those under the age of 65 who will be eligible for supplementary pension will also draw a flat rate of $25 a month because these people will not, of course, be eligible for old age security. However, I think it is important to note that these supplementary pensions would be small if, in the early years of the plan, they were subject to the same ten year build-up as retirement pensions, and the government is to be commended on not including this ten years buildup as a provision applying to supplementary pensions. In a sense, therefore, supplementary benefit pensions are more generous, especially for those in the lower income brackets, than the new retirement pensions. This approach is justified because of the special need of widows, orphans and disabled contributors, and is certainly warranted on both humanitarian and economic grounds.
This plan at best can provide only minimum levels of retirement benefits. Because of the nature of their circumstances, widows, orphans and disabled contributors will not be in the same position to provide for themselves as well as able-bodied members of the work force can. These reasons justify the special way the government has approached this particular category. The approach is also justified because for the first time we will be making an attempt to have national standards in the case of widows, orphans and disabled contributors.
In the past great anomalies existed within the framework of our social security laws, and the greatest anomaly has been in this particular area because it is exclusively provincial and some provinces do not have the same resources as others to take care of orphans, widows and disabled contributors. This is particularly true of the Atlantic region, and therefore I think I can say the people of that region are very grateful the government has shown the wisdom of including these supplementary pensions. They are also grateful that this was able to be accomplished during the past year because, with the continuation of the existing approach undertaken by the respective provinces, this can lead to a more enlightened approach than has hitherto been undertaken with respect to this neglected group.
A number of members have commented on the inclusion of the self-employed in the plan. I would like to point out to them, and in particular to the hon. member for Perth who
Canada Pension Plan
seemed to be taking issue with this, that they are overlooking the fact that an abnormally high number of the self-employed are in the low income group. This is particularly true in the Atlantic provinces. For example, in Newfoundland some 20,000 people are employed in the fishing industry, the biggest single employer in the province, and the vast majority of them are self-employed. It is significant to note that, according to the white paper, the way the plan is to be administered will mean a more generous treatment of the low income group.
This is only as it ought to be because it is good economics. The people in the low income group have a greater struggle to meet the basic expenditures required to provide bare subsistence, and therefore they do not have great resources to provide for their retirement years.
There is another reason why it is a good thing to include self-employed people. There are so many of them in the lower income group, and I would hope this legislation will not be held out as the end-all and be-all of any administration's approach to the problems of the people in that group. I hope there will be a vigorous attempt made to create an environment in which these people, particularly those in the Atlantic provinces, can work to move into higher income groups. It would be a mistake to exclude them from this pension plan because we are hopeful that in the not too distant future the earned income of the average fisherman, logger and farmer in eastern Canada will be considerably higher than it is now.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre also dealt with the position of the people in the low income group. I did not completely understand what he said but I rather got the impression that he was ignoring the fact that there is something of a transfer of income in the present administration's approach to the inclusion of people in the low income group. This is a significant step forward to the realization of the goal of equal opportunities for all Canadians.
The benefits to be provided under this plan will be of great significance to all the people of Canada because the government of Canada is in fact providing a service which otherwise would not be provided. In the 1960's we talk about our great industrial progress, yet two thirds of our work force are without adequate pensions. It is obvious to all but the most narrow-minded nineteenth century thinker that this is the only way and the best way to go

Canada Pension Plan
about helping to provide security in old age. This is especially true in the case of those people who will benefit from the supplementary pensions because, as I mentioned earlier, this is a group which has been passed over in the past.
Though we talk about $75 a month being inadequate for people aged 70 years, this is a fortune compared with what is paid to some widows in parts of the country. If we have a sound philosophy on social security these anomalies can be ironed out, and I believe the introduction of this pension plan is the most significant step taken by any government in the realization of the need for such a philosophy.
As I said earlier, the one third we hear so much talk about, the one third who live on a bare subsistence level, cannot purchase for themselves through private insurance companies the pension plans that would provide them with some security in their old age. The benefits that they may be able to buy for themselves at present are not as great as we would like them to be, simply because of the fact that these people are in the low income group. I believe we cherish the hope, however, that after 30 years of acceptance of the government's role in the economy we shall reach a point where there will not be many people living at mere subsistance levels in this country. By including these people in the plan now, at a time when they do not have the resources to join private plans, we shall, as their incomes rise in the years ahead, have provided them with an opportunity to prepare for their years of retirement.
This pension plan is significant for many reasons, but the one I have tried to talk about is the mobility it will give to the Canadian labour force. It will not solve completely the problems caused by lack of mobility, but it is a step forward.
A second feature of the plan which appeals to me and to the people of Newfoundland is the inclusion of supplementary benefits. What this government has attempted to do in the Canada pension plan is consistent with what Abraham Lincoln had to say 100 years ago about the role of government:
The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all or cannot do so well for themselves in their separate and individual capacities.
I think this succinctly explains what the government is seeking to do in bringing forward this pension plan. I do congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare

on her achievement, one which must be all the sweeter in view of the bitterness which surrounds so many of the other things we do in this House of Commons.


Siegfried John Enns: There have been so many excellent contributions to the debate this afternoon that many of the points I wish to raise have already been covered, and covered well. There have been some references to the reasoned and reasonable statement made by the minister when she introduced this measure and made her initial statement in the house, and I am not at all surprised when I remember that within the last seven days she has visited the keystone province of Canada; the moderating atmosphere of Manitoba may have had something to do with the moderation of her statement this afternoon. She mentioned that there may be honest differences over various facets of the pension plan. I am glad she does recognize that there are different ways of looking at this question and different ways of viewing the needs of the people who will be involved. I am impressed by the gigantic scope of this scheme. When this plan was introduced initially, I believe the minister told us it was the most far-reaching legislation to have been placed before the house for many decades. This being so I feel we should be cautious and careful in our approach; we should seek to devise the kind of plan which is the best we can muster.
I am pleased to note that in the house today there has been no rancour, but rather an atmosphere of unity in recognizing the need for a Canada pension plan. The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska spoke of the ways in which this plan illustrated the new phrase "co-operative federalism" we hear so often. The very fact that this is an example of an area where a province could actually opt out, as the phrase is, yet still be part of a national plan is perhaps a particularly good illustration of co-operative federalism. The only feature I am worried about in this connection is standards. The speaker who preceded me said this was a grand national plan, and that it would be raising standards in all the provinces. However, if the other provinces choose to invoke the privilege of opting out of a national program, is there machinery in this plan which would ensure that there will still be the national standards at which we have aimed in devising this scheme?
In my general endorsation of this plan I wish to inject some words of caution. I do so, not for the sake of making carping criticism but because I think we need to look

very carefully at the effect this plan would have on our people and on our economy in general. I know that in Manitoba our premier, Mr. Duff Roblin, has spoken of the crisis of priorities. The hon. member for Lambton-Kent has already touched on this question of priorities. I feel justified in making further reference to it, however, because of the fact that the federal system under which this country operates makes it possible for both federal and provincial governments to impose taxes in the same tax areas. Personal income tax, for example, is a legitimate field for taxation by provincial governments as well as by the federal government and the same is true of corporation income taxes. In other areas, there is a separation-I refer to provincial sales taxes, for example, and on the other hand to excise taxes, which are purely a federal concern. But whatever the method of taxation used may be, the tax is always levied on the same resources-the only wealth generating power in the nation, namely the taxpayers.
It should be stated frankly that the combined taxation forces of the provincial governments and the federal government already take almost 25 per cent of the gross national product and I think common sense begs that we should look carefully at just where we are going. Are we getting the best value for our dollar? I share the anxiety of previous speakers over these expenditures. I think the Canada pension plan is a grand design. It is part of a further mosaic in our whole social security design. Earlier I spoke of the need for pulling together the various social security measures we already have and which have grown up piecemeal to deal with various areas of need, disability, old age, and so on. Here we have another piece added to the mosaic in the form of the Canada pension plan.
I am still hopeful that somehow we shall evolve a plan which will make one large social security parcel, whether we call it that or not, designed to meet the needs of people in all the various categories. The plan as introduced goes part of the way. It deals with benefits to survivors, to disabled people and to orphans and in this sense it is a great step forward, not just a piecemeal measure but an encompassing measure. It will certainly cost a great deal of money. If we are to demand revenue to meet this kind of expenditure from the public purse, I must say I share Premier Roblin's concern about priorities and I sometimes wonder whether we have placed the demand in the proper area. For
Canada Pension Plan
my part I feel that expenditure on our younger citizens pays by far the greatest dividend, and expenditure on the young must, naturally, be aimed at improving education. I know this is a field which is not within the federal sphere. But we are witnessing increasing examples of education being interfered with as a result of the mobility of our population. As they travel from one province to another families must adapt themselves to changes in educational programs. Families of members of parliament are among those who encounter this difficulty. All of us run up against this vast problem of different standards in education. I think if we devised some way of channeling the spiralling costs of education in proper perspective with other demands on public money, this would certainly serve us well in the apportioning of public expenditures, which we seem to have to do in every session.
A pension makes reference to the fact that there is an incentive to keep persons employed; that is, if you keep on working until you are 70 years of age, your pension benefits will be larger than if you choose to retire and take your pension at age 65. This is somewhat at variance with what automation does to the labour force, because surely all the indications are for earlier retirement and fewer opportunities for employment for the older individual. This is just one area of contradiction that I point out. I do not think this is necessarily a fault of the plan, but this will be one of the things we will have to fit into the scheme as automation takes its unending course, which course we cannot alter.
The fact that the lowest income group, those persons not earning $600 per year, is not covered may be an area of concern. I have no suggestion to offer as to how these people can be included; but we ask ourselves, is it fair to eliminate a group here, even if they wish to participate in benefiting from this plan? Perhaps it will still be possible to do this when we are considering the bill at the clause by clause stage; but it seems there will be a significant number of individuals who will not be able to become part of this scheme, even if they elect to do so.
There will be one very obvious defect which other hon. members have already pointed out. That is the fact that those persons who are at the present time 70 years of age will of course not be helped at all, and those persons of 55 years of age and over will not be able to benefit to the maximum degree from the scheme because of the diminishing returns

Canada Pension Plan
if they have not worked the full ten years. On the other hand there will be windfalls to those persons who began contributing exactly or approximately ten years before their retirement. This windfall will be in the nature of receiving benefits far in excess of the amounts they have contributed. For example, very roughly I suppose a person who retires ten years from the date the plan comes into effect will have contributed an average of perhaps $900 toward the plan, but he will benefit to the extent of $1,250 for every year he lives. So this is an obvious windfall to those persons who are in the fortunate age group of about 50 or 55 at the time this plan comes into effect.
It has already been pointed out that younger persons will have contributed for as long as 52 years and will still only receive the same benefits. These are difficulties which perhaps cannot be solved in the plan, so there will be greater equity; but none the less, rather than saying we must have something that will fit everyone, it just will not be possible to develop a general scheme to fit everyone, and perhaps we will have to accept the plan with these difficulties. I believe another area of greater concern will be the problem of integrating private plans. I am sure that many, many workers are worried about how this plan will affect their present superannuation plans or schemes. I can see no way in which iron-clad rules can be developed to fit the integration of the private plan in the Canada pension plan, and it seems to me to become a large problem of examining and adapting each private scheme to the Canada pension plan. This in itself will prove an added difficulty.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a brief reference to a comment the Porter royal commission on banking has made about the plan. Certainly this is a thoughtful study to which I am making reference. They make the comparison of the Canada pension plan, attempting to provide benefits far greater than the American social security measures even though our national per capita income is something like 30 per cent below the American per capita income. Mention is made of the fact that the average contribution will be something like 3 per cent, perhaps 3.6 per cent for those in the higher income groups and the self-employed. But we must not forget the fact that we are already paying 4 per cent on our old age security tax; so actually when we speak of drawing a pension of $179, it will be paid for by having levied on us a tax of not 3.6 per cent but generally 3 per cent, for
[Mr. Enns.l
a total tax of 7 per cent. This comes quite close to the current cost of the American plan, and it is threatening to go higher. I am just wondering, in view of the fact that we are hoping to benefit more than the American social security measure with paying 7 per cent, whether we will not also be faced with an increasing levy on this 3 per cent plus 4 per cent. These are just some of the reservations that come to mind about this scheme. Generally I must endorse it and say that it is a very welcome measure. I am, with other members, looking forward to seeing the details of the bill and to this end hope that before long it will be referred to the joint committee to which the minister has already made reference.


Mr. Moreau:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that a very great deal has been made of the fact that we are now entering into the No. 3 version of the Canada pension plan. The hon. member for Perth made reference to some previous, ill-fated efforts, it seemed to me in an attempt to show that this government had no clear idea what we were trying to achieve. Therefore I would like to review some of the events that led up to introduction of the present plan. The hon. member for Perth also mentioned action taken by the previous administration. I noticed he was very brief in his references to that previous action; as a matter of fact, he seemed to skip over it very hurriedly, and I can certainly understand that.
First, Mr. Chairman, while we realize this is a field of joint federal-provincial jurisdiction, no contributory, portable pension legislation had been proposed by any jurisdiction up to the general election of 1962 and 1963. While the Liberal party and the New Democratic party campaigned extensively on such a platform, no objections were heard at that time from any of the provincial governments. On July 18, 1963, when the Minister of National Health and Welfare outlined in this house what hon. members opposite like to refer to as the first version, we had had at that time the introduction of the Ontario pension plan, which in fact was a plan which regulated private plans in those companies that had 15 or more employees. No one has tried, seriously at least, to argue that the Ontario plan was a solution to the problem, and in fact I think one could say its objectives rather complement the objectives that the present Canada pension plan embodies.
What were the essential features of the July proposals of the minister? The plan was compulsory for employees. It was voluntary

for the self-employed. It provided for portability of pensions anywhere in Canada-as universal a coverage as was administratively possible. It provided for a relatively short maturity period of ten years in an attempt to make some provision for the middle aged and older workers. It provided for a level of benefits varying from between 20 to 30 per cent of earnings, dependant on the retirement age. If we consider the average retirement age at 67J, the benefits proposed were 25 per cent. These rose to 30 per cent at age 70. The maximum pension at age 70 was to be $100 a month plus the $75 flat rate old age security.
The contributions were to be applied to the national average of earnings and were initially to be 1 per cent from the employee and 1 per cent from the employer. These contributions were also to be used to finance the $10 increase in the old age security program. They were also designed to make the plan essentially a pay as you go scheme. We had further protection against inflation by relating benefits to the average level of earnings at the time of retirement. We also had some provision for retirement at age 65 although at a reduced level of benefits. This applied both to the flat rate and to the contributory schemes.
There was also some provision made for survivor benefits after age 65, and the minister at that time offered full co-operation to the provinces-in fact, invited the cooperation of the provinces-in extending this to widows and orphans allowances, as well as disability benefits under the plan.
We all recall, Mr. Chairman, the initial storm that these proposals raised, mainly amongst individuals in the insurance industry. A number of arguments were made to the effect that the plan was too generous, that there would be an interference with the capital formation of our economy, and so on. In addition to this, last September the government of Quebec announced that they were going to set up their own plan and would not participate in the federal scheme. Premier Robarts of Ontario also indicated that he was not too satisfied with the plan, but it seemed to me that his objections took a somewhat different tone. It was my own impression that his objections sounded remarkably like those which emanated from the insurance industry. Other provinces also raised a number of questions, but it became apparent that, with Quebec out, Ontario was essential to the plan. These two provinces represented two thirds of the
Canada Pension Plan
population in the country and their exclusion would mean violation of one of the fundamental principles of a contributory national portable plan.
Therefore, because of the provinces, and primarily because of Ontario, the pension plan was modified. In an attempt to meet the criticisms particularly of Ontario, the level of benefits was reduced to 20 per cent of earnings at age 70. This was to answer the charges of extravagance and to leave additional room for private plans. The second change was that although the contributions remained at 1 per cent plus 1 per cent, the income ceiling was raised to $4,500. This was frozen, however, for five years in an attempt to facilitate the integration of private plans. Because the $10 increase in old age security had been separated and was to be financed out of other revenues, partial funding was possible. An estimated $2.5 billion was anticipated in the initial ten year period, 50 per cent of which was to be invested in provincial securities. In spite of considerable pressure the maturity period was maintained at ten years, which was a very important feature of the plan.
This was the mark II version, if you will, which was introduced in March 1964, and which was to be the basis of discussion at the federal-provincial conference in April of this year. It was at that conference that the Quebec government revealed the outline of what became known as the Quebec plan. Hon. gentlemen opposite refer to somersaults and retreats. Certainly Premier Robarts of Ontario made in my opinion one of the most spectacular somersaults in recent times. After one look at the Quebec plan's benefits, and more particularly at the funding, he suddenly forgot his basic objection to our original plan and came out for a plan which was in many respects more generous than the original, that had a higher level of contributions and was therefore harder to integrate with existing schemes, and a plan which interfered far more with the flow of savings into private institutions, a fact which he had been very concerned about a few months previously.
I should like to quote from an article by Bruce Macdonald which appeared in the Globe and Mail of April 14 last concerning this change of attitude on the part of the Ontario government. He said:
For many months, Premier Robarts pressed to have the Canada pension plan scaled down to a more modest program. Primarily as a result of his adamant stand, the federal government agreed earlier this year to trim the size of benefits and to modify the rate at which the scheme would go into effect.
992S


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes left before the conclusion of this debate I should like to make one or two points. A great number of questions that have arisen in our minds have been covered by various hon. members of this committee during the past few hours, and I certainly do not intend to repeat them.
In this party we do feel that the Canada pension plan, and all the details of what is going to be the plan, to be presented to parliament after this resolution stage is passed, in many respects has moved a long way from the original intention; that of having what one may call a universal portable pension plan for Canadians. I note there is a lack of reference to the Canada pension plan as being a portable pension plan. About two years ago the great concern expressed in this house was in respect of pensions being portable, particularly as between industries. There seems now to be a completely new concept of what a Canada pension plan should be.
During those days there was great concern because of the movement of workers from one industry to another, and from one area
to another, because of automation and other factors. We are now discussing a Canada pension plan which really has nothing to do with portability from one job to another, and from one area to another.
Mr. Chairman, that being the situation, there are many questions which have arisen in the minds of hon. members which have yet to be answered. In spite of the fact the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been asked on a number of occasions whether or not the province of Ontario has agreed to participate, we are still not aware of the situation. We know that there have been indications that provision will be made for any province to opt out and set up individual plans. On October 22 I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether or not all the provinces with the exception of Quebec had indicated either to her or to the government that they were prepared to participate. She did not give a straightforward answer. She said that all the provinces were represented at the last meeting at which this matter was discussed and that there was no indication from any province of non-participation. I reminded the minister that that was not the question I had asked, and that I had asked her if any province had indicated it was not willing to participate-other than the province of Quebec, which we know is not going to participate. Again she hedged by saying a number of things; she did not answer the question that was asked.
I think we have now reached a stage, by the introduction of this resolution preceding the bill, when we as members of this House of Commons have a right to a forthright answer as to whether or not the province of Ontario is going to participate in this plan. The reason I say that is that the province of Quebec is, not participating, and if the province of Ontario decides not to participate the plan cannot be considered as being national in scope.
By and large I am in favour of having laws passed by the federal government applicable to all Canadians in all parts of Canada. We realize of course that the amendments which were sought to the British North America Act, so that a pension plan could be brought in, require endorsation by all provinces. One of the conditions of agreeing to seek that kind of an amendment was that the provinces would have the right to opt out, if they so chose. It seems to me if we are going to have the two most populous provinces, Ontario and Quebec, representing something in the neighbourhood of 12 million of the 19 million

Canada Pension Plan
people, not participating, this House of Commons is wasting its time in dealing with a so-called national pension plan. I say that because if that happens we will have approximately only one third of the population covered by the plan. Perhaps the federal government has been negotiating with the province of Ontario to find out what their position is going to be. Perhaps the federal government has been seeking an indication from them whether or not they are going to participate. In any event, now that we have reached the stage that the resolution has been introduced in this house I think we have a right to know.
There are a number of reasons why I say this. If the province of Ontario is not going to participate I suggest to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that there will be other provinces in addition to Ontario and Quebec which will have very serious reservations about being included in this plan, rather than setting up their own. There is more than one reason for that. One is that we will have lost the national coverage feature. A second is that no answers have been given to the provinces as to how the Canada pension plan is going to be reconciled, for example, with the public service pension plans that some of the provinces are now operating. If there is to be no clearcut reconciliation between these public service plans and the so-called Canada pension plan, then certainly some of these other provinces might just as well set up their own pension plans because they will be in the business of operating and administering a pension plan anyway.
The undesirable feature of belonging to the so-called Canada pension plan and having to operate these other pension plans is that the provinces would then be subjected to the responsibility of administering a plan with regard to which the legislation and the regulations would be under the control of another body than their own legislatures. So it becomes very obvious that, unless there is a clear statement very soon that, first of all, Ontario is going to participate and, second, that there is going to be a reconciliation with some of these other plans that provincial governments are obliged to administer now, many of the desirable features are lost and some of the inherent complexities are perhaps too great for the effort required.
I am going to conclude my remarks now with the hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will rise in her place in the next few minutes, take the members of the committee into her confidence and tell

them whether or not the province of Ontario is going to participate, and also whether or not there is going to be a general plan with regulations attached to it so that it will be possible for these other public service pension plans to be reconciled with this plan, in order that the provinces will not be in the awkward position of having to operate their own pension plans and also having to do those things necessary to carry out a law enacted in another place.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Miss LaMarsh thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-136, to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions and supplementary benefits in Canada payable to and in respect of contributors.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: When shall the said bill be read the second time? Next sitting of the house?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tomorrow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Next sitting of the house.



DISCHARGE OF BILL ON ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill C-7S, an act to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions in Canada payable to contributors and survivors- The Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Mr. Mcllraith:: Mr. Speaker, now the bill
concerning the Canada pension plan has received first reading it will be seen that the existing order No. 13 on today's order paper, second reading of Bill No. C-75, an act to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions and so on, is no longer of great interest to the house


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is the understatement of the year.


George James McIlraith: -and I would ask for unanimous consent for that order to be dropped.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is it
agreed that order No. 13 be dropped?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged.



AMENDMENT OF MOTION TO APPOINT JOINT COMMITTEE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the new order in substitution for the order just dropped and referring to the bill which has now been

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
given first reading will be on the order paper tomorrow. In item No. 17 on today's order paper, the resolution to set up a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to consider the bill, the reference is to the former bill which was introduced some time ago and has now been dropped. I would ask the permission of the house to make a change in the first paragraph of the item so that instead of "Bill C-75" it will now read:
-Bill C-136 to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions and supplementary benefits in Canada payable to and in respect of contributors.
That is merely substituting the new number for the number of the earlier bill and substituting the exact terminology on the face of the new bill for the terminology that was on the face of the former bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the house agree that order No. 17 as it now appears on the order paper be changed to read: "That a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to consider Bill C-136 to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions and supplementary benefits in Canada payable to and in respect of contributors"?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Starr:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the house leader to tell us what we will be taking up tomorrow and, if possible, on Thursday and Friday?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did we pass that resolution?


George James McIlraith: Not the resolution to set up the committee. I have been asked not to bring it forward for passing tonight.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not?


George James McIlraith: In any event there is plenty of time to have the committee set up by the time we get second reading.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is just what I am afraid of.


George James McIlraith: I do not think any such suggestion is in order. In any event, the business for tomorrow will be the redistribution bill. While it is true I indicated to the house leaders of the other parties that when that was finished tomorrow we would proceed with the hours of labour bill, in view of the expectation that the redistribution bill will take the greater part of the day I wonder whether we could not proceed with the C.N.R. financing
bill, which is order No. 51 on today's order paper. Possibly if that is finished we could take order No. 32, the second reading of Bill No. S-10, to provide for the establishment of harbour commissions, and then order No. 68, second reading of Bill No. S-33, to incorporate the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company. Those are three small bills and I think that arrangement would probably be more agreeable to the house.


Michael Starr: Is the house leader in a position to give some indication what we may be doing on Thursday and Friday?


George James McIlraith: It is the present intention to proceed with estimates on Thursday and Friday. We would propose starting on Thursday with the estimates of those agencies for which the Secretary of State is answerable to the house, namely the C.B.C. and other agencies. I reserve the right to change the order of business on Thursday if there are any new developments tomorrow.


Gilles Grégoire: I wonder if the house leader could also indicate the results of the two by-elections held today?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, today during the question period when I directed a question to the Minister of Agriculture asking him to inform the house of the reason why returns to feed lot farmers for feeder cattle have been lower this year than since 1962, he gave me as an answer the prices for choice dry feed cattle instead of for feeder lot cattle, which was incorrect and not based on my question at all.
I take as my authority the information contained in the magazine, Canadian Cattlemen in its November, 1964 issue. In it there is a table headed "Estimated Returns from Feeding" which gives the comparison prices for the years 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64. From the last column in this table for the year 1963-64 it is seen that the return to the farmer, after all expenses counted, was a loss of $14.08 per head. This is based on a 700 pound feeder steer which the farmer buys in the fall and on a 1,000 pound steer which he markets in the winter or spring.
9932	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
In 1960-61 his profit was $28.63 at a time when the cost of the feeder steer was $196 and when he could sell it for $225. In 1962-63 the farmer lost 0.24 cents but in the previous year, 1961-62, his profit was $23.34.
When the Minister of Agriculture contradicts these tables presented by the Canadian Cattlemen magazine he either does not want to admit that farmers during the last two years, since he became Minister of Agriculture, have sustained severe losses in the cattle market-and this applies also to chickens and turkeys-or he is not familiar with what is going on in these markets. Perhaps he figures that the farmers cannot calculate for themselves when they sustain losses or when they make profits. He should pay more attention to what is going on in these markets and should help bring about a situation in which the farmer can make some profit out of his farming enterprise.
That is all I have to say at the present time, but I am sure it will not be long before I have something else to discuss with the Minister of Agriculture.


Harry William Hays: I wonder sometimes where hon. members opposite get some of the information they try to peddle in here. The facts are available to anyone, even to members of the opposition who are really interested in facts and not partisan fancies.
Earlier today the hon. member claimed that feeder cattle have been selling for $14 per head lower than last year. I quoted him the actual market figures which showed that there was less than a cent a point difference between this year's prices and last year's prices. I do not want to suggest that everything is perfect in the beef business today:
I would like the hon. member to show me any business anywhere, where everything is perfect.
I have a few facts which indicate beyond any argument that our beef business, like virtually every other business in Canada lately, is enjoying one of the best years in a long time, certainly better than any year between 1957 and 1963. In the first half of 1964 our gross national product was 8 per cent higher than in the first half of 1963. The index of industrial production for the first seven months was 9 per cent higher. All of this has contributed to a 13 per cent reduction in unemployment during the first nine months of this year. Agriculture and the beef business have enjoyed the benefits of this unprecedented prosperity along with other sections of our national economy. It


now appears likely that Canadians will use over one and one quarter billion pounds of beef this year. This is about 9 per cent more than last year and 27 per cent more than during the six years from 1957 to 1962. We have achieved this in spite of obstacles which even the miracle men of the Diefenbaker administration would have had trouble overcoming.
This has been achieved despite the fact our cattle population was 4 per cent higher than in 1963; despite the fact our feeder cattle exports for the first nine months were only 20,000 head compared to 54,000 head during the same period in 1963, and despite the fact our imports of beef were almost double our exports. These are the facts, and I think it is dangerously close to being irresponsible to try to paint a picture of disaster for our beef producers when this is simply not the case. I can think of nothing that would bring trouble to our beef industry faster, in fact, than if our producers should take this kind of wild statement seriously. Fortunately they know better.
But I do not want to suggest that the government is not concerned about the beef industry today. We are well aware that because of the present large beef population in the United States our prices are once more being influenced by the price for Canadian beef on the American export market. Because of the health of our economy, for the first time in many years our beef prices earlier this year were higher than the American price. Our beef market has now returned more nearly to normal. Export prices once more are tending to determine the price on our domestic market.
I can assure hon. members that the government is very much aware of the situation and that it has every intention of taking steps to keep our beef industry in a healthy condition should the situation deteriorate. But a lot of loose talk is not going to help one bit.


Reynold Rapp: Tell that to the marines, not to members of parliament.



AGRICULTURE-STEPS TO IMPROVE POSITION OF EASTERN FARMERS

Eric Alfred Winkler: I was
very interested in hearing the minister's prepared statement, particularly as he began by saying he wondered where we were getting "the sort of stuff we were peddling". I only have to remind him that a week ago or a little longer-as a matter of fact it was on October 27-I put on record a letter from a

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
beef producer in my constituency. This letter I think supports in no uncertain terms the point of view put forward by my hon. friend.
The minister made a very definite statement out west about what he intended to do about this. He said a lot about the new agriculture policy he intended to bring in. But today, in the question period, the only people he mentioned were the milk producers. Well, we know they are doing all right. But how many farmers can get milk contracts? Very few.
The minister says things are much better now than they were between 1957 and 1962. That seems strange. This is in the Toronto Star of October 30, 1964. The minister said:
I think the last Liberal government had forgotten the farmers during its declining years-
Then he said:
I'll even go further-I think that on the basis of its record with our farmers-
If I may paraphrase it, Mr. Speaker, he thought our policy was a very good policy. Those are the minister's own words. But that is not why I rose this evening. The minister referred to my hon. friend's statement as being vile; he used that very word. Let me quote from the d.b.s. figures published by its agricultural division, where it is stated that six out of nine provinces-and mostly eastern, of course-were all lower in income at the end of 1963; and I understand the situation has deteriorated this year. If that is an improvement, he is going to have to show me where the improvement is-and if I am peddling trash he had better get in touch with d.b.s. and make that statement to them.
I have been responsible for raising the question of turkeys in this house on many occasions. I had the turkey producers at my home this past week end, and they told me that if the minister and the government do not take some action by the middle of November, their market to make anything whatsoever this year is lost-that is in connection with the importation of turkeys from the United States-because, as the minister will know better than I, around the middle of this month the freezer stocks are put on the market for the year-end business that is apt to accrue to these turkey producers. I will read their statement into the record. The minister has these publications; there is no question about that. In their summing up the Canadian turkey federation had this to say to the minister:
Due to the hardship being experienced right now by many of our growers due to the unprofitable market, we strongly urge the implementation of some measure-
Anything; they will grasp at any straw:
-as above or within the scope of the government, to bring immediate market improvement during the balance of the fast approaching main marketing season of 1964.
Then the last sentence reads:
Otherwise, later help developed from the foregoing recommendations may be too late to save many of our growers.
They said the same thing in a previous petition to the government. Surely the minister is well aware of what the situation is, and we are not exaggerating it; we only want to bring to his attention that it is deteriorating and the income of the eastern farmers is declining. I went on to say in a previous statement-I do not know whether the minister was here-that ever since his party has been in office the income of the eastern producers has been going down, down, down. I said it at that time and I meant it. I have this letter here. I do not want to read it again, but there is no question about the situation; the income of this farmer is down in every phase of his operation. The figures are here and the minister can read them if he wants to do so. This is caused by the increase in price of the things the man has to buy, compared with the profit he makes, which is diminishing. He concludes by saying:
With prices like this and the high cost of labour, machinery, taxes (etc.), which you know as much about as I do, how in the world is the farmer going to exist?
This man is a very good, knowledgeable farmer; he belongs to all the organizations that can assist him-and he is complaining bitterly about the lack of government action to support the eastern producers. If the minister is not convinced he should go directly into the rural areas of eastern Canada and western Ontario, where my constituency in fact is, and they will tell him. If he does not know this, there is no sense talking to him any longer.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, to start with I am a little tired of all the doom crying we keep hearing from the opposition about the plight of the eastern farmer. If the Tories are really as seriously concerned as they try to make out, why did they not do something for eastern farmers? After all, they had six years and the biggest majority in history. We have only had about 18 months to work on these problems, but in going through the record I find it would be impossible to do justice to
9934	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion what has already been achieved by the present government, in the limited time at my disposal.
In the dairy industry, for example, our policies have reduced the exorbitantly expensive surplus of butter to normal supply levels. The skim milk market has been stabilized and producers prices have been pushed to near record levels. We are having the highest production of cheese in eastern Canada that there has been in 15 years and more of this than ever before is quality cheese. We managed to get a 20 per cent increase in the American quota on Canadian cheese exports. As the president of the national dairy council, Mr. J. M. Hartwick, said recently, "The dairy industry is enjoying the strongest sales position in many years."
Yet while our dairy farmers' incomes have increased we have reduced the cost of the dairy stabilization program. For the first six months of this year returns to eastern farmers from dairy products were $10 million higher than for the first six months of last year. Here are the figures for the dairy products for the first six months in 1963 and in 1964:
	1963	1964
	$	$
	Million	Million
Prince Edward Island	1.6	2.2Nova Scotia	5.7	5.8New Brunswick	5.1	5.4Quebec	72.6	74.6Ontario	93.4	100.4
It is widely recognized that one of the big problems in eastern agriculture arises from the fact that many of our farms are too small to be economic. The government has recognized this pressing need for our eastern farmers to expand their operations by greatly increasing the credit facilities our farmers need for this expansion. We have doubled the amount available from the Farm Credit Corporation. We have doubled the amount available under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. And we have introduced a totally new form of farm credit under the Farm Machinery Syndicates Act, an unsubsidized program that makes it possible for farmers in every part of Canada to reduce their machinery costs by two thirds or more. It is the direct responsibility of provincial govern-

ments to provide farmers with crop insurance. But we have done everything we could by providing crop reinsurance, or disaster protection, for the provinces, to encourage provincial governments to provide this important income stabilizer for farmers in all parts of the country.
We have heard a lot from opposition benches about the need to do something about eastern feed grain. The previous government had six years and did nothing. But within three months of taking office the present government introduced a policy of supporting winter storage costs which has stabilized both the supply and the price of western feed grain used by eastern producers. I could go on but my time is running out.
What disturbs me most about the distortion and misrepresentation which we hear so often about our eastern agricultural problems is that this sort of approach can only make the problems of eastern farmers worse. This can only confuse eastern farmers and mislead them into thinking their problems are one thing when they are really something else. This may very well make the problems worse than they are by convincing the farmers that they are worse off than they are. Any suggestion that eastern farmers are at a disadvantage as compared to western farmers just does not hold water when you look at the facts. Farmers in Ontario and Quebec are from 1,500 to 2,500 miles closer to the main markets of Toronto and Montreal, which gives the eastern farmer a natural advantage. Farm machinery prices are lower in the east than the west. For example the freight rate on a ten-foot heavy duty cultivator from Brantford is something like $50 to Regina, $55 to Swift Current but only $18 to Montreal. I think discussion and criticism of government policies in this house can be very helpful in letting the people know what is going on. But it should be informed and factual discussion, not misleading partisan wrangling which can only confuse the people.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Now tell us about the turkeys.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.21 p.m.



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
A meeting of military experts to consider the technical aspects of United Nations peace keeping operations took place in Ottawa from November 2-6 inclusive at the invitation of the government of Canada. Commodore R. W. Murdoch of Canada acted as chairman. Representatives from the following countries attended: Brazil, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, Ghana, India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Liberia, Malaysia, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sweden, Tunisia, United Arab Republic. Major-General Indar Rikhye, military adviser to the secretary general of the United Nations, attended the meeting as an observer.
Three working groups were established. Group 1, under the chairmanship of General Kittani, Morocco, (vice chairman Major General Kaldager, Norway) studied the questions of composition, command, control and liaison, training and operational problems. Group 2, under the chairmanship of Major General Ankrah, Ghana, (vice chairman Colonel Amati, Italy) studied questions relating to
environmental operating information and logistic support. Group 3, under the chairmanship of Mr. B. C. Mishra, India, (vice chairman Mr. O. Bierring, Denmark), studied personnel administration, public relations, accounting procedures, and legal problems.
The chairmen of the working groups reported to the delegates on the work of their groups at the final plenary session, following which there was discussion of some of the points made in the reports.
The meeting did not attempt to reach formal conclusions on the items discussed. However, delegates hoped that the exchange of views, both written and oral, would contribute to the effectiveness of such national forces as might be made available to the United Nations in the future and had therefore served the general purpose of strengthening the capacity of participating nations to support the United Nations to engage in peace keeping operations.
The meeting expressed its gratitude to the government of Canada for its invaluable assistance in the operation of the meeting.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 10, 1964