1964-11-16

Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as the house is already aware, the Department of Public Works is carrying out an engineering study to determine the cost of reconstructing and paving the Canadian section of the Alaska highway, and the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources is conducting an economic study to establish the benefits which would accrue to Canada as a result of this construction if it were undertaken.
Hon. members will be interested to know that the above studies are progressing, and for these it is now necessary to ascertain more precisely the design standards on which estimates of construction costs will be based and to obtain more detailed information about related engineering aspects. For this purpose there will shortly be technical talks between Canadian and United States officials. These talks will be without reference to possible means of financing.
Officials of the government of British Columbia and of the territorial government of the Yukon are being invited to participate in these talks and to have prior discussions with the federal officials. The question of paving the portion of the Alaska highway which lies in Canada, and of any negotiations with the United States government on the matter, remains open. Before any decision can be made it will be necessary to have more information regarding the cost of reconstruction, relocation and paving of the highway and regarding the economic benefits to Canada. A tentative date for talks with British Columbia and the Yukon is December 3, 1964, and with the United States, December 4.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, if I may comment briefly on the minister's statement may I say I am sure that members of the house, particularly those from the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia
and, of course, the northern areas will especially welcome the minister's announcement. We have been waiting for some time for this development to occur, and while I for one am disappointed that the talks will not include the subject of cost sharing, nevertheless the talks will no doubt be fruitful.
As the minister is well aware, there are two bills pending before the United States Senate and House of Representatives which suggest that the United States undertake half the cost of reconstructing and paving the Alaska highway. I suggest that perhaps it would be useful to include a discussion of the financial and cost sharing implications of the paving and reconstruction of the highway, particularly since over half of the highway, 657 miles, is in the province of British Columbia. With the energy, ambitions and convictions of the premier of British Columbia I am sure he would be only too happy to enter into any cost sharing arrangement with the federal government and the government of the United States for the paving of the highway. My own suggestion has been for some time that the United States should bear half the cost, British Columbia should bear one third of the cost and the federal government should bear one third of the cost.


An hon. Member:: What arithmetic.


Erik Nielsen: I am sorry; the United States should bear one half of the cost, the federal government one quarter and British Columbia one quarter. I was quoting Social Credit theory, as one member suggests.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: I really do suggest to the minister that these cost sharing talks should be beneficial. I am sure we are all extremely happy to hear that progress is finally being made and that concrete talks are going to be held with regard to paving this very vital artery through the Yukon to Alaska.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: We do welcome the report that has been given to us by the minister today. We hope, however, that emphasis will continue to be put on getting those sections of the highway paved that fall within the alignment on the official survey. This, of course, would greatly assist in the time that

Questions
is going to elapse between the total paving of the highway and the time some of this work can be accomplished. If the amount of paving that can be done is brought forward immediately, it will be of great help to the Yukon and to Alaska. I hope the minister will continue to study this angle so that as much paving as can be readily done in certain spots will be done. This, I am sure, will meet with the approval of the people of British Columbia and the Yukon.
In so far as Social Credit policies are concerned, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the remarks and the laughter indicate just about how much the people of this country do understand Social Credit.

On the orders of the day:


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources based on his announcement today concerning the talks that will be proceeding with the three governments mentioned. Since there are two other very important matters that can be usefully discussed, I wonder whether the minister would consider suggesting to the governments concerned the inclusion in these talks of the recently discovered Tarr inlet as a tidewater port in the Yukon and the construction of the Skagway road, since they concern all three governments?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, our latest information on the so-called Tarr inlet harbour area is rather discouraging. These other matters may come up when the governments get together. However, the technical discussions to which I referred, will concern themselves essentially with the Alaska highway.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Mather: Has the national pensioners and senior citizens federation requested that free medical and hospital services be extended to persons entitled to an old age pension at age 65 and, if so, what consideration is being given to this request?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Reference to this matter was contained in one of a number of resolutions set forth in a copy of a report
[Mr. Leboe.J
of a recent meeting of the national pensioners and senior citizens federation addressed to the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and members of the federal parliament.
Old age assistance is provided at age 65 to persons who fulfil the requirements of the Old Age Assistance Act and regulations. As the provinces administer and share the cost of old age assistance, any supplementary benefits for recipients involving the expenditure of provincial funds would require consideration by provincial authorities.


FEDERAL ROYAL COMMISSIONS
Mr. Laprise: 1.	How many royal commissions have been set up at the request of the federal government since 1957 and what are they?
2.	How many of them have submitted their final report since that time and how much has each of the commissions cost?
3.	Which commissions have still to report and when are they expected to do so?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary io Prime Minister):: 1,	2 and 3. Seventeen
royal commissions have been set up since 1957, as follows:
Final report submitted	Cost
Royal commission on Seabird
island Indians	$	2,506.00
Royal commission on railway problems (transportation) Royal commission on the Great Slave lake railway Royal commission on treaties 8 and 11 as they apply to Indians of the Mackenzie district Royal commission on coal Royal commission on the motor vehicles industries Royal commission on certain activities of station CHEK-TV, Victoria, B.C.
Royal commission on government organization Royal commission on Canadian magazines and other periodicals (publications)
Royal commission on banking and finance
574.090.00
46.920.00
8.245.00
99.166.00
57.841.00
4.720.00 2,791,915.00
136.121.00 *726,384.00
Royal commission on irregularities in processing claims under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act	*16,074.03
* As at September 30, 1964-a few outstanding small accounts still to be paid.

Final report not		Expected reporting
submitted		date
Royal commission	on	Volume 1 has been
Health services		published-volume
Royal commission	on	2 expected prior to end of March 1965 Summer of 1965
taxation		
Royal commission	on	Late in 1965
pilotage		
Royal commission	on	No date as yet hasbilingualism and	bi-	been forecast forculturalism	the preparation ofRoyal commission	on	a final report Unable to determinethe future of	the	at this early stageoverhaul and main-	tenance base	of	T.C.A. at Winnipeg	Royal commission	on	Unable to determine
crash of a T.C.A. at this early stage
aircraft at Ste Therese, Quebec


ROYAL COMMISSIONS SET UP AT PROVINCIAL REQUEST
Mr. Laprise: 1.	How many royal commissions have been set up at the request of the governments of each of the provinces since 1957 and what are they?
2.	How many of them already submitted their final report and what was the cost of each of them?
3.	Which of these commissions have still to report and when are they expected to do so?


John (Jack) Davis: 1. Suggestions for the appointment of a commission of inquiry may originate in many ways and often come from a number of sources during consideration of the matter by the federal government. Consequently, while provincial governments have, on occasion, expressed views about the need for various inquiries, it is not possible to say that any royal commission has been established specifically at the request of any particular provincial government since 1957.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


&quot;S.I.U. LICENSED DIVISION CHARTER
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Has the licensed division of the S.I.U. of Canada accepted a charter from division 2 of Atlantic and gulf division of the S.I.U. of North America?
2.	Is division 2 of Atlantic and gulf division of the S.I.U. of North America also known as the brotherhood of marine engineers, a constituent part of a union known as the marine engineers beneficial association and, if so, is the marine engineers
Questions
beneficial association controlled by Paul Hall, president, S.I.U. of North America?
3.	Have the maritime union trustees any knowledge to indicate that Hal Banks has been assigned to direct the activities on the great lakes of this union and, if so, will Mr. Banks therefore be in charge of Canadian marine engineers?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: The answer to parts 1, 2 and 3 of this question is no.


&quot;STUDENTS SENT TO U.S. SCHOOL BY CANADIAN S.I.U.
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Have sailors been sent by the S.I.U. of Canada, with the approval of the board of maritime trustees, to learn democratic techniques at the Andrew Furuseth school in New York?
2.	Has the board of trustees a copy of the curriculum of the subjects taught at the Furuseth school and the names of the instructors and, if so, what are the subjects taught and the names of the instructors?
3.	Has the board of maritime trustees knowledge that Hal Banks has been teaching at the Andrew Furuseth school in New York operated by the S.I.U. and, if so, has the board of maritime trustees given consideration to instructing the S.I.U. of Canada to discontinue the sending of students to that school?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: In reply to parts 1 and 2, this is a matter affecting the internal operations of the union concerning which the trustees have taken no direct action.
The answer to part 3 is no.


RESTRICTED SERVICES TO APARTMENT BUILDINGS, OTTAWA
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Has the government received representations or information to the effect that in several apartment buildings in Ottawa (a) only one dairy, one bakery, and one cleaning firm are permitted to enter to conduct business (b) that most of such firms provide to the building landlord, owner, or superintendent a kickback in the form of cash, free service, service at a discount, or a portion of profits and (c) that in some cases compulsion to use the services of specified firms has been written into the lease, and that failure to use these services can result in eviction?
2.	Has the restrictive trade practices commission undertaken any investigation of this matter and, if so, what are the names of the firms and apartments under investigation?
3.	If no investigation has been initiated, is one being considered?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: 1. Yes. The director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act informs me that information of this nature has come to his attention.

Questions
2 and 3. The general practice is that no information is given out as to whether a particular inquiry has been or is being pursued with respect to a particular group of companies or individuals unless and until a report is published.


TRANSFER OF COAL ADMINISTRATION TO ENERGY BOARD
Mr. MacEwan: Is it the intention of the government to remove coal from the administration of the dominion coal board and transfer it to the administration of the national energy board as suggested recently by the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister?


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Such action would be a matter of government policy and, in accord with standard practice, any such change would be formally announced when policy has been decided.



MAILING PRIVILEGES OF CANADIAN NAZI PARTY

Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
Has the government considered withdrawal of mailing privileges from the Canadian nazi party, under section 7 of the Post Office Act?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Section 7 of the Post Office Act authorizes the Postmaster General to take steps to prohibit the use of the mails to a person who, the Postmaster General believes, on reasonable grounds, is by means of the mails committing or attempting to commit an offence or aiding, counselling or procuring any person to commit an offence, or with intent to commit an offence, is using the mails to accomplish such object. The Canadian nazi party is not known to the Post Office Department but if it is made to appear that any persons so describing themselves, or any other persons, are bringing themselves within section 7, consideration will be given immediately, in accordance with the practice, to prohibiting the use of the mails to such persons.



SURVEY RESPECTING POSSIBLE RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION, NORTHERN B.C.

Mr. Howard: During the past two years has Canadian National Railways undertaken, directly or indirectly, any survey of the possibility of building a railway from any point between Prince Rupert, B.C., and Prince George, B.C., northward toward the Yukon Territories or the state of Alaska and, if so (a) what was the result of the survey, and (b) the action contemplated as a result thereof?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The
management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows: No survey has been undertaken, directly or indirectly by Canadian National Railways within the past two years concerning the possibility of building a railway northward from a point between Prince Rupert and Prince George.



HEMISPHERE WATER DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
Has the Canadian government been approached concerning joint participation with the United States in an engineering study of a hemispherewide water development plan, if so, what has been their reply?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The Canadian government has not been approached concerning joint participation with the United States in an engineering study of a hemisphere-wide water development plan. However, representatives of the Ralph M. Parsons Engineering Co. of Los Angeles, the firm which has developed the North American water and power alliance or "NAWAPA" project, have informed officials of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources of details relating to this project.



QUEBEC-RESEARCH INTO RAIN PRODUCTION

Mr. Laprise: 1.	During the past ten years, has the Department of Transport made or ordered to be made (a) in Canada (b) in the province of Quebec, research work or experiments consisting of seeding clouds to produce rainfall, by means of airplanes or land-based generators?
2.	If so (a) what amounts have been spent yearly for such research work or experiments (b) what were the results?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. The
sole research study in which the Department of Transport conducted cloud seeding experiments during the past ten years was associated with the precipitation physics project and confined to two small areas in northwestern Quebec contiguous to the Quebec-Ontario boundary. This project was restricted to cloud seeding from aeroplanes and no ground-based generators were used.
2.	(a) Amounts spent annually by the Department of Transport in support of the precipitation physics project were as follows:

	Capital	Total
1959	$ 4,000.00	$ 51,843.001960	15,793.71	82,594.471961	13,916.62	94,153.501962	10,426.45	110,936.191963	138,583.01	240,242.07*1964	NIL	27,330.00
(* cloud seeding carried out in 1964.)
(b) The data obtained from this project is now under evaluation, however, analysis is not yet complete. Results are therefore not available at this time.



INVESTIGATION INTO SUGAR PRICES

Mr. Laprise: 1.	Has an investigation been carried out under the provisions of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act to determine the cause of last year's high sugar prices and, if so, what were the conclusions arrived at following the investigation?
2.	If not, why was such an investigation not instituted?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. No formal
inquiry was instituted under the Combines Investigation Act.
2. In his annual report for the year ended March 31, 1964, at pages 36-38, the director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act reported that because of public concern regarding the high level of sugar prices and fluctuations in the price of this commodity, the domestic sugar industry was subjected to very close scrutiny to determine whether there was any cause for inquiry under the act. He stated that his assessment of the situation, based on the information available, was that the price behaviour of the industry and other factors known to the combines branch did not disclose the likelihood that evidence of an offence would be forthcoming and that, therefore, he did not have proper grounds for undertaking a formal inquiry under section 8 of the act. The director also stated the industry would continue to be the subject of close surveillance by the combines branch.



ALLEGED MONOPOLY AMONG PENCIL COMPANIES

Mr. Marcoux: 1.	Has the restrictive trade practices commission carried out an enquiry concerning the entry into reciprocal agreements to eliminate competition and the establishment of an illegal monopoly by Eagle Pencil Company of Canada Ltd., Dixon Pencil Company Ltd., Eberhard Faber Pencil Co. Canada 1955 Ltd., and Venus Pencil Company Ltd., all of Toronto, Ontario and, if so (a) has the Minister of
Questions
Justice received a report thereon from the restrictive trade practices commission (b) what action has the government taken on such report?
2.	If no action has been taken when and what action does the government intend to take in this regard?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. (a) A report of the restrictive trade practices commission in an inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act concerning the manufacture, distribution and sale of pencils which relates to the above companies was received by the Minister of Justice and made public on October 20, 1964. (b) The report and evidence have been referred to council with instructions to institute proceedings unless he comes to the conclusion that the evidence is insufficient.
2. Answered by 1.



HAMILTON, ONT., POST OFFICE-CHRISTMAS HELP

Mr. Howe (Hamilion South): Will the Hamilton, Ontario, post office hire temporary Christmas help and, if so (a) how many (b) in which positions, and (c) at what wages?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: (a)	(b)	(C)
200 Helper on letter carrier work $1.25 700 Helper on postal clerk work $1.00



BILINGUAL CAP AND UNIFORM FLASHES, C.N.R.

Mr. Pigeon: Is the Canadian National Railways considering the possibility of having bilingual wording on cap and uniform flashes for Canadian National Railways employees and, if not, for what reason?


Jean-Charles Cantin: According to the information we received from the Canadian National Railways the reply is yes.



REPAIRS TO LAUNCHING RAMP, DYER'S BAY, ONT.

Mr. Loney: Has an inspection been made this fall of the small craft launching ramp at Dyer's Bay, Ontario, and, if so, have repairs and alterations been recommended at that place?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Yes, but no repairs or alterations were recommended.

Questions



LETTER CARRIER SERVICE, WEYBURN, SASK.

Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	When was the last survey made In the city of Weyburn, Saskatchewan, by the Post Office Department, with a view to implementing letter carrier service?
2.	What was the result of that survey?
3.	Is it expected that letter carrier service will commence in 1964 and, if not, what is the earliest date this service could be expected?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1.	The last survey was in September 1964.
2.	It indicated that there were 2,528 available calls for letter carrier delivery and as a result this service was approved.
3.	Letter carrier service will commence early in 1965 as soon as 80 per cent of the homes have been equipped with the necessary mail receiving facilities.



REQUEST FOR OLD AGE PENSION INCREASE

Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
Has the government received representations from the senior women's committee for pension increase, requesting an increase in the old age pension to $100, tied to the cost of living, and a reduction of pension age to 65 years and, if so, what has been their reply?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, the Minister of National Health and Welfare had a long discussion with representatives of this committee.
As any change would involve a matter of government policy, an announcement would be made by the government at the appropriate time.



BUTTER AND BUTTER OIL EXPORTS AND STORAGE

Mr. Douceit: 1.	What was the amount of butter the government had in storage as of October 31, 1964?
2.	Was any butter exported during 1964 and, if so, how much, at what price and to whom was the butter exported?
3.	What was the amount of butter oil the government had in storage as of October 31, 1964?
4.	How much butter oil was sold or disposed of from February 1, 1964 to October 31, 1964?
5.	What amount of butter oil, if any, was exported, and at what price and to whom was the butter oil exported?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. 105,557,343 lbs.
2.	Yes. 33,470,000 lbs. at 33J cents and 7,728,000 lbs. at 36 cents per lb. all exported to Great Britain.
3.	12,759,552 lbs.
4.	50,621,949 lbs.

5.	49,714,991 lbs. at 27 cents per lb. exported to Great Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Chile, Cuba, Japan, Turkey, Iran, British Guiana, Formosa, Jamaica, Singapore, Greece and France.



EXTENSION OF COMBINES ACT EXEMPTION FOR B.C. FISHERMEN

Mr. Howard: With reference to the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act that nothing in the Combines Investigation Act or in section 411 of the Criminal Code shall be construed to apply to any contract, agreement or arrangement between fishermen or associations of fishermen in British Columbia, and persons or associations of persons engaged in the buying or processing of fish in British Columbia, relating to the prices, remuneration or other conditions under which fish will be caught and supplied to such persons by fishermen, which will expire on December 31, 1964, are any steps being taken to extend the said provisions beyond that date and what are those steps?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The matter
of extension of this legislation as contained in chapter 4 of the 1962-63 statutes of Canada is receiving careful study and any decision to amend the legislation will be made known in due course in the proper way.



STUDENT LOAN APPLICATIONS

Mr. Coates: 1.	How many applications for student loans have been received to date?
2.	Of the total number of applications, how many have been approved to date, how many rejected, and how many are still under consideration?
3.	What is the breakdown from a provincial point of view as to the total number of applications received, rejected and still under consideration?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. Not available.
2.	As at October 10, 1964, 22,278 applications for certificates of eligibility had been approved. The number of such applications rejected and the number still under consideration is not available.
3.	Not available.



COIN WITHOUT LIKENESS OF QUEEN

Mr. Coates: Is any action being taken by the Royal Canadian Mint to strike a coin which does not have upon it a likeness of Queen Elizabeth II?


Lawrence T. Pennell: No.



CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL INSTITUTION, SPRINGHILL, N.S.

Mr. Coates: 1.	What are the names of the subcontractors who will be associated with Foundation Maritime Limited in the construction of the young offenders penal institution at Springhill, N.S.?
2.	What is the target date for the initiation of construction of this institution?
3.	Is there a completion date included in the contract with Foundation Maritime Limited and, if so, what is the date?
4.	Is there a specification with regard to the use of local labour by the contractor and subcontractors in the construction of this institution, and what method will be used in the employment of individuals in the constructon of the institution?
Hon. J. P. Deschaleleis (Minisler of Public
Works): 1. The subcontractors listed in the tender form are: Precast and prestressed concrete, Schokbeton Quebec Inc., Montreal; architectural and precast concrete, Schokbeton Quebec Inc., Montreal; aluminum windows, Robert Mitchell Co., Montreal; security hardware and metalwork, Chubb-Mosler-Taylor, Brampton, Ont.; kitchen equipment, Rideau Aluminum, Ottawa; laundry equipment, Canadian Laundry Ltd., Montreal; roofing, Tosco Co., Halifax; structural steel, Canada Iron, Dartmouth; water storage tank, Steen, Halifax; plumbing, Steen Mechanical Contractors, Halifax; heating and ventilation, Steen Mechanical Contractors, Halifax; electrical, Canadian Comstock, Dartmouth.
2.	The award of the contract was confirmed to Foundation Maritime Limited by letter dated November 9, 1964, in which they were instructed to have the work commenced immediately.
3.	May 9, 1966.
4.	The general conditions of the contract require the contractor to employ labour from the locality of the work to the extent to which it is available and consistent with proper economy and expeditious carrying out of the work. The contractor is to use the offices of the national employment service in the recruitment of workers wherever practicable.



WHARF CONSTRUCTION, TIDNISH, N.S.

Mr. Coales: Is consideration being given by the Department of Public Works to the construction of wharfage facilities at Tidnish, N.S.?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: No.



IRISH MOSS PLANT, MIMINEGASH, P.E.I.

Mr. Macquarrie: 1. When is it intended to commence development of an Irish moss plant at Miminegash, P.E.I.?
Questions
2.	Has the government received representations against locating this plant at Miminegash and, if so, from whom?
3.	What reasons prompted the transfer of this project from the Atlantic development board to the Department of Fisheries?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minisler of Fisheries):: 1. Plans for the development are already well advanced.
2.	No.
3.	The scale and nature of the proposed operation has been broadened from its original conception. The control and operation of the type of experimental plant now planned is regarded as properly the concern of the Department of Fisheries.



AIR CANADA FLIGHT CHANGES

Mr. Marlin (Timmins): 1.	Has Air Canada flight 653 been rescheduled 45 minutes later and, if so, for what reasons?
2.	Has Air Canada flight 275 (Ottawa to Toronto) been rescheduled 20 minutes earlier and, if so, for what reasons?
3.	Has Air Canada flight 657 been rescheduled 10 minutes earlier and, if so, for what reasons?
4.	Has Air Canada flight 241 (Ottawa to Toronto) been rescheduled 30 minutes later and, if so, for what reasons?
5.	Has Air Canada flight 237 (Ottawa to Toronto) been cancelled and, if so, for what reasons?
6.	Has Air Canada flight 253 been rescheduled 35 minutes earlier and, if so, for what reasons?
7.	Has Air Canada flight 259 been rescheduled 40 minutes earlier and, if so, for what reasons?
8.	Has Air Canada flight 262 been rescheduled 35 minutes earlier and, if so, for what reasons?
9.	Have Air Canada flights 354 and 356 been cancelled and, if so, for what reasons?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The
management of Trans-Canada Air Lines advise as follows:
Parts 1 to 9-Air traffic volume in the winter months is traditionally less than the preceding summer, necessitating cut-back in schedules on certain routes.
The various flights mentioned were rescheduled when winter schedules became effective October 25. The reason for minor changes in time was to maintain connections with other flights, or due to economical utilization of aircraft or ramp staff at the terminals Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto.
To improve passenger service between Toronto and Ottawa, Viscount flights 354 and 356 were replaced by Vanguard flight 672. From Ottawa to Toronto, Viscount flights 237 and 307 were replaced by Vanguard flight 671.



AIR CANADA AIRCRAFT

Mr. MacRae: 1. What is the number of aircraft now owned by Air Canada?

Orders -for Returns
2. What are the different types and what is the value of these aircraft?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The
management of Trans-Canada Air Lines advise as follows:
1.	Eighty aircraft.
2.	Forty one Viscounts; 23 Vanguards; 16
DC-8's.	'
Aggregate cost, $217,411,000; depreciated value as at October 31, 1964, $145,329,000.



STUDENT LOANS FUND, P.E.I.

Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What was the amount made available to the province of Prince Edward Island under the student loans fund?
2.	Have representations been received from the government of Prince Edward Island for an increase in this amount and, if so, what response did they elicit?


Lawrence T. Pennell: The provincial
allocation of Prince Edward Island under the Canada Student Loans Act for the loan year ending June 30, 1965, is $232,000.
2. There has been liaison on this and other matters between federal and provincial officials. No representations, however, have been received from the government of Prince Edward Island.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
What is (a) the infant mortality rate (b) the total death rate (c) the average income, and (d) the rate of unemployment in: Corner Brook, Newfoundland; New Glasgow, Sydney, Sydney Mines, Amherst, Springhill, Inverness, and Liverpool, Nova Scotia; Campbellton, Minto, St. Stephen, Sussex and Woodstock, New Brunswick; Rouyn, Shawinigan, Mont Laurier, La Tuque, St. John, Dolbeau, Jonquiere, Port Alfred, Louiseville, Cau-sapscal, Matane, La Malbaie and Val d'Or, Quebec; Brantford, Cornwall, Windsor, Pembroke, Timmins, Wallaeeburg, Elliot Lake and Chatham, Ontario and Blairmore, Alberta-British Columbia?
Return tabled.



Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
What is (a) the infant mortality rate (b) the total death rate (c) the average income (d) the rate of unemployment in: Halifax, Nova Scotia; Montreal and Quebec city, Quebec; Hamilton, Toronto and London, Ontario; Winnipeg, Mani-

toba; Regina and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta; Vancouver and Victoria, B.C.?
Return tabled.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I think this question should be directed to the Prime Minister as it covers the activities of a number of departments. Considering the impending crisis in the United Nations, is the Prime Minister in a position to say whether Canada is one of the four nations which are engaged in an endeavour to bring about the collection of a rescue fund made up of contributions from the 112 members of the United Nations? As the Prime Minister knows, this initiative was launched by the former president of the United Nations in 1963.
Is Canada participating in this, and what is our country's attitude in relation to this matter and its possible acceptance as a solution for the serious results that would follow should the U.S.S.R. fail to pay the sum of $53 million that it is in default?


Righi Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the four members of the United Nations which held these talks were nonpermanent members of the security council and, as my right hon. friend knows, Canada was not one of them. However, we have been kept informed of these talks through a discussion we had with the foreign minister of Norway, who was here last week and who represents one of the four. We have also been kept informed in other ways, and we are doing what we can to assist in working out an arrangement by which the charter will be observed. We are endeavouring to avoid a direct confrontation on this matter, but in a form which will insist on charter observance.


John George Diefenbaker: Does that form comprehend the acceptance of a rescue fund, as it has been described, to be provided by the various members of the United Nations through voluntary contributions? Also, when the Prime Minister is replying would he tell us the four non-permanent members of the security council which belong to this group?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the so-called rescue fund was one element put forward in the negotiations as a way out of this difficulty,

but it was only one element. Other proposals have been made, but it is difficult for me to go into them in detail because the negotiations are continuing. I am not aware of the identity of the four non-permanent members involved in the discussions. I know Norway was one, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs might brief me as to the other three. I think Nigeria was one, and if the Secretary of State for External Affairs would speak a little louder I could give the other two.



DISARMAMENT-PROPOSAL RESPECTING ARCTIC AREA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has his attention been drawn to the suggestion made by the United States and Russian scientists, Drs. Rich and Vinogradov, regarding a three step disarmament proposal for the Arctic area modelled on the Antarctic treaty? In view of the fact that this will eventually affect Alaska, Siberia, Greenland, Canada and areas of Norway and Sweden, has the Canadian government any statement to make regarding its reaction to this proposal?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for Exlernal Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the proposal to which my hon. friend draws my attention was put forward privately by a Soviet and a United States scientist in the current issue of a United States scientific journal. We are interested in this proposal and are studying it. Disarmament proposals embracing the Arctic region, mainly in the context of aerial inspection and other measures aimed at inhibiting surprise attack, have a long history dating back to the post-war disarmament discussions. My hon. friend will remember that Canada was a very active participant in those discussions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: After the Canadian government has had an opportunity of studying these proposals, is it its intention to make recommendations or advances either to the government of the United States or the government of the Soviet union with a view to bringing them together for a discussion of these proposals?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: If these proposals commend themselves to us we will take the opportunity to bring them to the attention of all interested parties.
20220-639J
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR RELATIONS



WINNIPEG-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IN LABOUR DISPUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg Norlh Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the Minister of National Defence or to the Minister of Industry. My question relates to a labour dispute between Canadian Aviation Electronics, Winnipeg, and the united automobile workers. I recognize that the labour dispute itself comes under provincial jurisdiction, but in view of the fact that the Royal Canadian Air Force has been a principal customer of this firm, and in view of the co-operation which the R.C.A.F. itself has given, would the government use its good offices to try to persuade the firm to sit down with labour and discuss the matter?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: was not aware of this, but I will consult with my colleague the Minister of Labour and see what can be done.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, in view of reports which are circulating in Ottawa, I am wondering whether Your Honour has any information to give other members of this house to the effect that the members of the Creditiste party are boycotting the debate on the Canadian pension plan by not appearing at all at this sitting.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. O. Cooper (Rosetown-Biggar):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport regarding the railway run-through in Saskatchewan. Does the minister intend to hold hearings in towns which are affected by this run-through when the commission is set up?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minisier of Transport):: I think that question would be more properly directed to my colleague the Minister of Labour, but I did read in the press, as no doubt the hon. gentleman did, that there were to be hearings in certain of these places.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Clarence Owen Cooper: A supplementary question. Could I have an assurance that since Biggar is more affected than almost any town between Saskatoon and Edmonton, there will be a hearing held in Biggar, Saskatchewan?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: The question of the location of hearings is in the hands of Mr. Justice Freedman, who I am sure would listen to any representations made to him from these communities with regard to the hearings.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Lloyd (Halifax):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Press reports indicate that the fleet of icebreaker-ice reinforced cargo ships scheduled for winter service on the St. Lawrence river to Montreal will be augmented this winter by Russian cargo carriers. Will the minister inform the house whether the government is considering any measures to maintain and equalize the competitive position of the ports of Halifax and Saint John in view of the increasing use of Montreal as a winter port?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have heard reports that these Soviet ships are to attempt to come up the St. Lawrence during the winter time, but no exceptional steps will be taken as far as icebreaking is concerned.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Will the minister give every assurance that there will be no assistance whatever to these Russian ships?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is possible, of course, that a ship might be in distress. Recalling some of the interventions of the hon. gentleman on previous occasions I would be very hesitant about giving any blanket undertaking of that sort. But, as I told the hon. member for Halifax, no measures which would not be taken in the ordinary normal course will be taken as a result of this attempted passage.


John Edward Lloyd: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that Canada has a substantial investment in port facilities in Halifax and Saint John, will the impact of these developments on the revenues and investments of Canada be considered by the government?


John Whitney Pickersgill: They certainly will be, Mr. Speaker; and, as the hon. member knows, we are conducting a very intensive study at the present moment of means of developing further the use of the ports of Halifax and Saint John.


Mr. Fisher:: And Montreal.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Remi Paul (Berihier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Can he tell us whether an agreement took place between the department of the attorney general of the province of Quebec and his own department as to the appropriation of Hal Banks' $25,000 bail? If so, what was that agreement?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to answer that question today, but I will inquire from my officials and I will answer it tomorrow.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the national press stories in connection with Hal Banks, the S.I.U. and Liberal members, particularly a story not related to the S.I.U. but one appearing in the Toronto Star of November 13 in connection with the administration of the R.C.M.P. in Quebec, would the minister not assure the house that he will cause his estimates to be brought before us at the earliest possible moment so that all these matters can be carefully looked into by the committee?


Guy Favreau: Of course, Mr. Speaker, my estimates will be brought in as soon as possible, but this is a matter of the business to be called by the government.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago the Minister of Justice said that as soon as he found out where Mr. Banks was he would let the house know, as I recall it. Has he any information yet that he is in the United States?


Lester Bowles Pearson: He may have left.


John George Diefenbaker: No official information.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day: fTranslation]
Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponliac-Temiscamin-gue):: Mr. Speaker, I should have liked to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question but, in his absence I shall put it to the Minister of Forestry who is responsible for eastern agriculture.
Could the minister tell us what steps the government intends to take to assist Ottawa valley farmers who are now forced to get rid of their cattle owing to the shortage of water and fodder?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, that matter comes under the Quebec minister of agriculture. If the province wishes to call upon Ottawa, we shall be glad to help.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Can the minister tell us whether or not such a call has been made and if he is aware of the present crisis?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, since none were made in previous cases, I doubt that there was a call this time.


Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Cam-rose):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister in view of the fact the hon. member for Pontiac-Temis-camingue did not obtain a satisfactory reply from the Minister of Agriculture.
I am referring to the drought which is forcing farmers to sell their cattle, as reported in today's newspaper, and I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will look into this very serious situation; because if these farmers are forced to sell their cattle at this time it will force the cattle market across Canada to an even lower level with a resulting adverse effect on the economy of this country.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to look into this matter.
Inquiries of the Ministry BRIDGES



JACQUES CARTIER BRIDGE, MONTREAL- AGREEMENT RESPECTING SALE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolietle-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport?
I should like to ask him whether the government of the province of Quebec has entered into an agreement with the federal government for the purpose of acquiring the Jacques Cartier bridge in Montreal?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, an agreement in principle was made between the previous administration and the government of Quebec, but the details have not all been settled yet and the matter is still under discussion.



CROWN ASSETS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry. It has to do with the advertisement inserted in the press by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation regarding the disposal of 48 acres of land and 162 housing units in the former air force base at Saskatoon. The call for bids, or offers, expires today. I want to ask the minister whether there have been any negotiations with the city of Saskatoon for the disposal of these buildings, particularly in view of the fact that the municipal services for this area are supplied by the city of Saskatoon even though it is not located within the boundaries of that city.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in disposing of surplus assets of the crown, Crown Assets Disposal Corporation acts as trustee of the assets for the government and the taxpayers of Canada, and with regard to any disposal is obviously required to get as fair a price as it can.
In pursuit of this aim it will offer the right of first refusal at the fair market price to the government of the province in which the assets are located. If the provincial government has no interest, then the right of first refusal will go to the municipality in which the assets are situated. If the municipality has no interest, then the assets will be offered at public auction.

Inquiries of the Ministry
In the present case the housing project is located entirely within the municipality of Cory. The municipality of Cory does not wish to purchase these assets at the fair market price, consequently they are to be put up for sale at public auction. If the city of Saskatoon has an interest in these assets it will be free to bid, like any other bidder.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question. May I ask the minister what will happen if private interests are the highest bidders and consequently acquire this property; because the municipality of Cory within which these assets are located could not possibly service this area, and the city of Saskatoon may refuse to do so? That is the position in which the government has put the entire housing unit.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, presumably a private purchaser, before making a bid and entering into ownership, would make sure that whoever is concerned, either the officials of the municipality of Cory or of Saskatoon, will provide services.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask whether any such arrangement has been entered into with the city of Saskatoon?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, we have not got the names of the bidders as yet, so I am unable to answer as to whether any arrangements have been made.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Did he receive, from the minister of revenue of the province of Quebec, Mr. Kierans, suggestions or information concerning the districts in the province of Quebec which the latter would like to be designated for economic assistance, and when will those districts be announced publicly?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, discussions were held between officials of my department and officials of Mr. Kierans' department, during which information was exchanged, but no agreement has yet been reached.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question

to the Minister of Industry, which question is related to the one I asked him a while ago. He said discussions have taken place between members of his department and those of the department of revenue for the province of Quebec and that they failed to reach an agreement. Will there be other discussions between the same parties with regard to designated areas?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Information has been exchanged, Mr. Speaker, and these exchanges will continue.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the minister received a report of the meeting that was held in North Bay on Friday night in regard to the Grand canal proposal, and is he disposed to recommend that a feasibility survey be made of this important project, especially in view of the critical conditions existing in the great lakes and the St. Lawrence river?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, the government is fully aware of all the consequences of the low water levels of the great lakes. It is also aware of the number of cures that have been offered and, without indicating any agreement on the part of the government that the introduction of new water from outside would be satisfactory, we think that' it is imperative that we make a complete study of the proposals which have been made. To that end we have approached the governments of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, suggesting to them that we should like to make studies as to feasibility of such a program. We have received a letter from the province of Ontario indicating that it would be glad to work with us in connection with the Ontario water resources division, and we have also received a tentative reply from the province of Quebec.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate the nature of the tentative reply that has been received from the province of Quebec?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I can say that I think we will now be able to approach the

province of Quebec with a more definitive statement as to what our proposals might be, and I look forward to receiving their cooperation. I hope that will be the case.



ELLIOT LAKE, ONT.-REPORTED RADIOACTIVE POLLUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if he is yet prepared to make a statement regarding the pollution of certain lakes by the waste from uranium processing. Since this matter was first raised in the house there have been press reports indicating that other lakes have also been contaminated. Is the Prime Minister ready to make a statement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have been as active as possible over the week end trying to get all the information available both on the provincial level where the primary responsibility and jurisdiction lie, and on the federal level, and I hope to be able to make a full statement in respect of the particular matter at Elliot Lake and vicinity and also in more general application either tomorrow or the next day.


John George Diefenbaker: In that connection will the Prime Minister say whether any reports were received by the government regarding the waters in the Elliot Lake area from the atomic energy control board at any time in the last three months, pointing out that there was danger as a result of the pollution of these waters?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be dealing with this matter in detail in my statement, and I hope to make that statement tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the Prime Minister not in a position to say whether he had any reports from the atomic energy control board? Surely that is a matter upon which he should be able to give an immediate answer. If he had reports, it is strange that nothing was done.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am in a position to say that I have not received any reports, but I wish to go into the matter in further detail.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I
Inquiries of the Ministry should like to ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Will the minister tell me what steps are necessary to have a unit of the militia retained on the order of battle in spite of the fact the Suttie commission recommended that it be transferred to a supplementary order? I notice that the minister has had success in having the 40th medium artillery regiment, R.C.A., retained on the order of battle under the recommendation of the Department of National Defence. I should like to have the same information as to his method so I can relate it to the Toronto members on behalf of the Irish regiment and the Vancouver members on behalf of the Irish Fusiliers?


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, the former minister of defence has made a speech, but I will make inquiries and suggest that his answer will be forthcoming in due course.


Erik Nielsen: In whose riding is it located?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I did not make a speech, Mr. Speaker; I asked a question. The artillery unit is located in Kenora.
May I ask the Minister of National Defence what he meant on Thursday when I asked him a question, as recorded at page 9994 of Hansard, as to why the department failed to accept the recommendations of the Suttie commission, which reported favourably with regard to the maintenance on the active list of some of these regiments. The minister's answer to this question, as recorded on that same page, was as follows:
-the reason that some of the recommendations were not upheld was very carefully explained in the committee on defence-
May I ask the minister whether the explanation contained in four lines of the report of the proceedings of the committee on defence is a full and very careful explanation as to why the department did not accept the recommendations of the Suttie commission?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I do not know to which four lines the hon. member is referring, Mr. Speaker, but I think the explanation I gave was fair and reasonable.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Now that the minister is in a fair and reasonable mood, Mr. Speaker, may I ask him whether he considers this to be a careful explanation of a departmental decision; and I quote his words as they are recorded at page 806 of the report of the special committee on defence, in its minutes of pro-

Inquiries of the Ministry ceedings and evidence No. 19 for Thursday, November 5, 1964, as follows-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is not the hon. member beginning to argue the case rather than ask a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I am not presenting an argument, unless you wish me to base my statement on a question of privilege, in that the minister has misled the house. I hope, sir, that you will permit me to read the four lines to which I have referred, which are representative of-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -the so-called careful explanation, which the minister used-


An hon. Member:: Put it on the order paper.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -to brush aside my question on Thursday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would indicate the great urgency of this question, because I am unable to see the degree of urgency that would require a general statement from the minister at this time. Perhaps if the hon. member put his question on the order paper he would obtain the necessary details.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, questions can stay on the order paper for months at a time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I point out to you that there is still a question on the order paper dated June 3, several others under dates in July and some under dates in August. Therefore, sir, I regretfully have to submit, on a question of privilege, that the Minister of National Defence misled the House of Commons on Thursday when he gave the answer which is to be found in Hansard at page 9994, in which he said that a careful explanation of the alterations to the Suttie commission recommendations was made by himself to the defence committee. I base my charge on the fact that the careful explanation amounted to only these words:
-in the interests of what we felt to be an even greater uniformity in the application of the standards across the country, some of the decisions had to be reversed and some were reversed in each direction. It was the application of our review that resulted in some different recommendations from those that had originally been put forward.
I submit that is not a careful explanation of why these changes were made, and that the minister was misleading the house on

Thursday in the answer he gave me on that occasion.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the very brief statement just read there were a number of factors which had been listed as forming the judgments which were made in respect of various units, and most members of the committee on defence found them adequate to their comprehension.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That, Mr. Speaker, is another misleading statement, because these units are not mentioned by name with the exception of two, the Irish of Toronto and the Irish Fusiliers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



THE SENATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a non-contentious question of the Prime Minister which is prompted by two things; first, the wide reaction to his latest appointment to the other place, which I am sure he has noticed; and second, item No. 40 on the order paper regarding reform of the other place. I want to ask the Prime Minister when he intends to proceed with this reform and whether this is the limit of Senate reform at present intended by the government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We will proceed with that motion just as quickly as possible, Mr. Speaker.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A.ndrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the minister yet received a report from Mr. Joseph Sedgwick in regard to some matters affecting the department and the proposed changes in the regulations and the Immigration Act? If not, does he expect it soon?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received this report from Mr. Sedgwick but, as I indicated, I hope to have it before the end of this month.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is there any truth in the story circulating in Toronto that a number of people who were incarcerated by the department were deported without Mr. Sedgwick first having the opportunity to interview them and get their stories?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to say that no deportation order has been signed in the case of the persons who were to be investigated by Mr. Sedgwick, before Mr. Sedgwick had been informed of the action contemplated. Therefore, no action has been taken without his consent and, indeed, in several cases the decision was taken on his advice.


David Orlikow: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has not answered my question. I am not concerned whether Mr. Sedgwick approved it. I should like to know whether any of the people involved were deported without first seeing Mr. Sedgwick and telling him their stories.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member put his question on the order paper.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is she now in a position to answer the question I put to her parliamentary secretary on Friday, which was in these words:
Now that the government has decided to meet with the medical representatives regarding the Hall commission report, will they announce a date for a conference with the provinces?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, we met with representatives of the Canadian medical association and affiliated associations from 11.30 a.m. until 1 p.m. today, but this did not put us any closer to selecting a date for discussions with the provinces.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION



INTERFERENCE WITH SHOWING OF EXCERPTS FROM FILM &quot;MR. PEARSON&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clifford Silas Smallwood: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Is it true that government interference prohibited the showing of excerpts from the film "Mr. Pearson" last night on the C.B.C. program "This Hour Has Seven Days"?


Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, there was no interference whatsoever.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say if there was any interference with the producers by the top management of the C.B.C.?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am not aware that there was interference or that any action was taken by top management.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister tell the house whether any discussions will take place at the meeting of the international north Pacific fisheries commission which may serve to clarify the possible terms of operation of the commission in the future?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, the commission is now meeting in Tokyo, and I have to await a report from the meeting before I can say anything further about what is taking place.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell us whether he anticipates that any significant information will be provided by the commission as a result of any program of research in the technical and scientific fields arising out of this meeting of the commission which may serve to help set a pattern for a fruitful future for the north Pacific treaty?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am not in a position to determine at this stage exactly what discussions will take place in Tokyo, but I can

Electoral Boundaries Commissions point out that the discussions which are taking place are in the interests of the north Pacific fisheries.



REDISTRIBUTION


Lester Bowles Pearson: the third reading of Bill No. C-72, to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions to report upon the readjustment of the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons and to provide for the readjustment of such representation in accordance therewith.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: 
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the only point I wish to raise relates to the dual constituency matter. I left the chamber before the vote was taken on it in committee the other day, and so did not get a chance to express my objections to it. Now having read the observations of the minister who sponsored the bill I am even more put out about it. Could we have a clearer expression from the minister of what he was talking about? As recorded at page 10064 of Hansard for Friday last he said:
Mr. Chairman, obviously I do not want to prolong this debate, but may I say I do not feel I could propose such an amendment. On the other hand, I have one drafted here that is slightly different from the one shown me by the hon. member for Queens, who was good enough to send me the one about which he was thinking. I would think that the one I have here would be preferable if this is going to be done, because the only real difference between the two is that in the one case it just says that the commission "may" and in the other case it says "may if it sees fit to do so".
10113
Electoral Boundaries Commissions
In view of the queer interpretations sometimes placed on the word "may", If that additional phrase was not included I think there might be a suggestion that parliament's inclination was to have it done. My own inclination is not to have it done.
We are getting very clear here.
I say that quite frankly. I really feel about this matter, and it is going to be very difficult for me to vote. I have been thinking I might do something that I thought only members of the N.D.P. did, sit on my hands, if there is a vote.
The minister has a very short memory if he does not remember the session of 1957-58, when a lot of Liberals sat on their hands until one brave day in January a lion came into the house and then we did get a vote. To continue with the quotation:
I have not made up my mind yet-
Here is the minister who sponsored the bill, and right in the final stage of this very debatable issue he says he has not made up his mind yet.
-but I certainly do not want to influence the judgment of any other member of the committee. Particularly because of the objection reiterated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I do not feel it is fair to impose upon the commission the making of another decision which in my bones I feel we ought to make ourselves if it is to be made at all. I think it would be very hard for me to vote for this. On the other hand I am rather impressed-
This is about the fifth "on the other hand."
-by the argument put forward. I want to reiterate-
This is about the fourth reiteration.
I want to reiterate, however, that these historic constituencies will not survive anyway.
What is the point of all this? If they are not going to survive, why bother?
Halifax county is far too big to be one constituency, so we will not be preserving the historical situation there and probably not in Queens either. However, if the hon. gentleman wishes to do so I think the simplest way would be for him to move his amendment in order to test the committee on it and get the agony over with.
Here is a minister with largeness of spirit. First he is on one side and then he is on the other. He feels things in his bones and is a bit worried about the agony. I want to ask him what he means by saying it is not going to help Halifax anyway, that Halifax cannot survive anyway. Why did he go ahead and let the amendment come to a vote without putting it much more clearly that this was a nonsense amendment in so far as it affects Halifax? Or is it a nonsense amendment in so far as it affects Halifax? How does the minister see it?
10114	HOUSE OF
Electoral Boundaries Commissions
The thing which bothers me is that throughout this whole debate on redistribution which, with intervals, has stretched for many months, we never heard anything about this problem of dual constituencies. I happen to represent the twin cities of Port Arthur and Fort William and I am sure if there are arguments -aside from historical ones-for dual representation they are even better for Port Arthur and Fort William than they are for these two constituencies down east, because there is almost an equal balance in the size of my constituency.
If we are having a really clean slate to start with, then we should never have had this amendment. I am not going to raise any objections to the bill as it stands, but I would like a fuller explanation from the minister than this sort of tortuous path he walked on Friday between his own feelings and the feelings of other people.
Having said this critically I think I should go on to compliment the minister. I think we should thank somebody that he managed to get back here from his bed of pain, because this is the first measure of any scope which we have got through this place for a long time; and despite criticisms I and others may make I think he deserves some recognition for the fact that he got' it this far. But surely it was not just to get it this far that he made that rather equivocal speech on dual constituencies?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think there is only one point involved here, and if the hon. gentleman had read my earlier observations he would have seen that it was explained. The historic constituency of Halifax is in fact Halifax county, which has far too big a population to be merely two seats. If I understand correctly what we did on Friday, and I think I do, if the commission so desires it will be possible to make a dual seat constituency out of part of Halifax county, the greater part population-wise, but this will not preserve the historic riding of Halifax, which was the whole county, because of the rule that the population cannot exceed a certain figure.
I know both hon. members for Queens who proposed this matter understood that perfectly, and I think the same would be true in P.E.I. where, because of the 25 per cent rule, it would not be possible to have Queens county retained as Queens county, or where it would be very difficult to do so. However, that does not mean that the greater part of Queens county could not be a dual constit-


uency. Therefore this has some meaning, but I think I am right in saying this would not preserve the historic ridings we have known because the commission will have to carry out the mandatory part with regard to limits of population.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have three points to raise on third reading. The whole purpose of this bill is to provide more realistic boundaries for our constituencies, and I would like to bring to the attention of the house that in my own district of Athabasca it is at present necessary for the hon. member for Jasper-Edson to travel 100 miles through my territory on the only road available to get to the northeast corner of his own district. This is a waste of his time, and. it is a waste of public money when he tries to cover isolated communities up near my headquarters.
This brings me to my second point. I am afraid that these commissions, when they are set up, will be operating in the dark. In every constituency there is a man who for possibly ten or 12 years has had a close relationship with everything that goes on in that constituency. He knows its problems, and it would be a tremendous waste of his experience if the commissions could not consult him.
I am referring, Mr. Speaker, to the sitting member. I do not say sitting members should be appointed to the commissions. In any case, this would probably require an amendment to the bill itself. But I think it should be placed on record now, for the guidance of the commissions, that use should be made of the services of the sitting member, or possibly of those who have sat in this house over the past ten or 15 years. The commission should ask them what they think should be done in connection with the redrawing of the maps, for the welfare of the country as a whole.
Cynics may say this would amount to political interference but I think most if not all members of the house are public spirited in these matters, and surely it would be a waste of experience if they were not consulted.
There is another matter I wish to raise, and I ask permission of the house it bring it up at this time because it is difficult to discuss it in connection with any other piece of legislation I know of. A great many of our constituencies are far too large to allow any member to get around them adequately in the absence of some further assistance from the government. As the most important example

I will quote the Northwest Territories, which cover an area of some 1,342,000 square miles. The sitting member is expected to serve this vast region on the basis of exactly the same expense account as is available to, let us say, the hon. member for Carleton or the hon. member for Ottawa East, which is patently ridiculous.
I suppose that in the absence of government legislation this is a matter which no private member could seek to remedy; it would be called a money bill. Therefore, while we are talking about redistribution, I think the present is an appropriate time at which to bring the subject forward. I do not suggest we should cut down the size of the enormous riding to which I have referred, but 1 think we should certainly take a realistic view of the situation and make sure that no undue financial strain is placed on a private member because he seeks to do a job for his people, which cannot be done unless some change is made in the provision allotted to him.
It may be of interest to the house to know that the most easterly point in the Northwest Territories Cape Dyer on Baffin island, a point which is east of Halifax. This constituency runs west to a point west of Queen Charlotte islands off the coast of British Columbia and to Aklavik in the far northwest corner. And we, as representatives of the people, try to pretend that a man can cover this immense territory with the same ease as those who represent, say, Ottawa East and Carleton county.
I know all members of the house recall the contribution which was made by the former member for the Northwest Territories. There is no one here who does not know what a strain this imposed on him, both physically and financially. We cannot undo the harm we did to this man, but we can certainly make sure it does not happen to another. The least we can do is to be realistic and make sure that some consideration is given to placing public transportation at the disposal of members who represent these vast outlying districts.
I represent one of these large districts myself. I am not complaining particularly about that, but even in my district it is very hard to get around an area of some 65,000 square miles. So I have great sympathy with those who have to cover a territory such as the Yukon, for example, on exactly the same basis as is made available to other members, and I think it is time we did something about it. If I am out of order in dis-
Electoral Boundaries Commissions cussing the subject, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to enlarge on my remarks on some other occasion, but since this is a question of some urgency I hope my words will not go unheeded at this time.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I am glad the hon. member for Middlesex West has put his views on record calling for special consideration to be given to particular areas affected by this redistribution measure. I too wish to make a few remarks on Bill No. C-72 before the house completes its consideration on third reading. I wish to protest very strongly, as I did on Friday night, against the threatened loss of four seats in Saskatchewan. I do not think any province should suffer such a loss in its representation as four seats in the course of one redistribution.
I draw to the attention of the house what happened during the redistribution of 1952. At that time the Liberal government of the day took action to see that the reduction of seats in Saskatchewan was minimized. Of course at that time there were Liberal representatives from Saskatchewan in the house, and this probably had some effect on the thinking of the government of the day. I drew attention on Friday to the statement of policy just released by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, that factors other than population should be used in determining equitable representation. What I am suggesting is that action should be taken to see that the west has equitable representation in this house in accordance with its position in the country's economy. I believe, too, that discussions of changes in our country's constitution will be coming up very shortly, and I understand some effort will be made at that time to consult with the provinces in connection with the representation which each province should have.
I do not intend to repeat what I said on Friday, but I wish to point out once more, as forcefully as I can, that the action taken in clause 13 in providing special consideration for certain constituencies should also apply to provinces as a whole. I think the commissions should be instructed by this house to consider the situation in Saskatchewan very carefully. I also believe special consideration should be given to the prairie provinces as a whole so their representation may be kept in fair balance with that of Ontario and Quebec.
As I said on Friday night, I do not wish to become too political. Nevertheless, I believe I should put the situation very clearly once

Electoral Boundaries Commissions again. In doing so I will use the words of Robert McKeown, writing in Weekend Magazine of November 29, 1963: "The Liberals now draw most of their support from the cities and the Conservatives get theirs from the country." I think I could enlarge on that statement by saying that support for the Conservatives comes to a large extent from the west, and that this might have some influence with regard to the possible loss of four seats there. Mr. McKeown also said a member of parliament had told him that the next election might be won or lost as a result of what happens in this redistribution measure. I wish to point out once again that special consideration should be given to Saskatchewan with regard to this matter of seats in the House of Commons.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (SI. Hyacinfhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, the few remarks forcefully made a while ago by my hon. friend from Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas) have given rise in my mind to some suspicion.
I think that his remarks are extremely to the point and that the commission which will be responsible for considering the matter will have to give special attention to the boundaries of the constituencies in the province of Quebec as well as in Ontario.
For instance, if I take my own riding I come to the conclusion that the people are satisfied with the proposed requirements for the redistribution. But on the other hand, if my information is accurate, there is no doubt that in the event of a redistribution, my riding would be seriously dislocated.
In my opinion, this would be an error, because the citizens of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot have been used to it for many years, and if the difference between the number of the population and the 25, 20 or 30 per cent to be provided for in the act is observed, then I believe that more would be done to respect the aspirations of my electors and those of electors in the other ridings, and to adjust the situation from top to bottom and from bottom to top in order to have the number of electors required to form an electoral riding. There must be a more equitable way than the one suggested; otherwise, many counties which have existed since confederation could disappear, and this would be against common sense.
I make these remarks so that those points will be taken into consideration by the commissions which will be studying this matter, because I know that a great deal of
[Mr. Pascoe.l
attention is being paid to it in our ridings by the electors and the citizens in general.

Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PENSIONS


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 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:
That twenty four members of the House of Commons, to be designated by the house at a later date, be members of the joint committee, and that standing order 67(1) of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the said committee have power to call for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses; and to report from time to time and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on item No. 17, in connection with the setting up of the joint committee may I ask the house leader this question. I realize the importance of getting the committee set up, but I do not quite see the urgency of it; because as I understand it the other place is not now in session and will not reassemble for some considerable time. Supposing we pass this resolution now and send a message to the Senate; when is that message likely to be dealt with? Is there any likelihood of expedition in promoting the business of parliament?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (President of the Privy Council):: I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that I was somewhat concerned about the whole procedure as to when the committee should be set up, either before or after second reading of the bill. On reading the cases I came to the conclusion that it is desirable and the usual practice, although not always followed, to have a committee in existence so that when second reading is given you can immediately refer the bill. But I found in that connection, somewhat to my amazement, that a bill had been referred to a joint committee even although the message had not come back from

the other place saying that they had concurred. In other words, a bill had been referred to a committee that had not been perfected.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the minister refer to specific examples, if he has them there?


George James McIlraith: I do not have them with me at the moment. I did a lot of work on this on Friday and I regret that my right hon. friend was not here, because it troubled me a great deal. The difficulty about leaving it until after second reading is that then you have to have unanimous consent to bring it on.
I went further than that; I consulted with the leader of the other place to see when that place would reassemble. The motion on the order paper is that they have adjourned, I think it is, until next Tuesday or an earlier date. I am not sure whether the motion reads "at the call of the Speaker" or "the leader", but in any event it can be reconvened at an earlier date and I would anticipate that this course may be followed, although I cannot say, in fairness, that it will.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, we are not raising any objection to the proposed resolution to set up a joint committee, but I want to make some reservation about the minister's suggestion that after second reading the motion to refer to the committee should be adopted by this house, until we have heard from the other place. I would prefer to reserve judgment on that suggestion, because unless there is an established procedure whereby following second reading a bill can be referred to a committee which is only partially set up, we would be rather reluctant to adopt that procedure now.


George James McIlraith: I have no objection whatever to the hon. member reserving his position on that point. I must admit that the point did cause me some concern on Friday when I was trying to look up the authorities to decide just what procedure should be followed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, could not the minister give us a general outline-he has a very good memory-and give us examples of this procedure being followed; because it' seems most unusual.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There is a good example in the 1960 Journals, when the right hon. gentleman had a motion, I think it was on the bill of rights resolution. It went to a special committee. In that case the right
Joint Committee on Pensions hon. gentleman, at the conclusion of second reading, asked for the unanimous consent of the house to set up the committee.


John George Diefenbaker: That is quite different.


George James McIlraith: When he obtained unanimous consent he then proceeded immediately to refer the bill to the imperfect committee. That is one example that I can recall.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the very reverse.


Mr. Monleilh:: Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell us what happened back in 1950 at the time a joint committee was set up on the same subject.


George James McIlraith: There was no bill. It was a different' point altogether. That is not applicable to this situation. The one precedent which seems to have a bearing on this point is the one in 1960 to which I referred. I will get the exact reference and give it to the hon. member. In that case the unanimous consent of the house was required, and with unanimous consent the bill was referred to the, if I may so describe it, unperfected committee.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. gentleman if that is not the antithesis. In this case you are placing the matter before a committee before second reading has been given.


George James McIlraith: No, there is no motion to refer the bill to a committee at this stage. This motion is to create a committee to which the bill can be referred when it receives second reading. This motion merely creates the House of Commons part of that committee. I think this is the usual procedure. As a matter of fact, the right hon. gentleman will recall that earlier this session there was some objection taken in the house because standing committees were not perfected, although they were already in existence and bills were referred to them. There could be objection taken if this committee was not in existence when second reading was given to a motion for referral.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, do I gather from what the minister has said that he is arguing that there must be a committee of some sort before the bill can be referred?


George James McIlraith: That is the whole point.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to the next item may I ask the house leader whether the government is in a position

Canada Pension Plan
to present a motion containing the names of the members of this committee?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the list of names has not been completed as yet, but I hope it will be, immediately second reading is given. I asked for them on Friday, and I hope to have them very quickly.



PROVISIONS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF CONTRIBUTORY PROGRAM

Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: second reading of 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.
She said: Mr. Speaker, members of the house have now had an opportunity, even though a short one, to examine the Canada pension plan set out in Bill C-136. One can appreciate from its length and complexity the difficulty I face in endeavouring to cover adequately the provisions of the measure in my statement on second reading. I propose to deal with a number of the more important aspects. A number of other areas of special interest and importance will be discussed by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson), whose department will be responsible for the administration of coverage and contributions, and by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) who is concerned with the financial and economic implications of the plan.
We are concerned at this second reading stage with the principles of the bill. It is apparent that there will be many detailed points which will need more explanation than can be given in these statements. The parliamentary committee will provide the opportunity for this, after approval in principle is given and the bill referred to it.
When speaking last week on the resolution preceding this bill, I emphasized that our objective was to have as comprehensive coverage as possible under this plan. Therefore I should like to make a few remarks about the question of coverage.
Only a few groups have been excluded from coverage, and these have been for constitutional, legal or administrative reasons. The crown in the right of Canada has not the power to require employer contributions from the crown in the right of any province: for this reason provincial government employees and provincial crown agency employees cannot be covered unless the province concerned wishes to enter into an agreement with

Canada to have its employees covered and to pay the employer's contribution. Similarly, employees of foreign governments or international agencies will only be covered if their employer enters into an agreement to pay the employer's contribution. As I mentioned last week, members of the armed forces and the R.C.M. Police will be excluded from the plan because of the special provisions for relatively early retirement that are already made for them.
Because of the administrative difficulties involved in reaching them, certain groups of migratory workers have also been excluded from the plan. In agriculture, horticulture, fishing, forestry, logging and lumbering, a worker who does not spend at least 25 working days a year with the same employer, or one who does not earn at least $250 a year from the same employer, will not be covered under the plan. Most migratory workers in this country have other employment for much of the year, and spend less than 25 days on one job in these primary industries. The $250 a year represents an income of $10 a day for 25 days; it is also the amount of income a married woman can earn without affecting her husband's taxation status. It may be of interest to compare these provisions with the provisions of the United States program where farm workers are excluded from coverage unless they work for one employer for at least 20 days a year and earn at least $150.
I am often asked about the baby sitter or about the man who cuts your grass or shovels your snow or paints your fence, or about the woman who comes in to help with the spring cleaning or to help your wife make curtains. The answer is, this is not pensionable employment, though in fact what you pay may become part of the person's self-employed earnings.
I should like now to outline contribution rates. The contribution rate proposed for the Canada pension plan is 1.8 per cent each from employer and employee, making a combined rate of 3.6 per cent. This contribution will be paid on earnings between lower and upper limits which are initially $600 and $5,000 a year, respectively.
The effect of the lower limit is progressive, in the sense that the man with low earnings will contribute a smaller proportion of them than will the man with average earnings. On earnings of $300 a month-about the present average level-the employee's contribution will be equivalent to 1.5 per cent of his total earnings.

Both lower and upper limits will rise during the ten year transition period if the cost of living rises, and thereafter in ratio to an eight year moving average of earnings.
The combined contribution rate of 3.6 per cent on earnings between these limits, is proposed as a rate that can be expected to finance the plan for at least 20 years, without liquidating any of the investment reserve that will be built up meantime. After that, the estimates necessarily become less precise. There are too many uncertainties for us to predict what the contribution rate should be more than 20 to 25 years, that is, more than a generation from now.
There is, of course, a good reason why the cost of pensions may increase over the years. We can expect to live longer. All the estimates prepared by the chief actuary of the Department of Insurance are based on the assumption of a considerable continuing improvement in mortality rates; that is to say, more people will enjoy their pensions longer.
This, of course, will increase the total cost of pensions. What it does to the contribution rate, however, depends on what happens meantime to the total amount of earnings to which the contribution rate is applied. This, in turn, depends on a variety of factors- the rate of increase of the population of working age, the proportion of this population actually at work, the rate of increase in their productivity, and what happens to prices. I therefore propose to refer briefly to each of these.
As those who studied the actuarial report made public last fall will recall, the actuarial work for the Canada pension plan has been based on two different sets of assumptions about population growth. These were deliberately chosen by the chief actuary as extremes. That is to say, one is the slowest rate of population growth which seems at all reasonable and the other is the fastest which seems reasonable. On the first set of assumptions, that is, the slow population growth rate, the number of Canadians in the year 2050 would be 46 million; on the second set, the fast growth rate assumptions, it would be 156 million, or a difference of 110 million.
Even in the course of a generation the divergence between the two estimates is considerable. In 1990 the population of Canada would be 30 million on the first set of slow assumptions and on the second or fast set of assumptions it would be 37.2 million. That is to say, the difference between the two projections is, within 25 years, equal to the
Canada Pension Plan
present population of Ontario and Manitoba combined.
These alternative population projections produce very different ratios for the future number of pensioners compared with the number of contributors. On the first set of assumptions, that is, with a slow growth of population, the pensioners will increase much more than the contributors, and the contribution rate therefore has to increase. On the second set of assumptions, that is, fast growth, the ratio would not change much, even if the projections are carried as far into the future as the year 2050. That is to say, if our population increases fast the contribution rate required in the 2050's may well be no higher, and indeed could be lower, than the rate required in the 1990's.
The possible wide variations in population are the greatest of the uncertainties which affect the long term cost of the plan. Economic factors, however, are also of great importance. The actuarial estimates depend on, for example, assumptions about the proportion of people of working age who in fact will be at work. They assume that for the first ten years of the plan unemployment will average 5 per cent of the labour force and thereafter it will average 4 per cent.
Before hon. members jump to any conclusions I should like to emphasize that these assumptions, like others in the actuarial report, cannot in any way be taken to reflect what the government actually expects to happen. They are the independent assumptions of the chief actuary who has worked on the principle that he should choose, to use his words, "assumptions that would not underestimate the cost" in this as in other doubtful areas. In other words, he is being deliberately on the pessimistic side or, if my hon. friends opposite will permit me, he is being somewhat conservative.
The cost of the plan will also depend on the future development of prices and earnings and especially on the relation between the two, that is, on productivity or real earnings per person.
Many different projections could be made. In order to avoid so many that they would be confusing, the chief actuary has made two assumptions about prices. Pensions will cost more, of course, the more prices rise. For the long term estimates based on a slow rate of population growth a rapid increase in prices, by 2 per cent a year, is also assumed. Thus this is deliberately a "high cost" estimate on both counts. For the estimates based on fast population growth, and therefore "low cost"

Canada Pension Plan
on that account, a slower but still considerable rate of price increase, 1J per cent a year, is assumed.
Again I point out that these assumptions of the chief actuary in no way should be taken as an indication of any government expectation. The chief actuary chose them because he is seeking to guard against the danger of underestimating the possible cost of the plan.
Between these high cost and low cost estimates, the actuarial report, which I will be tabling, develops projections which are described as "intermediate cost"; that is to say, they represent costs with an intermediate rate of population growth and with price increases equivalent to If per cent a year. Each of these projections is developed on two different assumptions about earnings, a rate of increase of 3 per cent a year or a rate of increase of 4 per cent a year. The first, 3 per cent, applied to the high cost estimates with a 2 per cent rate of price increase, would imply that productivity rises by only 1 per cent a year. This is the highest cost estimate of all. This is what will happen only if there should unfortunately be a dramatic reduction in the rate of technological progress.
Such progress has led in the past to long term productivity increases at an average rate of 2 per cent to 2| per cent a year. A 2J per cent increase is the rate implied on the lowest cost projections, where a rapid rate of population growth is combined with earnings increases of 4 per cent a year and price increases of 1J per cent a year. A moderate rate of productivity increase is provided for in the projection which combines the intermediate population assumptions with a 4 per cent rate of increase in earnings, which is equivalent, given the assumed If per cent price increase, to a 2f per cent rate for productivity.
These various estimates cover a wide range of possibilities. Consequently, they have very different implications for the costs of the plan on a very long term basis. But for 20 years at least the stories they tell are not too divergent. On anything from the lowest cost to the highest cost assumptions, the proposed contribution rate will result in building up an investment fund which is substantial but not, in relation to our economy, unduly large. The actuary's estimates apply to the fund which the plan will generate in Canada, excluding Quebec. These estimates, at the end of 20 years, range between $6.7 billion and $8.4 billion.
I should point out that these figures are based on the chief actuary's assumption that the rate of interest will remain at about the current level, roughly 5 per cent, for ten years but will thereafter be 4 per cent. About this I would enter the same reservation as I have made about others of the actuarial assumptions. The actuary's estimates must not be taken to imply a government view that interest rates are going to decline. From many points of view, of course, a decline in interest rates would be welcome. But if the developing nations of the world are to achieve the progress that is probably essential not only to them but to the security and prosperity of all of us, this may well remain a capital hungry world for many years to come. I understand that for this and other reasons many economists would say that interest rates are no more likely to go down than they are to go up.
If the actuarial projections were made on the basis of unchanged interest rates, that is, 5 per cent throughout, the estimates of the investment fund at the end of 20 years would be higher. On the various assumptions about population and earnings, they would range between $7.4 billion and $9.3 billion.
It is, however, common to all the actuarial estimates that by 1985 income of the plan from contributions, at the 3.6 per cent rate, will no longer equal the full cost of the pensions being paid. On some of the projections, the interest on investments will for a time more than fill the gap, so that the fund will continue to increase for part at least of the plan's third decade. The highest of the chief actuary's range of estimates for the fund in 1990 is at $8.6 billion, slightly higher than for 1985. On the least favourable estimate, on the other hand, the fund would decline to $5 billion by 1990. These again are the figures with the assumption of a 4 per cent interest rate. If the interest rate remained at 5 per cent on the average, the highest figure would become $10.1 billion and the lowest $6.3 billion.
All the actuary's estimates indicate, however, that some time after the plan is 20 years old there will be a need to reassess its finances. By that time, experience of the plan will have made possible considerably more precise estimates of its costs. The range of population and economic projections is too wide for it to be realistic to try to anticipate now what should be decided more than a generation hence. The timing of any change will, of course, depend in part on the views

that are then taken about the desirability of continued partial funding and about many other points of economic policy. The most that can now be said is that if the current range of predictions is sustained, and if it is desired to preserve the funding of the plan, some increase in the contribution rate probably will be required some time in the later 1980's or the 1990's.
If I may pass now to the question of benefits, it may be helpful for hon. members if I list the benefits provided under clause 44 of this bill. They are as follows:
1.	The retirement pension, available on retirement at 65 or unconditionally at age 70.
2.	A disability pension.
3.	An orphan's benefit.
4.	A pension for widows of any age if they have dependant children.
5.	A pension for all widows over 65.
6.	A pension for women widowed after age 35.
7.	A pension for disabled widows and widowers.
8.	A death benefit.
Now, in order to receive a survivors pension or death benefit contributions must have been made for at least three calendar years and one third of the total number of years possible for the contributor.
This rule, while a reasonable one in general, could operate unfairly for people who are unable to join the plan until late in life. I am thinking, for instance, of members of the armed forces who cannot join a plan until they leave the service and are employed in some sort of pensionable employment. I am thinking also of older immigrants who do not come to the country early enough to be able to contribute. For the sake of these people, it is provided that they can achieve permanently insured status after ten years of contributions.
Because of the nature of the benefits provided the eligibility period for the disability benefit has an added requirement which could be called currently insured status. Contributions must have been made for at least five of the last ten years before the benefit is claimed.
The adjustment of benefits in payment to changes in the cost of living is an important feature of this bill. It will apply to all the benefits provided by the bill. The adjustment will be made whether the pension is being paid for the first time or whether it has been paid for many years.
Canada Pension Plan
This feature of the bill means that for the first time Canadians will be able to be sure of their pensions being kept up to date in value. I do not think there is any serious dispute about its desirability, but it does necessitate some rather complex sections in the bill, which I am sure hon. members have run into already. It is not desirable to adjust pensions annually if there have been only minor changes in the cost of living. Nor is it desirable to provide either for large jumps from year to year or reductions of pensions should the cost of living fall. The formula provided in the bill will therefore have the effect of keeping the pension adustment closely in line with the cost of living, and without making increases from year to year of less than 1 per cent or more than 2 per cent.
Benefits will be paid under this bill for the first time in 1967, and therefore the first adjustment to any cost of living cannot be made until 1968.
The pension is to be a fixed portion of the average earnings upon which a person has contributed. But in calculating this average, his past earnings will be revalued to their current equivalent; that is, in proportion to the changes that have taken place in the meantime in the general level of wages. In this way, the pension he has earned will be in step with improvements in productivity and in wage rates.
As in the case of the cost of living adjustment, it is desirable to find a way of smoothing out these changes. The formula in this bill, therefore, establishes an earnings index based on employees' actual average earnings throughout Canada in the most recent eight year period for which information is available, as related to the employees' actual average earnings in the first eight years of the plan.
The retirement pension is to be 25 per cent of average monthly pensionable earnings. A man who has earned $200 a month will have a pension of $50 a month; a man who has earned $400 a month will have a pension of $100 a month. A member of parliament who has contributed to the plan on the first $5,000 a year of his indemnity, will have a pension under the plan of $104.17 a month. I have to warn you, however, Mr. Speaker, and all hon. members, that the average monthly pensionable earnings are your total lifetime earnings after the plan starts and up to the earnings ceiling, averaged over your working life and expressed on monthly basis. During your working career, you may have had

Canada Pension Plan
months or even years of sickness or unemployment, or just low earnings before you were a member of parliament. Some people will have been attending university or taking other types of education beyond age 18. There is therefore a provision in the bill for a dropout of years of low earnings or no earnings amounting to 10 per cent of the number of months in which you may have contributed.
If you continue to work and contribute beyond age 65 up to age 69, you may substitute any months of earnings during those years for less favourable months of earnings before age 65, as long as this does not reduce your contributory period below 120 months.
The disability pension consists of two parts, a flat rate benefit and an amount equal to 75 per cent of the retirement pension the contributor might have claimed had he been age 65. The flat rate portion will be $25 adjusted in line with increases in the cost of living. The total disability pension will be at least as large as the retirement pension at any given level of earnings. The actuaries have estimates that in the year 1975 about $63 million will be paid out in disability pensions. This will represent about 17 per cent of the estimated total benefit payments.
A widow of 65 or over will be entitled to a pension at 60 per cent of her husband's retirement pension. She will be able to draw this in addition to the flat rate old age security benefit that is to be available from age 65 in the future. For widows under 65, and therefore not entitled to old age security, the widow's pension will itself contain a flat rate component as well as an earnings related component. The flat rate component is the same amount, $25, adjusted in line with the cost of living, as that provided for orphans and disabled people. The earnings-related component will be 37J per cent of her husband's retirement pension.
The philosophy on which pensions are paid to widows under 65 is that a full pension should be available to those who cannot easily obtain employment. That is, a full pension will be paid to all widows who have dependant children, and to all widows who are disabled, no matter how young they may be. Other widows will receive a full pension if they are age 46 or over when they are widowed. For those who are widowed before age 45, the pension available will be reduced on a sliding scale so that those who are aged under 35 will not receive a pension. Young widows in their twenties and early thirties usually have little difficulty in finding em-

ployment, and of course many of them remarry.
When a widow reaches 65, or when a woman of 65 or more becomes a widow, the widow's pension is calculated at 60 per cent of her husband's retirement pension. She may, however, be entitled to a retirement pension in her own right. In that case she receives the larger of 60 per cent of her own pension plus 60 per cent of her husband's, or 100 per cent of her own pension plus 37J per cent of her husband's, up to a ceiling equal to the maximum pension payable to a retired contributor.
The pension for the disabled widower is calculated in the same way as that for the disabled widow. The actuaries estimates indicate that in 1967 widows benefits will amount to $89 million.
If the father dies, what happens to children under the Canada pension plan? The orphans benefit will be paid to all dependant children up to the age of 18, and to age 25 if they continue their full-time education.
The benefit will be paid on the death of the father or if the mother dies in cases when she has been the main support of the family. The benefit for each child will be $25, increased in line with the cost of living. However, the total amount paid to the children of one contributor cannot exceed the maximum retirement pension payable in the year the parent died. It is estimated by the actuaries that in 1975 the payment of orphan's benefit will be about $37 million.
The death benefit is a lump sum payment which amounts to six times the monthly retirement pension, or 10 per cent of the earnings ceiling for the year of death, whichever is less. Initially the maximum would be $500 but it will increase as the earnings ceiling rises. The actuaries estimates indicate that in 1975 death benefit payments will amount to $20 million.
At ages 65 to 69 many people continue full time employment. Indeed, while many of us can hardly wait to be 65 to retire it is noticeable that as we get closer to that age, and this is especially true of men, there is a desire not to leave the labour force. But the purpose of this bill is to provide pensions for those who do retire voluntary or involuntarily. However, a person who does retire may still make modest earnings from part time or casual employment without any effect on his pension benefits under the Canada pension plan.
At the outset, when the plan's earnings ceiling is $5,000, a pensioner will be entitled

to earn 1.5 per cent of that ceiling each month, without pension reduction. That means, to begin with, that he could earn up to $75 per month without reduction in his pension, that is, $900 annually. Beyond that, up to $1,500 extra income per year his pension will be reduced by 50 cents for each extra dollar he earns, and if he earns more than $1,500 it will be reduced by $1 for every dollar he earns over that $1,500.
In considering the level of earnings at which the retirement test applies we should remember that old age security pensions will also be available from age 65. Exempt earnings of $75 a month, or $900 a year, combined with an old age security payment of $51 a month, or $612 a year, mean that a single person could have an income of $126 a month, or $1,512 a year, with no reduction in his retirement pension. A married couple both eligible for old age security could have a combined income of $177 a month, or $2,124 a year, with no reduction in the husband's retirement pension.
So far as administration of the plan is concerned I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that a number of departments of government have been involved in drawing up the plan and will be involved in the administration of the program. We intend to avoid expensive separate facilities for collecting contributions by taking advantage of existing machinery. The contributions will be collected by the Department of National Revenue in the same way and at the same time as taxes are collected. The administration of benefits will be integrated with our existing old age security, family allowances and youth allowances administration.
The federal administration will be coordinated with that of any province having a comparable plan. In the case of Quebec these arrangements have already been worked out. If a contributor to the one plan becomes a contributor to the other plan, through a change in job or a move in residence, the earnings records of what we might call these dual contributors will be merged and only one combined pension will be paid. The act will determine which of the two jurisdictions will pay the pension and there will, of course, be financial reimbursement from the other. Arrangements of this sort are essential for the complete integration of the two plans.
The chief actuary has assumed that expenses of administration will be 0.1 per cent of contributory earnings. That is the same percentage used by the chief actuary of the old age, survivors and disability insurance
Canada Pension Plan
program in the United States, based upon their quarter century experience in the field. This amounts to about $12 million a year, rising slowly to about $18 million in 1975. In addition to this general assessment of the magnitude of these costs, more detailed cost studies by the different departments concerned with the administration indicate that expenditures will be well within the actuaries estimates. Of course, as has been stated many times before, the administrative expenses will be a charge against the revenues of the Canada pension plan.
The bill provides a right of appeal to contributors and beneficiaries who disagree with administrative decisions. We have made an effort to establish an inexpensive and convenient review procedure. In cases where appeals from this review are desired, final determination will be made by a pensions appeals board. That board will consist of a chairman who will be a judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada or a superior court of a province, and not less than two or more than five other persons, each of whom shall be judges. Provision is made for a province administering a comparable pension plan to be able to refer cases to the same appeal board. By this means there will be not only the common benefit and contribution rate which have already been provided for, but also common interpretation of federal and provincial legislation.
The bill also contains a requirement that at least once in every five years the chief actuary of the Department of Insurance shall prepare a report based on an actuarial examination of the operation of the legislation and the state of the Canada pension plan account. This report will include estimated revenues and payments for each year in the immediately succeeding ten years, as well as other pertinent financial projections each fifth year for a period of not less than 30 years. It also directs that whenever any bill is introduced or presented to the House of Commons to amend this legislation in the future, the chief actuary must undertake an actuarial study of the effects of the proposed changes on any estimates contained in the most recent actuarial report. This information must be placed before parliament so that it can be studied in relation to the proposed amendment.
The periodic scrutiny and the suggestions and advice of a representative advisory committee are very much needed in this type of legislation as it will directly affect almost every Canadian, as a contributor or as a

Canada Pension Plan
beneficiary. The bill provides for the establishment of a 16-member Canada pension plan advisory committee. The committee, which will provide for representation of employees and employers and the self-employed, will meet at least once a year. In giving advice to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, it will be the responsibility of this committee to review and report on the operation of the legislation, the state of the Canada pension plan investment fund and the adequacy of coverage and benefits. Each year a report of the activities of the advisory committee will be included in the annual report of the minister to parliament.
The legislation provides within this nationwide pension plan for a province to legislate and operate comparable pension provisions. This situation applies if a provincial government, within 30 days after this act receives the royal assent, signifies its intention to enact provincial legislation providing a comparable provincial plan beginning at the same time. The province of Quebec has indicated that it proposes to do this.
This choice remains open to the provinces for the years ahead. However, once the federal legislation becomes operative a transfer to a provincial plan is involved, and therefore a notice period is required. The province would have to signify its intention to implement its plan commencing with the third year after the year in which notice was given. The benefits would have to be comparable to those under the federal legislation or any other provincial pension plan. The province would have to assume all obligations and liabilities with respect to benefits accrued under the federal legislation.
It must again be emphasized that in this bill we are dealing with a subject which has a very special status in our constitution. Under section 94A of the British North America Act, which parliament approved in 1951 and this house again approved earlier this year, there is federal jurisdiction for pensions and supplementary benefits but the federal legislation must not interfere with the operation of any present or future provincial legislation.
This unique constitutional position means that we can achieve a comprehensive Canadawide system of pensions only by means of legislative provisions which ensure continuing consultation and co-operation with the provinces. For this reason, the bill provides that amendments of substance will require the consent of two thirds of the provinces having two thirds of the population. Amendments

altering the general level of benefits and contribution rates require a notice period of at least two years.
While future parliaments cannot be committed-they can amend the legislation as they see fit-it is difficult to imagine any future parliament disregarding the requirements of this legislation, because these requirements give meaning to the special nature of the federal and provincial jurisdiction provided for pensions under section 94A.
I should like to thank hon. members for the attention they have shown in listening without interruption to this statement. As I indicated earlier, it is really not possible to anticipate all the questions which may arise in the minds of members regarding the provisions of the bill, but I have tried to deal in the course of my remarks with the salient points. My colleagues the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) will, during the course of the debate go into further detail on some of the other provisions and on the financial and economic implications in general. I propose to place before the house at this time the report of the government actuaries. I regret it is in English only, and I apologize for this to the house; the French copy is not yet ready. I regret too, that the six appendices are not yet attached to it; they are not quite completed but they will be completed in time to be made available to the special committee when it is set up.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will they be handed to the house?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, I will be happy to hand them round to everybody.


Jay Waldo Monteith: But not before second reading is complete.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I do not expect they will be ready before second reading is completed. However, I have the actuarial report, which is complete, and it deals with some of these appendices. Perhaps it might be of assistance to the house if I were to read the titles of the appendices. Hon. members will know what it is I am not at this time producing. They are as follows: (1) The development of population projections; (2) the development of rates of participation in covered employment; (3) the development of average earnings; (4) the development of contributions and age retirement benefits; (5) the development of death and survivor benefits and (6) the development of disability benefits. This information will be available to the members of the committee and to members of the house at the same time.

I hope the bill will, by Wednesday evening of this week, have received approval in principle so that it may be referred to the special committee we have just set up. The committee can then get on with its work of calling expert testimony and hearing representations from many interested groups as it proceeds with a clause by clause examination of Bill No. C-136.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask whether copies of the actuarial report are available for each member?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, they will be available for all. They will now be placed in members' boxes.
By leave, I wish to table two copies of the actuarial report on the Canada pension plan dated November 6, 1964.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the minister have the unanimous consent of the house to table the document referred to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jay Waldo Monteith: One of the
questions I had intended to ask the minister later on in the course of my remarks was: What about the actuaries' report, and who are these actuaries? I have heard the hon. lady mention the chief actuary of the Department of Insurance and I hope she will tell us whether or not this report was drawn up by the chief actuary of the Department of Insurance alone or whether there were outside actuaries, or others, involved. The hon. lady shakes her head-no. So this is completely within the Department of Insurance.
I am shocked at the way this house has been treated in this respect. Last Monday we had the resolution. It was passed on Monday evening, but the bill was not ready. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill)-


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


Jay Waldo Monteith: Only 100 copies in English-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: On a question of privilege, the bill was ready in both English and French and it was only because of the fact that it could not be reprinted in large numbers because it had to have the number of the bill put on it-


Jay Waldo Monteith: For goodness sake, when is the government going to take some responsibility in these things?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The bill was not ready last Tuesday in English and in French for all
Canada Pension Plan
members of the House of Commons. I inquired of the Minister of National Health and Welfare what the circumstances were, and she made an explanation. She said there had been about 100 copies printed. I thought she said at that time they were available in English only. There may have been some French copies; the translation may not have been completed, or sufficient copies printed. But she also said they would not be available to members of the house until Thursday of last week.
Now, several days have passed. One question I had intended to ask the minister was: Where is the actuarial report; would it be presented only to the joint committee when set up? Now I ask the minister this: Why are not the members of the House of Commons taken into her confidence? We should have had this report before the second reading of this bill came up. I think this represents a complete abdication of responsibility. I am referring to the appendices. I made a note of the minister's remarks in the last few moments of her statement. Apparently they are still not complete. I do not know what kind of discharge of responsibility this represents in the opinion of the government, but in my opinion it is most inept.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Sour grapes.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Sour grapes my eye. The hon. member from, wherever you are from- Kootenay East-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I know where I am from.


Jay Waldo Monteith: You do, but nobody else does. All we hear from this member is when he chirps up and interrupts. Get up and talk on the pension plan.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: If I did, I would make more sense than you.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, we have just agreed to set up a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons, of which 24 members are to be from the House of Commons. We are requesting the Senate to consider appointing some members to this special committee. I go back to the joint committee of 1950. That committee, if you recall, sir, did reach unanimity; all parties and members of both the Senate and the House of Commons were unanimous. I do not know whether this was the first time in the history of our parliament, but it was probably about the first time in the memory of a great many of us that actual unanimity was reached in a matter such as this. I can only say that

Canada Pension Plan
I trust when this committee begins its proceedings and sittings it will do its best to reach unanimity. I have to admit that I doubt this. I have had some experience recently in a committee of the House of Commons. I had hoped then for unanimity, because I felt it would have meant so much to Canada as a whole. This was not to be achieved, however.
I would like to ask the minister this question, Mr. Speaker. I believe I asked her the question during the resolution stage. She did not reply then. I know we were anxious to get the motion through a week ago today, and I am not criticizing her for not replying then; but I hope she replies when she closes the debate. I am wondering how long she is going to allow for study of the bill. Let us face it, Mr. Speaker, some members of the House of Commons have only had a copy of the bill since last Thursday, as I understand it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is right.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I certainly think the bill should be available to those interested citizens of Canada, also, so they can examine it in detail. How long is the committee going to be given, or how long are the people of Canada going to be given to study the bill, prepare briefs and present them to the committee? We were in such a big hurry today to authorize the setting up of the committee. When are we going to give the people of Canada an opportunity to study this bill?


John Edward Lloyd: When you send it to the committee.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Halifax (Mr. Lloyd) need not interject, either. He can get up and make his speech, just like the member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne). I was asking a question of the minister, and I think I asked it during the resolution stage. How long will the public of Canada be given to study this bill before the committee forces a deadline on it? How long are they going to be given to prepare briefs? When I asked the minister this question previously, she smiled rather benignly. I asked whether the committee was going to be in operation before Christmas. I ask this question again. Some preliminary work of the committee could be done before Christmas, and surely to goodness the people of Canada are going to be given an opportunity to study this most complex piece of legislation. I do not suppose there has been for a long time any piece of legislation that 
has meant so much, not only to the recipients of pensions, those who are going to benefit under the bill, but to the whole citizenry of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jay Waldo Monteith: All right. I further ask, Mr. Speaker, when the people of Canada are to be given the chance to study this 85-page, 125-sections bill. Are they not to be given this opportunity?


John Edward Lloyd: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has asked whether we are going to give the people of Canada an opportunity to study this bill. The hon. member was in his place today when the committee was established, and surely its function is clear.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what the hon. member for Halifax is talking about. It sounded to me like a program I saw on television last night, which was called "Candid Camera". It was a bunch of gobble-dygook, or whatever it is called. The hon. member's remarks could not have meant any more than that. The minister, in her introduction on second reading, sounded good, I admit; but really it was so technical. I am not blaming her for that; it would have to be technical, on a bill of 125 sections and 85 pages. How could it be other than technical? I would mention in passing that this is a bill of four parts. Part I has divisions A to E; part II has divisions A to G; part III is administration, and part IV amendments to the Old Age Security Act. I am not a lawyer, but I doubt very much whether there is an expert lawyer in Canada today who could have analysed this bill between last Thursday, when it was received by most hon. members, and today. I think this is another illustration of the deplorable handling of house business by the government. I insist that this bill needs a great deal of detailed study.
I am very pleased that the minister is going to be buttressed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson). I see the Minister of National Revenue in the offing. No doubt they are going to make very worthy speeches, one as to how he is going to collect the money and the other as to how it is going to be possible to spend the money. This is the sort of thing they will be speaking about. It will all make a pretty good argument, I am not denying that; and I am really very pleased that the minister should have this assistance. The minister did mention that the



IB, 1964

[Stage Direction]
employees of foreign governments in Canada -she may correct me if I am wrong about this -may be covered if the employer agrees to pay their contributions.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) applauds.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but the hon. member did not realize that we were applauding the appearance in the house of the Creditiste party. It has just arrived.


Jay Waldo Monteith: At last. I am certainly very pleased to join in the welcome.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I don't.


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Speaker, to answer this welcome from the hon. member I would like to say that the Creditiste members were attending about 40 public meetings during the week end, were continuing to organize throughout all the provinces, and were saying-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member has any right to be on his feet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) has the floor.


Jay Waldo Monteith: What they were doing had nothing to do with pensions, unless they are looking for one in some other sphere.
I would, in all seriousness, like to ask the minister another question. I will take an example. If a Canadian citizen were a chauffeur or worked at a foreign embassy in Canada, and the foreign embassy did not choose to enter into an agreement, that person could not be covered, could he? Am I right in my thinking in this regard The minister nods, indicating "yes". I think this is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, but I will not argue the point at the moment.
This will undoubtedly come up during the course of the study by the joint committee. The minister's statement contained reference to baby sitters, snow shovellers, individuals who make curtains, and individuals in other categories. I do not intend to go into this subject, because various categories of eligible workers will undoubtedly be studied by that committee.
One certainly could not hope to digest all of the detail contained in the minister's opening remarks in the time available, but I should like to refer to several specific points. She made two assumptions about rates, but she would not accept the responsibility for
Canada Pension Plan
either. These were actuarial assumptions. Sooner or later the minister is going to have to accept some responsibility in this regard. She pointed out that the thinking of one group was such and such, while the thinking of another group was different, and she did not appear to know exactly where she herself stood. In my humble estimation she is going to have to accept responsibility in this regard and make some declaration.
I was amazed by her suggestion concerning the thinking of some people that 5 per cent of our labour force being unemployed is not a bad situation, whereas the thinking of another group was that 4 per cent of the labour force being unemployed was not too bad. I am wondering what the minister herself thinks in this regard. In this connection I recall the considerable amount of conjecture expressed by the Minister of Finance in his book.
Again, Mr. Speaker, the minister has manifested a certain amount of what I should call waffling. She has stated that some economists have said that interest rates will go up, whereas others feel interest rates will go down. It certainly appears to me that she was waffling, in that she did not declare her position or thinking in this regard.
One other comment by the minister in her opening remarks I found intriguing. I hope she will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought she was referring to the members of this house. She did say that the lifetime earnings of members of parliament were going to be averaged out. I should like at this time to ask the minister how she thinks this averaging out process is going to be worked out. I hope she will answer that question in due course. Is the Department of National Health and Welfare going to have access to the records of the Department of National Revenue? These records have been considered somewhat sacrosanct in the past, and I do not think departments should collaborate for the purpose of exchanging this kind of information. I am not complaining seriously at the moment in this regard, but I should like the minister to tell us whether these lifetime earnings are to be averaged out on the basis of that kind of exchange of information.
The minister made one other remark which struck me as facetious. Surely she was not being serious when she suggested that many of us could hardly wait until we reached the age of 65 to retire. I look forward with happiness to every year before I reach age 65, as I am not in a hurry to attain that precarious age. Perhaps one could sense a slight

Canada Pension Plan
Innuendo in her remark, and I admit that the minister is much younger than I, but is she looking forward to the time I reach 65 and retire?
Last Tuesday I asked her whether the bill, a copy of which was apparently available to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), was to be made available to other members of the house. Within 20 minutes of the time I asked that question two copies were made available, so the question was worth while. Having studied this bill since it has been available, I have concluded that it has taken a great many months to prepare. One need only examine it to see how intricate and complex it is. Perhaps one could suggest that it has been in preparation almost since April 8, 1963. There have been many revisions, and this bill is the final draft.
In spite of the fact that there may be agreement between house leaders as to the length of debate at this stage, I should like to complain vociferously, as an individual member, about that limitation on the time we have to study this very complex bill. I do not believe the greatest legal mind in Canada could come up with answers, within such a limited period of time, to the many apparent questions arising from a consideration of this bill. I hasten to add, Mr. Speaker, that we are not going to oppose second reading. That has been our position in respect of a Canada pension plan throughout the various phases of every presentation of the government's pension scheme. We favour a Canada pension plan.
There are one or two general questions I should like to ask the minister. A week ago today, when the resolution was before the house, I asked the hon. lady several questions and I do not criticize her for not replying to them on that occasion. At that time we had reached the end of our evening's work and we allowed the resolution stage to pass. I do hope the hon. lady will see fit to give us at least some of the answers to those questions. During her earlier remarks she said she would attempt to answer some of the questions, but that she may not be able to answer them all. I can understand that situation because the bill is to be referred to a joint committee immediately following second reading, or as soon thereafter as the joint committee has been established. We as a committee of the whole will be studying the bill when it comes back from the joint committee, so at that time we will

have the hon. lady with her officials in front of her to answer questions in detail.
I am sure hon. members who speak on this subject during the next two or three days will refrain from asking unnecessarily detailed questions, but rather will confine their questions in depth to the pertinent realities of the plan. We will, however, want to know about some of the things the minister as yet has not explained. It may be that she will be in a position to give some detail, but at least for my part I will not expect her to give this detail, unless she does so following consultation with her officials during adjournments between sittings. That is the position I intend to take, but perhaps other members will feel differently.
During the resolution stage I asked the minister whether she had given any consideration to possible priority requirements recommended by the Hall health commission. What is she going to do about the report and recommendations of that commission? Are those recommendations to be left in abeyance or forgotten? I should like to receive a reply to that question.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I have a general question I should like the minister to answer. Has there been any indication of how many provinces are going to join with the federal government in the Canada pension plan or how many are going to operate their own plans? The minister mentioned today that Quebec is going to proceed on its own, and I am not quarrelling with that. The legislation provides for it. But is this the only province which, according to the minister, has indicated it is going to do this? Are other provinces going to do the same thing? Has there been any indication as to the number of provinces that are actually joining in the Canada pension plan with federal administration only? I should like to know about Ontario. Has there been any indication yet? Surely the minister can give us some enlightenment on this matter.
There is another matter about which old age security recipients in Canada are going to be very disturbed. It is obvious that when the minister spoke at the resolution stage she intended to build up great hopes for the elder citizens of Canada. These hopes have proved to be completely unfounded. She mentioned at that time that all future old age security pensions would be pegged to the cost of living index and would increase automatically if living costs increased. The minister said she hoped that this would not only develop a sense of security among our older citizens but

would protect the real value of the pension dollar for Canada's million-odd pensioners.
I cannot help but say that, deliberately or otherwise, Mr. Speaker, this was a complete distortion of the real facts. It sounded noble until some of us received copies of the bill on Tuesday, and other members on Thursday. The bill provides that the Canada pension act shall come into force on January 1, 1966 and that payments under the act will commence on January 1, 1967. The shocking provision so far as present old age pensioners are concerned is that payments based on the cost of living index will not be made until January 1, 1968. They will then be based on experience in the year 1967 only and the increase will not be less than 1 per cent or more than 2 per cent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It might be zero.


Jay Waldo Monteith: As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says, it might well be zero. What this means in effect is that old age pensioners cannot expect any increases until January 1, 1968. They might then receive an increase of 75 cents a month if the cost of living index has gone up by 1 per cent in the year 1967. If the cost of living has increased more than 1 per cent old age pensioners can expect an increase of up to $1.50 per month. If the cost of living does not increase during the year 1967 then, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, the old age pensioners will not receive an increase. This is a terrible blow to the old age pensioners, Mr. Speaker. These older people have to wait three years and possibly they will then receive an increase of 75 cents a month.
I said earlier that it would be impossible for the greatest legal mind in the world to digest this bill since last Thursday. I admit I have had it since last Tuesday afternoon. I have tried to peruse the bill in the meantime but it has been impossible to digest it. It is an affront to parliament to bring it forward when we have not had an opportunity to study it. However, I would go so far as to say that the officials of the department deserve a great deal of credit. I refer not only to the officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare but also to the officials of finance, justice and maybe national revenue because the bill is so comprehensive.
So far as references and cross-references are concerned, I do not know whether the idea came from the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson), but as he well knows the Income Tax Act is the most complicated
Canada Pension Plan
piece of legislation on the statute books of Canada today. He made his living out of it, and so did I for a while. But I must say that one would have to sit down for weeks in order to look into the cross-references having to do with this particular legislation. I am not fooling when I say that.
The minister did clear up one matter for me earlier by nodding her head in agreement that the only actuaries who have worked on the actuarial report are government actuaries. Am I correct in that?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes.


Jay Waldo Monteith: And the chief actuary of the Department of Insurance is accepting all responsibility for the figures which will be found in the actuarial report?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No responsibility?


Jay Waldo Monteith: All responsibility.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is fine. I accept that. In her remarks the minister referred to the fact that any province, within one month after the act is assented to, may signify its intention to operate its own plan. The minister referred to this in her remarks and I have a question for her. It may be I am at fault here because there were so many details in her statement that I could not quite follow them all and get them all down in writing. However, I believe she did say that a province can opt out at any time after three years if notice is given in writing. Am I correct in that?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am wondering why the period of three years was chosen. There may be very good reasons. I should like to refer to subclause 2 of clause 4 where I find these words:
Subject to subsection 3, all of the provisions of this act to
(a) employment by Her Majesty in right of Canada or by an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada in a province providing a comprehensive pension plan.
Perhaps the minister would tell me just how employees of the C.B.C. and the C.N.R. who reside in Quebec will be affected by the plan. I am also interested in clause 6 (1) (i) which reads as follows:
6.	(1) Pensionable employment is-
(i) employment by Her Majesty in right of a province or by an agent of Her Majesty in right of a province.

Canada Pension Plan
Does this mean provincial employees or just what does it mean? There are so many questions that arise but I am not going to pursue them today.
I should like to impress upon the people of Canada, Mr. Speaker, as I did at the resolution stage, that there is a great discrepancy between people who are hired by somebody and the self-employed person. I gather that we, as members of parliament, will have a deduction made of 1.8 per cent of our pay up to $5,000. Is this correct? The minister nods, yes. Some person who is running a corner grocery store is going to have to pay 3.6 per cent of his earnings. The farmer is going to have to do the same. I do not believe this provision is going to be acceptable to many of the self-employed people in Canada. In other words, I believe one might say that the self-employed are going to pay exactly 100 per cent more towards a pension than those who are employed at the present time.
In so far as reciprocal agreements with other countries are concerned, I am not against them. I think this is a wise provision. I ask again, how many provinces have indicated a desire to enter into the scheme? I should like to ask one more question. If a province requests the federal government to enter into a reciprocal agreement with another country, must the federal government do so? I will put it this way. The minister, thus far, has only mentioned the province of Quebec so I will refer to Quebec. If the province of Quebec asks the minister to enter into a reciprocal arrangement with Italy or any country in South America, must the federal government enter into such a reciprocal arrangement? I ask her that question.
There are other items, Mr. Speaker, about which I am not going to comment in detail this afternoon. We want to get this bill into committee, and I know there are many other speakers to be heard. There are one or two things under part IV upon which I should like to comment. I notice the minister has retained one feature, and I must admit I am probably responsible for this to some degree. I notice that clause 120 of part IV is being amended, but this part is being retained:
Subject to the provisions of this act and the regulations,
(a) a monthly flat rate pension may be paid to every person who has attained 70 years of age and has applied to receive such a pension,-
Then, we go down to paragraph (d):
(d) has resided in Canada for at least one year immediately preceding the day on which his application is approved.

I notice this provision is being retained. I know also from my experience in the post the hon. lady now holds that great hardship is caused in certain cases. Frankly, I do not know the answer, but if a wife of lesser age may be living with a husband in California or in a warmer climate in the south, this provision means she must come back to Canada to reside for at least a year before she attains the age of 70 to be eligible to receive her pension. I am only pointing this out in the hope that possibly in the last year and a half or so, additional experience has been gained which would permit some cure of this inequity which often develops.
There is one provision upon which I must congratulate the minister. I refer to clause 122 of the bill. It is very rarely that I ever congratulate a minister of the government because frankly, I do not believe they deserve it too often. This particular provision indicates that where a person has applied for old age security and it is found subsequently he is older than was thought, the date of eligibility for the pension may be made retroactive one year. I have known this to happen during my tenure of office, and I feel this is a good move. In fact, I was planning such action myself when circumstances suggested otherwise. I do believe this is a good move in the right direction. When a person reaches this age, quite often the family Bible has been lost and the person might not be as mentally alert as previously. I have known four people in one town to have this happen to them within the course of a few months. These four people all applied for their pension when they were actually 71, but it was impossible to do anything for them. Now it is going to be possible to make the pension retroactive one year.
I am going to close my remarks by saying that the government has shown complete ineptitude in handling this whole question of pensions. At last, at long last, we have reached the second reading stage of the Canada pension plan bill. We want to get on with the job, and we want the government to get on with the job.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) would hardly expect me to share completely her enthusiasm for this bill, as though it were the last word in pension legislation. I must say also that I cannot join in the ranting and complaining that we have had from the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith).



[Stage Direction]
He seemed to spend most of his time complaining that we should not proceed with this complicated bill today because we have not had time to study it. I do not claim to be as smart as the imaginary lawyer to whom he referred, but I would point out that we had a bill very much like this, Bill No. C-75, which was given first reading and presented to us on March 17. This Bill No. C-136 is based very largely on that bill. There are very few changes in the retirement benefits set out in the bill. Bill No. C-136, in the main, adds the widows, disability and survivor benefits.
I point out also that since August 10 we have had a white paper that explains the provisions of this bill. All told, I do not believe we have any complaint at being asked to proceed with it today, even if some members did not get their copies of the bill until last Thursday. Personally, I found no difficulty on Monday night, just out of my own interest, in ascertaining that there were copies of the bill, after it had been tabled, and if any member really wanted one he could get it quite easily. My concern, Mr. Speaker-
Gordon Minto Churchill: That is not the way to run a government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -is not so much with the fact that the government has brought on second reading, but is rather with the long delay we have had in connection with the Canada pension plan since this government first came into office, and the fact that we might yet fail to get it on the statute books at this session. I hope that is not the case but I express that fear as a way of indicating my desire that this house and the government take the steps that are necessary to complete this legislation at this session.
I believe we are all satisfied that a bill of such complexity is better studied in committee. Therefore it is not inappropriate that there has been general agreement among the parties that the debate on second reading be limited to three days. I think it is well understood also that when the bill goes to a special joint committee that committee will be granted all the time it wishes to examine and discuss it. However, I would like to suggest to the government that if the time taken by the special committee is such that we get beyond Christmas, or beyond some point at which the business of the house requires the house to continue in session, technically speaking the house be continued in session, even if it is given some kind of recess, so that the special joint committee can make its
Canada Pension Plan
report back after that recess to a resumed portion of this same session.
I am sure hon. members realize that if the house is prorogued while this matter is being discussed by the joint committee that would kill the bill for the session, and we would have to start all over again at the next session of the house. I remind the minister of the commitment made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) on July 6 when he was house leader, that the government would take all the steps necessary to complete the legislative process with respect to this bill at this session. I trust that commitment will be kept.
On several occasions we have said that we welcome this bill and we have indicated the aspects of it that are good. Therefore it is hardly necessary to spend any time repeating that welcome or to go into greater detail with respect to the value of this legislation. However, I would like to say that we feel security for our people in their older years, security for our people on the advent of widowhood or disability, ox on the occasion of children being orphaned, is one of the most important marks of a decent civilization.
We think the time has come to make an adequate pension plan an integral part of our economy. As I have already said to the minister, we do not regard this bill as the last word in this kind of legislation but it is certainly a forward step. We have moved from the first positions that we took in this field when we provided pensions that merely kept starving people alive. We have moved into universality with respect to pensions. We have moved into a fairly broad range of pensions, and now we are considering the proposition that one of the things that should be an integral part of our economy is a plan whereby pensions as of right are available upon retirement, are available to persons who are disabled, are available to persons who become widows, or in certain instances widowers, and are available to orphans.
A great deal has yet to be done to raise the levels provided by this bill and make them really adequate, but this bill starts in that direction and for that reason we are glad that at last we have it. Nevertheless I wish to say again that we feel this legislation is too modest in its beginnings.
I know there are those in the house who think we should be grateful for the extent to which the bill goes, but I suggest that this concept of starting things in a modest way is one that has been with us far too long. I may have occasion to quote this

Canada Pension Plan
sentence again with respect to something else, but I would now like to quote what the minister said in reply to the point of privilege I raised last Tuesday when I complained about the cost of living bonus of 75 cents that is to be paid in 1968. As recorded at page 9938 of Hansard for that day the minister said:
I would ask my hon. friend and all members of the house to bear in mind that in the usual spirit of Canadian fiscal responsibility we are beginning this experiment in a relatively modest manner.
That was well put, Mr. Speaker. That is the way we have begun most of our social security programs in Canada. We began them in the usual spirit of Canadian fiscal responsibility, in a relatively modest manner.
We know there are certain things that happen which make it possible for huge sums of money to be made available overnight, and so we feel that in the whole area of social security the time has gone for talking about modest beginnings. The time has come to take the kind of steps that will let our economy provide the full measure of security that it can for all our people.
Another comment I would like to make about this bill is that the relations between the federal government and the provinces which are spelled out in it, seem to be too much of a one way street. I am thinking in particular of the provision whereby any province which informs the federal government within 30 days after royal assent to this bill that it has a plan of its own, is automatically out. This is a provision which was in Bill C-75, or at least there was language to that effect, and we know this covers the case of Quebec. But in addition to that there is a new provision in this bill which makes it possible for other provinces in the future to decide to opt out of the Canada pension plan. In fact the bill sets out the steps that can be taken by certain other provinces to opt out, but I do not see anywhere in the bill the street that runs the other way.
There does not seem to be any way in which Quebec, or some other province, having opted out of the plan can later come back in, and this is a one way street arrangement in federal-provincial arrangements which is not good.
I also believe that the arrangements as to whether an employee belongs to a province or to the federal government for purposes of this legislation are loaded in favour of the provinces. Again this is a one way street. I recognize what the minister said about legis-

lation of this kind succeeding only if there is co-operation between the federal and the provincial governments, but I suggest that cooperation and mutual arrangements work best on a two way rather than a one way street.
As I stated in committee on the resolution a week ago, I believe the government will have to do a great deal more in the field of public relations with respect to this legislation. I suppose we have to forgive the government for its lack of action in this respect, or understand why it has not taken adequate action up to this point. The government no doubt takes the view that it cannot use public money to publicize something which has not yet become law. But in the meantime many misunderstandings have arisen, particularly as to the relationship between this plan and private plans-the kind of misunderstanding which has led organizations such as the teachers to think this is something they must oppose. There is the misunderstanding created in the minds of employees of some large corporations because the notion has gone abroad that somehow or other the federal government intends to take over existing schemes as a result of which retirement conditions will be less favourable than they are now.
Once this legislation has been passed, however, it becomes the law of the land. Then I think the time will have come for a great deal to be done by the government to help the Canadian people realize what it really involves; the government will be free to help them realize its benefits and at the same time to help them realize its real shortcomings so that the people can work together to have those shortcomings remedied.
I have commented previously on the funding aspect of this legislation and one or two of my colleagues may have something more to say on this aspect of the subject than I intend to say now. But I wish to repeat what I said last Monday: It strikes me that this plan is neither a funded plan nor a pay as you go plan; it is in between the two. But it is a little closer to being a funded plan than it is to being a pay as you go plan, and to the extent it is in that direction I do not like it. The reason is simple. We are using a pension plan based on the need and desire of people for pensions, and the fact that they have to pay for them, as a means of taxing people in the lower income groups for the building up of investment and development funds. We in this party believe there should be funds available for investment and development. We wanted to see and have a

chance to vote for the Canada development corporation which the government was talking about a year or so ago, but it seems to have been forgotten since then. But we believe funds for these purposes should be obtained on a voluntary basis and on the basis of ability to pay; they should not be built up by taxing people in the lower income brackets. I also believe that when we are building up a fund for investment in the development of the country on the basis of the peoples' savings there should be much greater control of such a fund from the centre than is envisaged in this present plan under which, as I understand it, control and direction of investment is given to the provinces in proportion to the amount of contribution made in each of the provinces.
I trust I have made it clear that though the plan itself is one which we welcome- indeed, it is similar to the plan we have been advocating in this party for a long time- there are many shortcomings attached to it and we hope these can be eliminated while the bill is in committee, or if not as the years come and go.
Thus far I have been talking mainly about that part of the bill which concerns the Canada pension plan proper. I now wish to say a few words about that part of the bill which deals with a related subject, but which in effect amends the Old Age Security Act. We welcome some of the proposed amendments to the Old Age Security Act which are contained in this part of the bill. We suggest, however, that if this is a time when the Old Age Security Act is being opened up there are many other changes which ought to be made. For example at the present time-and the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) has referred to this-no matter how many years of residence a person may have here he cannot qualify for the pension unless he has spent the last full year before going on the pension in Canada. I understand the reason for putting this requirement into the act but I suggest it has produced some strange anomalies. We now have a situation where some people can live in this country for ten or 15 years, reach the age of 70 and live on the old age security pension in full for the rest of their lives. Other people who may have lived here for 30, 40 or 50 years, but who have had to leave for health or family reasons before the age of 70, find it difficult or financially impossible to come back and spend a year here. So they are not able to qualify for the pension. I have records of a number of such cases in my files upstairs,
Canada Pension Plan
letters from the United Kingdom or the United States where people are waiting hopefully for a message to the effect that there has been a change in this legislation of advantage to them. Such a change does not appear in the bill now before us but I hope we can bring about an alteration of this kind while the bill is under examination in committee. I remind the minister that either she or the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) told us that these changes which we now see in the Old Age Security Act were made at the instance of the federal government without consultation with the provinces. Therefore, although there might be some difficulty about getting changes in the Canada pension plan part of this bill because of agreements, almost treaties, arrived at with the provinces, we can surely get changes in the old age security part of this measure.
But the part of the bill which concerns or annoys me most in relation to the Old Age Security Act is the part about which I rose on a question of privilege on Tuesday of last week, namely this cruel hoax of telling our old age pensioners that things are going to be fixed up for them, their pension dollar protected, and so on, because pensions are to be pegged to the cost of living index. First, may I say to the minister that it is inaccurate to use the word "pegged", giving the impression that the pension will go up to the same extent that the cost of living index rises, because she knows that under the provisions of the legislation the pension cannot increase by more than 2 per cent in any one year. Therefore if we had a situation-and it could quite conceivably occur-where the cost of living index rose by 3 percentage points in each of ten years, at the end of ten years the cost of living index would have gone up by 30 percentage points but the old age security pension would have gone up by only 20 per cent.
But apart from this-and my colleagues in my party know this is something I have been talking about for many years-I complain about this device because I think it is a snare and a delusion to tell old age pensioners that things are fixed up for them once their pensions are tied to the cost of living index. The cost of living index is not the only element in our economic life; it is not the only element which has a part to play in the standard of living of our people. More important elements are the gross national product, the level of productivity and, to use language out of the Canada pension plan itself, the earnings index. I congratulate the minister and the

Canada Pension Plan
government on what they have done in devising the formula on the basis of which the retirement pension is worked out. The scheme, a complicated one, but one not beyond comprehension, is a formula whereby the rate of pension at which a person will retire on reaching 65, or between 65 and 70, is related not to the actual number of dollars he was getting at that point but to his earnings throughout his working lifetime, adjusted according to the changes which have taken place in the earnings index. That is good.
It recognizes that there is something else besides a rise in the cost of living, and that this something else is better measured by changes in the earnings levels than it is by changes in the cost of living index. I think there are other factors, the general productivity and the gross national product of the country. But at any rate the government has accepted the proposition that in arriving at a rate of pension up to or at the point of retirement something else than the cost of living index is taken into consideration. However, once a person goes on pension, whether it is the Canada pension plan amount of $104.17 a month, to use the initial maximum figure, or the $75 under old age security, once that point has been reached the government says, "From here on you senior citizens, you great Canadians, the only adjustment you are going to get in either of these pensions is based upon the cost of living index. The gross national product may go up, earnings may go up, the standard of living in Canada may go up, we may have a society infinitely more affluent in ten or 20 years time than was the case when you retired, but the only basis on which there is to be any change in your Canada pension plan retirement benefit, or any guaranteed change in your old age security benefit, is on the basis of a rise in the cost of living index."
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the rise in the cost of living index must be compensated for when we ask for pension increases. It has to cover that, but that is not the only item. What I do not like about tying the old age security pension to the cost of living index is that it ties it to only one element and denies to our senior citizens the other benefits of a society that is growing more affluent and is producing more wealth. These are benefits in which our senior citizens should have the opportunity to share. I recognize what the minister said the other day, and one of the reasons I am glad I raised my question of privilege was that it got one admission out of her that had been very difficult to get; that is, that the $75 figure

is not necessarily fixed for all time. In all previous discussions on this matter I had not been able to get a word out of her, but when I complained about this increase of only 75 cents in 1968 the other day she did say:
Nor Is anything in this bill intended to exclude any future action by any parliament with respect to that base.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is good to know. One of the Liberal members the other day said it is fine to get this cost of living index change; it means from here on there will be no more politicking about old age pensions and the increase will be automatic. If it is left to the automatic increase it will take ten or 15 years to get a few dollars increase. It will be only because of the genuine political interest in the well being of the Canadian people that we will get an increase in that $75 a month. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the government should even now realize that there have been increases in the cost of living since the $75 was set, increases in the wage levels and general productivity, and it should set for parliament as a goal that the flat rate of pension should be raised to $100 a month by the time we reach our 100th birthday in 1967. I submit that it would be a mark of good faith on the part of the government toward our old age security pensioners if they were to set out a schedule of $5 increases every few months which would bring it up to that figure of $100 a month by 1967. If we do not do this, we are really leaving them out of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I want this principle of still being concerned about the people who are retired to extend not only to the old age security pension but also to the Canada pension plan retirement benefit; I want it to extend to superannuated civil servants, to Canadian National employees and all people on pensions. I think one of the tragedies of the viewpoint the government has taken with respect to pensions is that it does pretty well up to a point, it keeps improving the various pension plans and the public service superannuation plan; but it says to people once they get on pension, "Well, you are off our hands now". Up to this point that has been absolute-there has been nothing more. Once this bill gets through there will be a slight improvement; we will get the benefit of the increase in the cost of living index. But this is the only benefit our pensioners will receive, and it is very small. That is only one element in the standard of living of our people. We do not deny to members of a family the increased benefits that the family can enjoy; and I submit we should

be taking the same attitude toward our senior citizens, to those who are retired, and they should get the full benefit of the increase in productivity and the general increase in wages and earnings and all the other things that go to improve our standard of living.
I see that it is almost six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and I am not going to take my full 40 minutes; that would mean rising to speak for only a few minutes after eight o'clock tonight. I hope I have made the point that we welcome this legislation. We regret that it has taken so long to even get this far. We hope that once it gets to the committee there will be abundant opportunity to examine and study it. We think that the reports of the actuaries will have to be studied in full and all these 125 clauses will have to be examined and questioned. I hope, also, that the sittings of the committee will do a good public relations job for this legislation. As a matter of fact, I hope there is something to the rumour that the house may recess for a period while that committee is sitting and dealing with this bill, so that it can be the main thing that is happening in parliament. As I say, I hope that if the rest of the business of the house is more or less completed, the house will not be prorogued but that instead there will be a recess so that the committee can deal with the bill and come back to the house with it, in order that we may get it through before the end of this session.
There is just one comment I wanted to make on an unrelated matter, but it is something to which the minister referred. I suppose we non-lawyers, every time we get into a legal matter, point out that we are not lawyers. I do not know whether that strengthens our case or weakens it.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Even the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill).


Stanley Howard Knowles: However, Mr. Speaker, I really am puzzled about the provision in the bill that virtually says the act cannot be amended in certain respects in the future unless such amendment is assented to by two thirds of the included provinces representing two thirds of the population of those provinces. Mr. Speaker, this is not the constitution of Canada; this is just an act, a statute passed in this 1964 session of parliament. Nothing could prevent the next session of parliament from amending this statute. Nothing could prevent any future parliament from amending this statute. This is the kind of language that I would think a law student who had not got very far would write into a bill. As a statement of intention on the part of the government, perhaps I can understand 20220-641
Canada Pension Plan
it; but it seems to me that in legal terms it does not stand up at all. If this government is giving a commitment to the provinces that it will not do anything like that, that is something for the government to do by way of commitment to the provinces and to stand or fall on it; but to ask parliament to tie itself in an annual statute to something that is constitutional in character is, I suggest, bordering on the ridiculous. However, Mr. Speaker, rather than rising at eight o'clock in order to conclude my remarks, I would say in conclusion now that we welcome the bill; we are pleased with the things in it that are good, but we hope that the weaknesses we have pointed out will be improved before the bill is finally passed at this session.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty pursuant to provisional standing order 39A to inform the house that the question to be raised at ten o'clock this evening is as follows: The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher); the Senate, inquiry as to reform measures proposed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Miss LaMarsh for the second reading of 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.
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of my party I should like to say a few words about Bill C-136 now before us.
As has been stated by a number of members of this house about both Bills C-136 and C-75, the predecessor of this bill, it is a very long and complex bill which requires a great deal of study and explanation before it is completely understood by all members of this house. I should like to say at the outset that I do not intend to get caught in the trap in which the hon. member for Perth (Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Canada Pension Plan
Monteith) found himself. I might say that was a trap of his own making, because he admitted that he did not understand or comprehend this bill and then proceeded vigorously to criticize what he did not understand.


Jay Waldo Monteith: So you understand it all?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if the members of this house were completely familiar with all the ramifications which may develop during the operation of the provisions of this bill, there would be no apparent reason for sending it to a joint committee for study. I do not pretend to understand all of the sections of the bill, nor do I pretend to comprehend fully how all the provisions of the bill are going to be handled in its practical application. Perhaps I should go further than that and state that I doubt whether the minister and her advisers have fully anticipated all of the problems with which they will be faced in the application of the 125 sections of this bill.
In spite of the intended insult, if I may call it that, on the part of the hon. member for Perth, I think this bill is being sent to a joint committee for further study because members cannot be expected independently to study it and understand all of the implications of it, nor answer all the questions which are apparent to one who reads the bill.
There are some questions, quite apart from the provisions of this bill, which should be answered by the minister, particularly when we are being asked to accept the principles of a Canada pension plan. These questions do not necessarily arise from the contents of any section of the bill now before us for consideration, although I believe they are very germane to the successful operation of the pension plan when it comes into being.
One question which has been asked on many occasions by a number of members, and we have yet to have an answer, relates to the number of provinces which have indicated to the minister a willingness to participate. We know for example that under the provisions of certain sections of this bill the province of Ontario can choose not to participate, by opting out within 30 days from the date of its proclamation. That being the case, 12 million people, representing the populations of Quebec and Ontario, of the 19 million people in this country, would not be partaking in the plan. The explanation the minister has given this afternoon, to the effect that provinces can opt out only after positively stating an intention to set up a plan similar in operation with reciprocal arrangements, is not a sufficient explanation, because with two thirds

of our population not participating surely this cannot be referred to as a pension plan national in scope. I am not sure that the federal government should be involved at all in a pension plan under those circumstances, with this large part of our population not included.
One other question which has been asked repeatedly, particularly during the resolution stage, and at other times when other bills preceding Bill C-136 were before us, had to do with whether any arrangements had been made for the reconciliation of this plan with other pension plans, particularly of public service organizations, and administered by the government. We are led to believe, by certain articles appearing in various newspapers, that there are some 11,000 private pension plans in existence in Canada. Perhaps some of them cannot or should not be reconciled with this plan. Some of those plans may have been in existence for a long period of time and set up in such a way that the differences are so great it would be at least difficult if not impossible to reconcile them with this plan. I believe the minister will have to face this situation fairly soon and indicate what position will be adopted by the federal government when some of the long established private pension plans are adjusted in such a way as to take into consideration the provisions of the proposed Canada pension plan.
What will be the attitude of the government about these adjustments, particularly if and when it is decided by the administrators of a long established pension plan, in cooperation with the employees covered to reduce the contributions and perhaps the benefits to the extent of the amounts collected and the benefits inherent to this Canada pension plan? It will indeed be a difficult and complex matter to decide what will be fair reductions in potential benefits, at reduced costs.
This situation is not entirely hypothetical, because I have learned from reliable sources that some of the larger companies in Canada are giving serious consideration to this very thing.
So I think we should at least have some indication whether the minister and her officials have considered what their attitude is going to be.
But what is even more important is the question of public service pension plans. For a number of years the province of Alberta has administered a civil service pension plan for the civil servants of Alberta, and I think the same situation exists in every other prov-

ince across Canada. Whether or not these plans can be reconciled is one thing, but just recently the province of Alberta has undertaken an extension of this type of administration to cover other public service pension schemes involving such people as municipal employees, hospital employees and a number of other categories, all falling within the ambit of what can be called public service. If there is no provision in the Canada pension plan for reconciling these public service pension plans so that the administration can be carried out by the same organization, and if the provinces are going to be required to continue to operate and administer pension plans covering quite a large number of people, when you take into account the civil servants and all other public service employees, then there is some opinion to the effect that, if they are going to have to be in the pension administration business, in any event they might as well set up their own plan and expand it to include all those people who would normally come under the Canada pension plan.
I do not think this is a problem that cannot be solved. I do not think it is an insurmountable difficulty; but in spite of the discourse of the minister this afternoon there has been complete silence up to this hour with regard to what the federal government and the Department of National Health and Welfare are willing to do to take into account these very serious matters. So I think that, without getting into the 125 sections of the bill, there should be some kind of explanation from the minister with regard to this matter.
There is another question I should like to ask the minister, since she is apparently so reluctant to tell us how many provinces have indicated they are willing to participate in the plan. Have some of the provinces asked for explanations along the lines I have been discussing but which have not been given by the minister? In other words, have queries come forward from the province of Ontario and the province of Alberta that have not been satisfactorily answered by the minister and her officials? Are the provinces asking questions that the minister and her officials are unable to answer? It seems to me one can reach no other conclusion but that the provinces are asking for explanations and details with regard to the application of this plan which the department is apparently not prepared to give, at least at this stage. I think we have reached the point in processing this bill through the House of Commons where we deserve to be given the answers now.
We are pleased to hear that the administration of the plan may not be as expensive as 20220-G41J
Canada Pension Plan
it might have been if it had involved the setting up of a completely new department of pensions. From the minister's statement today we understand that collections under the pension plan will probably be made through the Department of National Revenue and that payments or disbursements will probably be made through the Department of National Health and Welfare by utilizing the same channels now being used for the distribution of old age security cheques, family allowances, youth allowances and so on. It seems to me there is a great deal of machinery set up in both of these departments, on the one side for collections and on the other side for disbursements, that could be satisfactorily used at substantially less cost than would be involved in setting up a completely new and separate collection and payment agency.
I might also say we are very interested in the amount that it is anticipated will be built up in the fund, particularly in the first ten years of the plan. We would like to know what the anticipated amount of money will be that will be available to the provinces for investment and other purposes. We are told that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) will be making contributions to this debate later. Perhaps they intend to deal with this matter, as well as giving us an outline of the anticipated effect on the whole economy. I hope there will be considerably more explanation as to what is going to be done with this fund. There has been speculation in the newspapers from time to time by a variety of people that a fund of several billion dollars will be built up in the initial stages of the plan, but so far I do not believe we have had any straightforward statement by any minister in the government as to what the anticipated size of the fund will be and how much will be available to the various provinces for investment purposes.
Generally speaking we in this party are prepared to have the bill referred now to the special joint committee. We think that is the place where we can go into some of the additional details we have been requesting. Therefore we are satisfied to let the bill go now to the committee.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we often have pieces of legislation which, though good in themselves, are somewhat less so in their application.
The people in charge have managed to come out with a rather thick volume for this

Canada Pension Plan
new Canada pension plan. I think the governments, be it the present one or its predecessors, would gain by calling upon popularizes of legal documents, that is, specialists who could write the legislation we have to pass in words everybody could understand. Do not forget that, when passed, the bill will have to be applied by employees of the Department of National Health and Welfare or the Department of National Revenue, who will not have the legal training required to interpret its provisions correctly, which will result in complications both for the staff of those departments and for the people who, some day, should benefit from the measure.
Therefore, what is missing-and I am speaking not only about the bill which is now before us, but about every bill which is passed by this house-is popularizers of texts who will offer to the understanding of all a simple and easily accessible draft which, subsequently, will not give rise to a misinterpretation of the law.
Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to speak at length on this bill because it is another federal act which will not affect Quebec. And it is not the first one either, because during this session we have passed many bills which will concern nine provinces, but not Quebec. We only have to look at legislation passed this year to see that this has happened in several other cases.
In most cases, the bills passed will not apply to the province of Quebec. For instance the legislation concerning student loans will not apply to the province of Quebec; the legislation concerning the Canada pension plan will apply in nine provinces, but not in the province of Quebec; the legislation concerning the $10 allowance to children 16 to 17 years of age applies to nine provinces but will not apply to the province of Quebec.
In the final analysis, during this session we will only have passed legislation concerning nine provinces, and I was forgetting the Crop Insurance Act which does not apply to the province of Quebec.
This will be a session where members of parliament representing ten provinces will have passed legislation applying to nine provinces only.
Therefore, why not sanction officially facts which are becoming increasingly numerous by radical changes in our constitution? That is a question which arises.
I think we are following the British mentality, that is we are proceeding by way of precedents. We are passing legislation which is not applicable to the province of Quebec,

and by always proceeding by way of precedents and jurisprudence, we finally decide that it is best for everybody and the facts are sanctioned by precedents.
The facts are there. The Ottawa government legislates for nine provinces in some fields and it takes 20 years to set up a jurisprudence around these cases which are sanctioned at a given time. But the situation being as it is in the province of Quebec, it is impossible to wait 15 or 20 years, because the kettle is boiling over.
The present legislation, especially the measure introduced today, should serve as an example to hasten the sanction of facts, namely that the Ottawa parliament exists for nine provinces, but not for ours. Let the tenth province, Quebec, organize its own programs and act on its own. It is on that one condition that in many areas an understanding will be possible which will strengthen the structure of an altogether changed confederation.
Our intention is not to delay the debate, of course. This legislation does not apply to our province but as we want to co-operate with the other provinces, we intend to see to it that it is passed as soon as possible, since the other provinces want it. We do not want to stretch out such a debate. On the contrary, we want to prove that we are ready to co-operate with the other provinces in order to enable them to take advantage of this pension plan as soon as possible.
But one thing is certain; this pension plan constitutes a new tax for Canadians on whom the tax burden weighs so heavily already. It will be a tax which will serve to accumulate funds, and finally, when the time comes to receive a pension under this plan, it will be our children who will pay for the amounts we will receive in 25, 30 or 35 years.
However, there are two points I would like to deal with for a few minutes.
One of them, which may be of interest to the province of Quebec, is that there are at this time, pension plans in operation in various plants and industries. The contributions paid those trade unions by their members have to a great extent been transferred to international unions. The amounts thus contributed to international unions under those pension plans are now largely in the United States. Now-and this applies to contributions paid into international union funds with regard to pension plans in the province of Quebec as well as in the other provinces-is the federal government ready to take the means to bring home those funds and contributions which were paid into pension funds and are now in the United States?

I suggest that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) should take that into consideration and make sure that the amounts paid in the past will be added to those to be paid in the future, so that the worker who will retire in five or six years will benefit from what he has paid in the past, in short, that this will be added to the pension plan.
Then, the province of Quebec will probably be pleased to count on the co-operation of the federal government, since the latter can use its influence in this field to bring back to Canada the dues paid to unions now established outside this country.
Before ending my remarks, I have a word of advice for the members from the other nine provinces who want this pension plan to be adopted as quickly as possible. It has been suggested that this bill be referred to a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons. Well, the experience I acquired while sitting on two committees only leads me to tell you that referring something to a joint committee on which senators sit is practically a waste of time, a needless delay. Since senators are always on holiday, how can you expect them to undertake the study of that pension plan and finish their work before Christmas? That is why I advise you to refer it to a committee of the House of Commons. If some minor bills have been pending for six months in the other place because they have not found time yet to complete their study of them, how can they complete in time the study of a bill as important as the one now before us? You will give them heart trouble, or else make them sick with work, I am not sure which, for the study of this bill will just be too much for them.
So, if you want action, if you want things to get going or to keep going, let us amend the motion in such a way as to refer the bill to a committee of the house where work stands a chance of getting done more expeditiously.
A joint committee, in my opinion, is one where the work is done far too slowly, where ideas are put forward which are two centuries behind times, where there are representatives of finance companies and banks who are more concerned with their own interests or the interests of their firms than those of the people, for their own interests have priority over those of the nation. The bill would run the risk of being consigned to oblivion. So, here is a bit of advice: let us try to send this bill to a committee of the house.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am happy to see that nine provinces in
Canada Pension Plan
Canada will take advantage of a pension plan established according to their wishes, since they are on the way to centralization. On the other hand, we are glad to see that the province of Quebec will have its own plan, since it is its desire to administer its own scheme and that its pension plan meet its own aspirations and characteristics.
Let us keep on passing such pieces of legislation applying to nine provinces, with Quebec adopting its own legislation. But in return let us give to the province of Quebec the sources of revenue which are imperative; let us give back to Quebec the revenue from direct and indirect taxation, so that this province will not be a hindrance to the development of the nine other provinces and so that it might develop properly. When this is achieved, when the federal parliament will legislate for nine provinces and the Quebec parliament for the other, then we will all agree, there will be no more quarrels and we will no longer hear the fanatics which are heard now. And everybody will be happy in Canada.
I hope that this year a precedent will be repeated in the years to come and that before long-in the shortest possible delay-the constitution will be drastically changed so that two associate states will co-operate and show good will in a number of fields, while each goes its own way in others.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) stated this afternoon that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) and I were to back up the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh), but I would like to commence by stating that after the knowledge she displayed this afternoon my colleague needs no backing from either of us. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is the hon. member for Perth who needs the backing of informed members of his party.
For one who claims paternity for the Canada pension plan and who has had in addition access to Bill No. C-75 for several months, to the white paper preceding Bill C-136 since August, and to the bill itself for six days, he displays-


Jay Waldo Monteith: There are no actuarial figures at all.


Edgar John Benson: -either a surprising lack of knowledge of the plan or else he can find little in it to criticize.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It has taken you all dinner hour to figure out that one.

Canada Pension Plan


Edgar John Benson: Indeed I am sure that the hon. member for Perth as a practising chartered accountant has previously had far less time to analyse far more complicated financial statements.
I would like to contrast his knowledge of the bill with that of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who also claims paternity of a sort.


Mr. Baldwin:: Who is going to support the child?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Judy.


Edgar John Benson: Before proceeding I would like to make a few comments on a few of the questions that were raised by the hon. member for Perth, and first I would like to comment on his charge of government ineptitude in respect of this measure. In this connection I would point out that in my opinion ineptitude is far less of a crime than the inaction of the previous government on the matter of national contributory pensions.
Second, I would like to refer to his question of priorities concerning this legislation and a national health plan. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if he was suggesting that this legislation be held up pending the consideration of a national health plan. I hope that this is not the case for, if it is, we have further evidence that the official opposition intends to stifle this parliament and prevent the passage of legislation urgently desired by most Canadians.
The only other point to which I would like to direct attention is his comment on the varying estimates of the chief actuary, which were referred to by the minister. The hon. member for Perth, as a fellow chartered accountant, knows as well as I do that when one deals in the field of expected increases in the gross national product, population growth, wage rates, and changes in interest rates in the future, no precise figures can be quoted. Rather, one must make maximum and minimum estimates, especially when he tries to predict beyond a very short period of time; and this is exactly what the chief actuary has done.
The security provided by Bill C-136 is a basic level of protection, especially important to people of low and moderate incomes. It is sure protection, with 100 per cent portability, valid wherever they move, assured in real value if the cost of living rises, and automatically kept in step with improvements in earnings. This protection extends not only to one's own retirement but to one's wife and children if one should die, and to the contributor himself if he becomes disabled.
[Mr. Monteith.l
For many Canadians this will be an addition to provisions they are already making for their old age by individual savings or through company pension plans. If such a private plan is on a modest scale it will probably continue unchanged.
If the private pension plan is one providing pensions on a fairly high scale, people will not lose any contractual rights secured by their contributions to date, but they may expect some adjustments for the future. The contribution rate will probably be reduced, with a corresponding scale down of the benefits that would otherwise have been provided. The net result of the Canada pension plan, plus the old age security pension attached to the pension index, and the continuing private plan, will still represent a considerable gain in security both for older workers, who will be assured of larger retirement pensions in total, and for younger workers who can be confident that their pension contributions will protect them against changing economic circumstances in a way which has never before been possible.
If, on the other hand, a person is one of the majority of Canadians who do not have the benefit of a substantial pension plan, it is likely that the new plan will not only provide a basic level of security but will also encourage the spread of supplementary provision for retirement through additional private plans.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that Bill C-136 is the most far reaching piece of social legislation which has been proposed in many years. It is legislation which will affect all of us, both now and in the future. When the ideas contained in this bill are incorporated into law and the Canada pension plan reaches maturity, all Canadians will have security in the knowledge that after a lifetime of work at least their minimum requirements for a decent living in their twilight years will be provided by the combined benefits of the Canada pension plan and the old age security pension.
It is not my intention to deal with the economic aspects of the Canada pension plan or, further with the question of integration with existing pension plans, as both these matters will be dealt with by the Minister of Finance. Suffice it to say that integration with private pension plans can and will be achieved, and indeed has been worked out for the largest single pension plan in the country, namely the federal government's civil service pension plan.
It is the unpleasant task of the Minister of National Revenue to collect the funds which

his colleagues require in order to carry out the objects of government. Thus, under the present bill it will be the responsibility of my department to see that all those who are required to contribute to the Canada pension plan do so, in order that the benefits referred to so glowingly by my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, may be paid when the individual becomes entitled to them.
I think it might be useful if, after a brief reference to benefits provided by this bill, I were then to turn to the method of financing these benefits, the integration of the Canada pension plan with that of a province providing a parallel comprehensive pension plan, and the method provided for the handling of the funds which will accumulate in the early years of the Canada pension plan in excess of those required to pay benefits and cover administration costs.
There are three main differences in this bill with regard to benefits as compared with Bill No. C-75. These are the extension of widows' benefits, the introduction of orphans' benefits and the inclusion of disability and death benefits and the attachment of the present old age security pension, whether taken at age 65 or age 70, to the pension index which is in turn dependant on the cost of living index in Canada. I need not elaborate further on the first two of these changes, which were made possible by agreement with the provinces for a constitutional amendment. Indeed, they have been ably and fully described by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. However, I should like to say a few words about the third major change, which is that of attaching the old age security pension to the cost of living index because this in the long run will, I believe, prove most beneficial to all Canadians.
Some hon. members have made disparaging remarks concerning this move since this course was indicated during debate at the resolution stage of the bill-remarks which, I believe, were altogether unjustified and which took into consideration only one year, rather than accumulative effects over a longer period of time. I think the argument which has been put forward by various speakers including the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) this afternoon as to the adequacy of the basic $75 raises an altogether different consideration from the attaching of all benefits to a pension index. I believe one should not argue that because he has attached a cost of living index or a pension index based on the cost of living index to benefits presently paid, future parliaments or even this parliament may not see fit to adjust the base itself.
Canada Pension Plan


An hon. Member:: Just before each election.


Edgar John Benson: Yes, we might copy the Conservatives in that regard.
I have made some calculations which show that if we assume after the first two years a 2 per cent annual increase in salaries and wages as well as in the pension index, at the end of five years during which this legislation has been in effect a man earning $100 a month as of January 1, 1966 will be able to retire at the age of 65 with a combined pension of $68.45 or 64.5 per cent of his income at date of retirement. Similarly if he were to continue to work until retiring at the age of 70 he would receive a combined pension of $118.72, or 101.3 per cent of his wages at date of retirement. Of course if he were married the combination of his wife's old age security pension with his own combined pension at either date would cause his pension income to further exceed his own income at date of retirement. However, I do not believe it is fair to presume that a man can presently support himself and his wife on a total of $100 a month, and if he can I believe he has earned any bonus he may receive on retirement.
Let us now consider the case of a person who is earning $250 a month when the plan comes into force. On the same assumptions, such a man, if he attains the age of 65 years after the plan comes into force, may receive a pension of $88.33 or 33.3 per cent of his income at that age. If he were to continue to work until the age of 70 he would receive $162.35 representing 55.4 per cent of his income on retirement. In this case I think we might assume that the man in question is married to a wife of similar age and in these circumstances the combined pension would amount to $143.53 at age 65 or $251.98 at age 70. Based on the assumptions made, the pension would amount to 54.1 per cent of retirement wages at age 65 or 86 per cent of retirement wages at age 70. Of course, as incomes increase the percentage of total benefits to income on retirement decreases. This I believe is defensible on the grounds that persons with higher incomes are better able to provide something toward their retirement income through supplementary pension plans or accumulated savings.
Now I should like to say something about the financing of benefits to be received on retirement. The old age security pension will continue to be financed as at present by 3 per cent of the sales tax, 3 per cent of corporate income tax and 4 per cent of personal income tax to a maximum of $120 per annum. In the long run these contribution rates should be

Canada Pension Plan
adequate to provide for all benefits including attachment of the pension index to old age security benefits and the payment of reduced benefits at age 65.
Turning now to the Canada pension plan benefits, these are to be financed by employer and employee contributions of 1.8 per cent each as indicated in clauses 8 and 9 of Bill C-136. In the initial stages the first $600 of earnings will be exempt and the maximum contributory level will be $5,000 so, that the maximum possible contributions will be $79.20 each for employer and employee. It is, I believe, worth noting that an earnings index is provided in the bill itself so that both the exemption and maximum contributory earnings can be adjusted as the general wage level rises.
Contributions by self-employed persons are exactly equal to the combined contribution of employer and employee, with the difference that no contribution need be made unless earnings are $800 per annum or more.
I should point out that on an income of $5,000 the self-employed will contribute exactly the same amount as the combined contribution in the case of an employed person.
The responsibility for the collection of contributions to the Canada pension plan which, as I mentioned, is the responsibility of the Department of National Revenue, will be assigned to the taxation division where integration with present operations will provide maximum efficiency at a minimal cost. Divisions "C" and "D" of part I of Bill C-136 provide strict rules, rules which we believe are essential to assure that deductions from employees, employers' contributions and required payments by the self-employed are made in order that they may be credited to the person who will ultimately benefit.
One of the features of Bill C-136 is that it provides for a pension plan which will be uniform with respect to contributions and benefits across the whole of Canada. In order to accomplish this it will be necessary to have close co-operation with all provinces, especially a province which provides a parallel comprehensive pension plan. It is hoped this will be accomplished by first of all having essentially similar legislation, that is, legislation providing for the same benefits and obligations in respect of individuals who change their places of residence; second, by having a reasonable exchange of information concerning pensions and, next, by providing for agency arrangements under which one jurisdiction can make payments of benefits on behalf of both jurisdictions and be reimbursed

for its share by the other party involved. A similar arrangement whereby a person need only apply to one or the other jurisdiction for refund of an overpayment of contributions is provided. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we must have a common set of rules concerning pension administration across the whole of Canada.
In order to achieve these ends it is assumed that Quebec, the only province which has indicated its intention to establish such a plan, will pass a bill similar in all essentials to Bill No. C-136 as finally enacted by this parliament. Clause 103 of Bill No. C-136 provides for the establishment of country-wide social insurance numbers; clause 108 of the bill provides for the exchange of information concerning contributions credited to individuals in the two jurisdictions; clauses 82(3) and 40(3) provide for the transfer of funds between the government of Canada and a province having a comprehensive pension plan; and clause 87 provides for the pension appeal board hearing, if the provincial law provides for it, appeals made under a provincial pension plan so that a common jurisprudence may be developed.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with the handling of the excess funds which will accumulate in the early years of the Canada pension plan. Clauses 110 to 114 of Bill No. C-136 deal with the handling of moneys received under the Canada pension plan and briefly they provide as follows: First of all, all funds received will be credited to the Canada pension plan account, including contributions and interest on securities. Second, out of this account will be paid the benefits payable under the plan and the costs of administration of the plan, and no other payments. Third, where an excess of funds is available beyond estimated payments required in the following three months, such funds will be available for purchases of securities of participating provinces or of the federal government. The proportion available for investment in the securities of any particular province is the proportion that amounts received from contributors of that province for the previous period up to 120 months is to the total of contributions received. The balance of such amounts not required for investment in provincial securities is to be invested in government of Canada securities.
Mr. Speaker, in order to ensure liquidity the Minister of Finance is authorized by this bill, on advice of the chief actuary, to specify the term of any provincial securities. The rate of interest to be charged on such pro-

Canada Pension Plan
vincial securities is to be the rate on similar securities of the government of Canada, which of course wEl vary according to the term of the securities which are purchased.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would allow a question?


Edgar John Benson: I will be finished in just a moment, and then I wEl answer the question. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw hon. members' attention to clause 116 of Bill No. C-136, which requires a report by the chief actuary at least once every five years on the Canada pension plan account and a report whenever any bill is introduced into the House of Commons to amend this act as it is finally passed.
All hon. members know that this is legislation with far reaching effects. It is legislation which is needed in Canada in order to provide a sense of security for those of our citizens who are no longer able to work. It is, because of its very nature, complicated legislation and I urge its early approval in principle so that it may be referred to the special committee for more detailed examination.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, if the minister would permit this question: Just who does determine the amount that has to be transferred to the provinces?


Edgar John Benson: This is clearly stated in the bill, and it is the Minister of Finance. And, Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of transfer to the provinces, as my hon. friend will find on a further perusal of the bill, but is a matter of investment of the excess funds beyond those required to make all payments and to cover administration for the ensuing three months.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Then the Minister of Finance, I gather, is the one who determines the amount, without any checking or auditing by the provinces?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows better than this.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Don't be disgusted; just answer the question.


Edgar John Benson: The Minister of Finance has the right to determine the amount that is required to meet payments out of the pension fund and administration for the ensuing three months. These funds are then set aside. The excess funds beyond these are then available for investment in provincial securities or in securities of the government of Canada. The provinces will be entitled to have invested in their securities out of this amount of money an amount based on the proportion that their contributions during a previous period up to 120 months is to all contributions to the 20220-642
Canada pension plan fund. The Minister of Finance is required by the bill to inform the provinces what amount is available for investment in a particular province and the province may then bring forward the securities.


Jay Waldo Monteith: So there will be nothing left for the federal government to invest in any way whatsoever and the province has the complete determination as to the type of investment in which these funds are placed?


Edgar John Benson: The province always has the right of determination as to how it will invest, how it will spend money within its own jurisdiction. There will be some funds in excess of the funds invested in the province, in that we will have contributions from the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. However, the Minister of Finance will make the other funds available for investment by the provinces, and the province must decide how it is going to spend its money.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would permit one question. Earlier in his remarks he made some reference to the relationship between the pension and the level of earnings of people who become 65 years of age five years after the plan comes into effect. I wonder if he could give us some similar examples for those people who are 65 years of age on the day the plan comes into effect.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this is a question to which the hon. member obviously knows the answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Do you?


Edgar John Benson: If one is 65 years of age when this plan comes into effect and continues to work until age 70 and contribute to the Canada pension plan, he wiU of course be entitled to 50 per cent of benefits under the Canada pension plan. But if one is retired at age 65 and does not continue to work, or is retired at age 75 when the Canada pension plan comes into effect, he will of course only be entitled to his old age security pension of $75 per month plus any increases which may take place in this pension through either act of parliament or action resulting from the attachment of this pension to the pension index.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: He gets nothing, you mean.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue, inasmuch as he referred to clause 116, whether the chief actuary will be required to prepare a report every time a private member introduces a public bill to amend this act.

Canada Pension Plan


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think the government would have to reserve the right to obtain second reading before the actuarial report is prepared. Indeed if a private member proposed a bill to amend the Canada pension plan it would take the actuary that amount of time between the introduction of the bill and second reading to prepare such a report.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: May I point out that the section says the chief actuary shall, whenever any bill is introduced in or presented to the House of Commons to introduce this kind of measure, prepare this report. I suggest we will have to amend this act to take care of what the minister has suggested.


Edgar John Benson: I think if it were amended with the effect of changing the contributions or benefits, it would be improper. It would certainly be improper for a private member to introduce such a bill. However, the question raised by my hon. friend is one which could very well be considered by the special committee when it considers the bill in detail.


Mr. D. R. Gundlock (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I had prepared a speech this afternoon which I felt was short and to the point, and of interest to the members of this house and to the public generally. However, after listening to the debate this afternoon, and particularly to the statement of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) I feel that some rebuttal to various suggestions should come from this side of this chamber.
I listened with great interest to the speech made by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson), and for several reasons. I listened with interest because today is the first time I have heard him make a speech in this house, and because I have a great deal of respect for him. That hon. minister referred to the white paper, and I should also like to refer to that white paper in a later part of my speech. He also referred to the inaction of the previous government. Since listening to him I have decided that several facts should be brought to the attention of hon. members and the general public.
This parliament can take a great deal of pride in some of the actions which were taken by the previous government, and I intend to refer later to those actions in detail. Since 1957 old age pensions have been increased to the extent of some $29 per month. Admittedly $19 of that increase took place under the previous government, and one must remember that it took place during a period of six years.

There has been a great deal said about relating old age assistance to the cost of living index. The Minister of National Health and Welfare during her remarks this afternoon dwelt on the provisions of the Canada pension plan as they relate to adjustments to the cost of living index. At the resolution stage of this legislation the minister announced that benefits to old age pensioners would be related to the cost of living index. She should be commended for her tenacity in bringing this bill before the house, because this is the third time we have commenced our consideration of a bill to establish a Canada pension plan. I commend the minister individually and not the government as a whole. She has shown unusual and sincere devotion to the work of her department, and I give her full credit in this regard.
Mr. Speaker, I hope you will forgive me for straying for the moment from the bill now being considered, but having listened to one member of the government talk about the inaction of the former government, I feel some rebuttal is warranted.
As I understand the figures that have been given in relation to the increased benefits to old age pensioners, as a result of the adoption of this bill that increase will be between 75 cents and $1.50 per month. That is a shameful increase in relation to the $19 increase which took place during the six year period when the former government was in office. Originally I had not intended to refer to the six buck boys, but having listened to the Minister of National Revenue stoop to such low tactics as he did, I think the actions of this government to increase payments under the Old Age Assistance Act should be compared to actions taken by the previous Conservative government in this regard.
The members of the official opposition have been accused on many occasions of holding up the business of the house by filibustering.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Hear, hear.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Mr. Speaker, I heard someone say "hear, hear". Perhaps that hon. member would stand in his place and be recognized.


James Ernest Pascoe: It was the hon. member for Kootenay East.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: We have been accused of filibustering and holding up the business of this parliament, but what have hon. members opposite done? They have been guilty of taking up the time of this house by making interjections of that kind. Perhaps by straying from the subject now under consideration

I am also taking up the time of this house, but having listened to the debate this afternoon I trust that Your Honour will be lenient and allow me to discuss some of the things which have been said.
I have on my desk several editorials to which I should like to refer during my speech this evening. As I have said, having witnessed a member of the cabinet stoop to very low tactics, I believe we in the opposition have the right to also use this kind of tactic to point out the inadequacies of this government in its actions to increase social assistance. In view of the unjust accusations which have been made by the Minister of National Revenue and a relatively small number of members sitting to my left today I think one should compare those accusations with the facts, keeping in mind always the bragging words of those members about the increased payments to old age pensioners included in this pension plan, and the relationship of those payments to the cost of living index. I will be through very shortly, Mr. Speaker. What did the former government do? How can you condemn the former government? You are bringing about an increase of 75 cents or maybe $1.50 a month when the former government brought about increases of $6 and $10, with an eventual increase amounting to $25 a month. I have great respect for the minister, Mr. Speaker. I am not referring to her. I am referring to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) who attacked the former government and I am simply trying to point out the difference.
This brings up a point I want to raise in my speech and which is referred to in an editorial I wish to include in my speech. I hesitate to read it all but for the moment I will read part of it. It is from the Ottawa Journal of August 12 last and reads as follows:
On April 1, 1963, Liberal leader Pearson promised that if his party elected a government it would act within "the 60 days of decision" to establish a contributory pension plan. On August 10. 1964, having been in office since April 22, 1963, the Pearson government produced a white paper on its pension plan.
I referred to that a moment ago and I also complimented the minister on her tenacity in bringing such a measure before the house for the third time. Frankly I think she is to be complimented but, Mr. Speaker, not the government.
One positive statement in the white paper is that the plan will not be effective until January, 1966, at the earliest. Then the collection of contributions will begin. Pension benefits would start a year later but would not reach their full level until 1976. There is also in the white paper a warning to those who wait expectantly that the 20220-642J
Canada Pension Plan
rate of contribution in certain categories will be higher than had been proposed earlier.
There is not a word about the hopes on the pension raised and then cast down. There is no mention-
These are not my words.
-of what the pugnacious Miss LaMarsh did in making Ontario co-operation in the plan more difficult because she dragged it into the provincial election last year.
All politicians would naturally do that. These are not my words.
Costs of the plan, on which many questions have ben raised, will be examined in the course of the parliamentary committee study the government has promised.
If I may deviate for a moment, Mr. Speaker, there are two points I want to make. One of them I referred to a moment ago and it has to do with the old age pensioners and the Old Age Assistance Act. The minister has referred to the fact that in the bill before us their pensions are tied to the cost of living index, but because of certain interjections, particularly by the Minister of National Revenue who asked "what did the former government do", I want to repeat by way of emphasis what the former government did and what kind of comparison we have.
From reading the bill, news releases and the minister's speech at the resolution stage and from listening to the minister's speech today it is my understanding that if the cost of living rises to a certain point the pensions of these people will be increased by 75 cents a month or a maximum increase of $1.50 a month. I repeat again by way of emphasis that the former government increased these pensions much more than that, as a matter of fact up to $25 a month in stages. We only claim credit for part of the last $10 increase, but for all of the $19 before that. Compare that with what the six buck boys did prior to that time. These facts should be made known to the house and to the people of Canada so that they can make a comparison. What is $1.50 a month compared with $10 a month? That is the real point I want to make. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said this afternoon, these people might well be referred to as the forgotten group so far as the government is concerned. They brag about 75 cents or $1.50 a month ten years from now when we have already done ten times as much. I hear a member behind me say that we might change the "six buck boys" to the "six bit boys". Another member says "six bit gal", but actually I have great respect for the minister.
I want to refer to previous speakers, particularly the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) who has a lot to say for a few

Canada Pension Plan
moments when he speaks, but is never in the house either before or after. I noticed today and the other day on the resolution stage that the hon. member was not in his place until the time came for him to speak. I have referred to him on several occasions and I am glad to see he is here at the moment. Since he is here I should like to say that in listening to his speech on the resolution stage and earlier today on second reading I can only conclude that he has done nothing but read Hansard. In reading his speech in Hansard I saw that everything he said had been said previously on the resolution stage and could be found in Hansard.


Gilles Grégoire: You do not deserve any answer.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: If you would like to answer I will give you time.


Gilles Grégoire: No, it is not necessary.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: That is what I thought.


Gilles Grégoire: It is not necessary at all.


Mr. Webb:: Send him down some peanuts.


Gilles Grégoire: We do not answer to nuts.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Well, I answer to nuts because some people listen to them and as I listened to your speech today-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order, I suggest the hon. member address the Chair.


Gilles Grégoire: He is not following the rules. He does not know the rules because he is never here. Anyway, you will be out of here next time.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: As I was saying in this regard to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) through you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to leave these few words with him. I listened to his speech very carefully-


Gilles Grégoire: You cannot do it; it is too difficult for you.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Mr. Speaker, at least I listened to his speech.


Gilles Grégoire: You listened, but you did not understand; that is the difference.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I hear some hon. members say I made a mistake in listening to his speech. Probably I did. If I may, I should like to continue with my speech. I should like to go back for a moment to what I call the fifth party.


Gilles Grégoire: Dispense; it is not necessary.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) told us earlier, and I rather enjoyed this, that it was his unpleasant task to collect revenues from the various parties for the funds of this pension plan. Well, I should like to say that it is not nearly as unpleasant for him as it is for some of the rest of us who have to pay. I refer particularly to the self-employed people and to farmers. I simply wanted to ask a question of the minister, if I may. He explained part of it, but only part of it so far as I am concerned.
Now, the self-employed people pay 3.6 per cent, and employers and employees each pay 1.8 per cent, so that is about equal. The question I have in mind is this. What do self-employed people like farmers do during periods, perhaps short periods, when they employ someone on a part-time basis?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It was in my speech.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I am sorry, I could not hear that. I should like this question taken into consideration.
I see the hon. member is still in his seat, so-


Gilles Grégoire: You would prefer it if I were not here, but I am here.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I am very glad you are here.
I want to refer to an editorial in today's Montreal Gazette which carries the headline "The Exhausted Parliament". Some of us may be exhausted, and some of us may not. Some of us have been here and some of us have been here only on occasion. I should like to quote briefly from the editorial:
This session of the House of Commons should prove in one respect at least to have value. For it has set the precedent of the sort of session that should never be allowed to happen again.


Gilles Grégoire: Whose fault is it?


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I hear questions, Mr. Speaker, that are not addressed to you. I have been called to order and told that I should address you, Mr. Speaker. I should like you to ask any hon. member who has a question to address the Chair, otherwise I should be allowed to make my speech.


Gilles Grégoire: It is not important.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I think it is very important. As a matter of fact, if you do not want to address the Speaker, then I do not have to do so. If the Speaker is going to call me to order, then he should call you to order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order; the hon. member who is now making his speech has a right, under the rules of this house, to make his speech without being interrupted. I am sure the hon. member for Lapointe would want to accord the hon. member for Lethbridge the ordinary courtesies of the house. The hon. member for Lethbridge.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: In deference to you, Mr. Speaker, I am quite willing, if the hon. member for Lapointe wishes to ask me a question, to yield the floor to him. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, this is what I wanted to say. As I said earlier the members of the official opposition have been blamed particularly for taking the time of this house.


Gilles Grégoire: Hear, hear.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I pointed out to hon. members of this house, and I hope to the public of Canada, several reasons why I felt the official opposition was not responsible for taking all this time. I have repeated this statement on several occasions. I think the main reason this session has taken so long and has led to such editorial headlines as the one I have quoted, is the multiplicity of parties. The reference is to this exhausted parliament. I want to say that I do not feel exhausted and I do not feel the minister whose bill we are discussing feels exhausted. Some of the other members of this house may feel exhausted because they are not here. They must have something else to do; perhaps the work has been too much for them.
I wanted to say that the main reason for the length of the session is not the work of this house but results from the fact that there are five parties in the house.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask a question?


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Yes.


Gilles Grégoire: Does the hon. member not agree that when the Conservatives have disappeared after the next election it will be better in this house?


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: In answer to the hon. member I would agree that when this house returns to being a two party house we will have a much better house and much shorter sessions. We will get on with our business. I am not too sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservatives will disappear.


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, they will: You will disappear.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Perhaps I will, but not the Conservative party. In the light of what I
Canada Pension Plan
have been reading in the newspapers, I say there will be other parties disappear but not the Conservative party.


Gilles Grégoire: We will be back, anyway.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: You are talking again. You talk about maintaining the rules here, so let us see you do some of it.
I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that the reason this session is so long and so tedious-do not get the wrong impression, we are still here fighting-is the five parties. I refer particularly to the fifth party.


Gilles Grégoire: You are the fifth.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: What do we see in connection with the fourth party? We see the leader of it operating under government controls. What do we see in connection with the next one?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order; what has this to do with the bill?


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I hear someone say "what has this to do with the bill?" What do questions which are not addressed to you have to do with the bill, Mr. Speaker?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My question was addressed to you, Mr. Speaker. What does this have to do with the bill?


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I am simply answering questions that were addressed to me by an hon. member of this house. Is that good enough?


An hon. Member:: No.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I should like, then, to refer to some statements made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Gilles Grégoire: You both have nothing to say.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Since you do so much talking why don't you pay your telephone bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: To whom was that remark addressed?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I would request members of the house to allow the hon. member for Lethbridge to continue, and I would request him to confine his remarks to the bill.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today I prepared a very mellow speech and I wanted a couple of questions answered.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: What speech?


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I have not been able to get to it yet. I listened to the minister, to the

Canada Pension Plan
hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and to some interjections, and quite frankly I have not yet got to the notes of my speech.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre expressed a fear that this bill might be killed once it was referred to a committee. We in the opposition do not feel that way. We want it to go to a committee where many of our questions can be answered in detail. The hon. member also said the government should undertake more public relations with respect to the Canada pension plan, and I agree with him on that.
Further, the hon. member said he was a little worried about central control. I would point out that he belongs to a party that believed in central control. In fact it held power in one province for over 20 years, yet now he says he is afraid of central control. I too do not like the idea of central control very much and, as was pointed out by another hon. member on the resolution stage, I believe private enterprise could do a better job of accounting and controlling the fund that will be accumulated.
The thing which surprises me is that an hon. member will say one thing at one time and another at another time when it suits his purpose, particularly regarding the rules and regulations of the house.
Earlier I was quoting from an editorial and I shall continue:
Costs of the plan, on which many questions have been raised, will be examined in the course of the parliamentary committee study the government has promised.
We in the official opposition endorse the idea of a committee study because we think that when things are ironed out in committee, third reading and final approval will be hastened.
The editorial added:
If more problems become evident then the government, in the light of its record on pensions in the last year, may be counted on to postpone action again.
I sincerely hope there will not be any more postponement. The editorial continued:
The faith of those who voted Liberal because they expected to retire in a few years with a good pension to which they had contributed is being sorely tried.
I shall not say anything further. I have listened to many interjections from the left hand corner, incidentally from a seat in which I used to sit myself.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: You were not as noisy, though.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: When I sat there I did not say a word.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You haven't yet.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: There are some members opposite who have not spoken yet. You know, Mr. Speaker, having listened to these interjections tonight I recall a speech made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) in which he referred to the House of Commons as being more like a barn than a debating assembly. If I had the same gift of words as the Minister of Agriculture I might use different words.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is not a gift, it is a curse.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Speaking on the resolution stage, as recorded at page 9915 of Hansard lor November 9, the hon. member for Lamb-ton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon) said:
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.
I agree with that statement, because we have had experience of this many times.
I refer in particular to the experience in this regard of various of the provinces including the provinces of Ontario and Alberta. The plans adopted in these provinces appeared at the outset to be very good. Those responsible were complimented as the government has been complimented today. But there is one fact, which I suggest must be taken seriously into consideration-a fact which justifies my saying a word of warning, or a word of caution. In the last few years, say, in the last 10 years, the cost of most of these schemes has doubled. This is a thought I should like to leave with the minister and with the house. If the plan now under consideration follows the same pattern, if the same trend as to cost is to become apparent, do we not need to look very closely indeed at the legislation we have before us? In these circumstances I am very happy that the government is allowing this measure to go to a committee where the whole matter may be considered in the light of experience with cooperative plans of this kind in the past.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask the hon. member a question? My question is very simple indeed. What did he say, exactly?


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: The question is so simple that it will not take long to answer.


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


Mr. Jean-Pierre Cote (Longueuil):: The hon. member who has just resumed his seat mentioned several times in the course of his speech that there were a lot of interjections but I think, in all fairness, it should be pointed out that the interventions did not come from this side of the house.

Mr. Speaker, since the house did pass a resolution to appoint a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to consider Bill No. C-136, an act to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions and supplementary benefits in Canada payable to and in respect of contributors, I think it would be pointless to discuss the bill in detail at this stage. I will therefore confine myself to the general principle.
Mr. Speaker, though it is rather difficult now to foresee the repercussions or the impact the operation of the Canadian or Quebec pension plans will have on the Canadian economy, I shall, during the few minutes at my disposal, try to list the advantages which it seems to have in the eyes of this private member, who would by no means pose as an expert.
The economic principle involved with respect to this pension plan is to divert capital that would be used mostly for consumer goods to investments or compulsory savings. Of course, the contributions paid by employees and employers to be entitled to the pension plan benefits would represent huge amounts that will be withdrawn from circulation, therefore, from direct consumption, and which will pile up in a fund.
It may be said that consumption means immediate satisfaction of certain needs, that is, a short term satisfaction: the amounts of money owned or earned are immediately put into circulation, giving the owner an immediate satisfaction.
Therefore, the portion of those revenues which will be transferred to this pension plan and this investment fund will, in the long run, satisfy the persons concerned. In other words, the percentage of the amount which will secure a revenue to the contributor at the age of 65 or 70, will be put back into circulation only when the individual shall attain pensionable age. The other portion of the paid amount will be affected to a capital fund which will increase from year to year.
Canada Pension Plan
Naturally, the benefits which the Canadian people may draw individually from this pension plan justify the sacrifices and inconveniences which may be caused over a period of 20 or 30 years when consumption will be affected by the transfer of funds for investment purposes.
The other portion of the revenue which will be used to accumulate funds for the provinces, will be put back into circulation, but to the general advantage of the Canadian people. Consequently, that will benefit each and every Canadian.
A new country like Canada must force itself to save in that way and everyone must do it willingly to ensure his own or his country's economic future.
It is said, with good reason, that the amounts that will accumulate in that pension fund will exceed $10 billion during the next ten years. Do Canadians realize the repercussions that the investment of such a huge amount of money can have on the Canadian economy? Of course, if the provinces use it for capital investments only, such as roads, schools, public utilities, it is obvious that it will not bring many changes in our struggle for our economic independence, except to prevent borrowing on foreign markets. As far as Quebec is concerned, in particular, that fund will exert an influence on the economic future of the province and the situation of the Quebec people with regard to foreign capital which swamps that province. It is sufficient to think of the General Finance Company and the forthcoming implementation of the steel complex to realize for what purpose the province will use these funds.
Didn't Premier Jean Lesage say:
We have undertaken to free ourselves economically; this cannot be achieved if the people of Quebec have nothing to say about the way their savings are to be invested?
The French Canadians of the province of Quebec realize how important it is to use such permissible means as this one to take over control of their economy. It is probably an advantage for them to be grouped in one area for, if they really want to, they can succeed. This goal will be achieved as soon as they understand that it can be done, not by putting the blame on others, or isolating themselves from the rest of the world or by making speeches on the constitution, but rather by working, studying, saving and facing up to their responsibilities. This is how the Americans became rich, became masters of their economy.

Canada Pension Plan
The financial situation of the Canadians of the other provinces is not much better, since the Americans have almost $28 billion invested throughout the country.
Mind you, Mr. Speaker, I do not object to the principle of trying to attract foreign capital in our country, because it is thanks to those investments that our country has developed so rapidly, but the desire to reach economic independence is normal for a country, and compulsory savings is the only means to achieve it.
Everyone knows that this objective cannot be reached by sudden changes in the established order of things; this should never be forgotten. It is imperative to apply immediately some measures on a long term basis, in order to regain control of our economy. Besides, the ideas of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) in this respect are very well known.
It is obvious that to set up this investment fund, Canadians will have to accept further sacrifices, because a pay as you go pension fund, as first suggested by the federal government, would have been less expensive for contributors.
Mr. Speaker, even if some people claim otherwise, I am positive that Canadians are willing to accept such sacrifices, if they can in this way regain control over part of their economy. And we should not be afraid to impose such a compulsory savings system. Those who contend that it is a hidden tax levied on the citizens are unworthy to represent the Canadian people, because they do not reflect their aspirations and their love for their country.
Let us follow the example of western Germany, which recovered after the war to become one of the most progressive and industrialized nations in Europe, only 20 years after it had been crushed in that war. How was this feat accomplished? By the sacrifices accepted by the people who entrusted the government with a large part of their revenues so that the state could invest it in profitable ventures for their benefit.
As for us, French Canadians of Quebec, the role of the government must be a positive and active one as far as the economic development of the province and the country is concerned.
It is, therefore, a good thing that the Canada pension plan was amended following fruitful negotiations between the provinces and the federal government, for it was important that the plan be the same all across

Canada, whether it was administered by the provinces or the federal government. That is what we mean by co-operative federalism, by a central government which understands the provinces who also have to look after matters coming under their jurisdiction, and it is only through this kind of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments that Canada will be a country composed of 11 happy governments instead of one happy government and ten unhappy ones. Then you have a strong Canada, a united Canada.
Mr. Speaker, this new co-operation between the various provincial governments and the federal government is being used by some people as an excuse for the statement that we are legislating for only nine provinces out of ten.
On the contrary, we are legislating for the entire country but leaving the provinces free to adhere or not to certain measures that might be of provincial jurisdiction. Quebec can no more prevent nine provinces from benefiting from certain measures, through collective action if they so choose, than the nine other provinces can stop Quebec from pulling out of joint projects without giving up any tax benefits.
Remarkably enough, those who are finding fault with this type of legislation are the very ones who wanted the province of Quebec to be free to legislate in those fields, and were accusing the government of centralizing tendencies.
But now that we are getting away from centralization, the government is being accused of never legislating on behalf of the province of Quebec. According to others, the tax burden is falling solely on the small wage earner. But what about the employer who has to pay out as much as all his employees together, and for the sole security of those employees?
Mr. Speaker, it can fairly be said that without the leadership of the federal government in this field, there may never have been any pension plan in the province of Quebec and that without the steps taken by Quebec in that field, the rest of Canada may never have had the benefits of a consolidated fund.
Experts claim that the contributions paid into this fund will have no substantial effects on private economies and this contention is based on the experience gained through the first great social security plans introduced after 1940.
Judging from the experience of other countries where a pension plan has already been established, the white paper that was sub-

mitted to us as a basis for the pension plan gives a rather fair idea of the possible economic repercussions of implementing the pension plan. There does not seem to be any reference to accumulated funds, but rather to the possible effects on the economy of the country of the benefits eventually to be paid to the pensioners under the pension plan. But I sincerely believe that, in addition to providing security for the Canadian workers, the Canada pension plan, or the Quebec pension plan, can really become an instrument in the hands of the provinces attempting to secure their economic freedom.
I believe that the pension plan could be included in the legislation already in force within the framework of fiscal decentralization, such as:
1.	The provinces' growing share of the personal income tax, which from 5 per cent in 1954 will reach 24 per cent in 1967; and the provinces' larger share of the estates tax, which has risen from 50 to 75 per cent.
2.	The return to the provinces which so desire of the joint programs coming under provincial jurisdiction.
3.	The pension plan may also follow the same principle, in the sense that it makes considerable amounts of money available to the provinces.


Mr. Willoughby:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the house leader whether the business is unchanged for tomorrow.


George James McIlraith: There is no change, Mr. Speaker, and should by any chance this bill be finished before tomorrow night we would call perhaps some of the smaller bills on the order paper; item No. 7, a bill to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act, item No. 58, measure to amend the Coal Production Assistance Act, and item No. 51, second reading of Bill No. C-137, to authorize certain capital expenditures of Canadian National Railways.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) a question arising out of the wide and critical comment that has developed over his latest Senate appointment, and particularly as it reflected upon some of his previous appointments to the other place.
I asked the Prime Minister whether it was his intention to proceed with item No. 40 on the order paper, and whether that was the extent of the government's intention for reform of the other place. His reply was almost typically evasive, that the government in due course would go ahead with this piece of legislation.
One of my reasons for raising this question on the adjournment motion, not that it will do much good, is not only to point up the fact that my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has a bill on the order paper which would abolish the Senate, but also to underline the phonyness of this so-called new politics, about which the Prime Minister talks. This is the party that was coming in with new politics. Well, here is an example of it, Mr. Speaker.
I should just like to read from the Liberal party program for the general election of 1962. This statement is tucked away at page 22, about reform of the Senate. It says:
A new Liberal government will discuss with the provinces a constitutional reform-
We are not quite sure what that means, but it has something to do with the Senate. The program then states:
-and will propose, for example, that future Senators be appointed for 15 years or to the age of 75.
I point out that this bill on the order paper only affects senators at age 75. At least if we had this 15 year provision contained in this program we would not have this picture of a young lawyer from Toronto, Mr. Aird, at 41 years of age, with a promising career in front of him, at $15,000 a year until he reaches age 75. Rather, he would be disappearing from the picture at age 56. However, this is another example of the new politics.
One of the efforts often made by young Liberals-and I see one sitting over there from Hamilton East (Mr. Munro), who likes to take this stance of a radical, go ahead party-is to scorn our Conservative friends to my right, because of their reactionary approach to things. I point out to those individuals that here we have an example of our friends to the right of Mr. Speaker coming
10152	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion forward with an even more drastic reform regarding the Senate.
What are we to take from this situation? Charles Lynch put it very amusingly last Friday in his column in the Ottawa Citizen in this way; under the heading "No rocking of the boat":
A hard-working party bagman is rewarded.
Party politics being what they are, somebody has to raise the funds. It's hard work, being a party bagman, and it's thankless work, in these days when there isn't much patronage to play with.
A bagman's lot is not a happy one unless, as sometimes happens, he hits the jackpot in the form of an appointment to the Senate.
Bagmen generally deal in boxcar figures, and so it is not inappropriate to mention what a Senate appointment means to them as a tangible reward for their services.
The most recent appointee is 41 years of age. Should he live to 75, his total emolument at $15,000 a year would be $510,000-a lifetime income dwarfing such measly items as the cash award with the Nobel prize, or a win in the Irish sweepstakes, or a football pool in Britain.
I am not complaining from the point of view of some of my Liberal friends across the way, like the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel), who all of us hope before the sacred age of 75 rolls around will be called; but some of us feel that the other place should be reserved for people like Azellus Denis, and Yvon Dupuis, because that is the natural place for them. The last seven or eight appointments have been made along this line.
This new approach from the radicals, the reformers, over on the other side is just too much, Mr. Speaker, and I felt I had to draw the attention of the house even at ten o'clock to how inconsistent and how silly the Liberals' claim to be the reformers and the radicals is.
The real question is, when are they going to get rid of the Senate? I should have liked to have the time to go back and read a beautiful little speech made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) in 1962. I would refer all my friends who would like to read something of charm about Senate reform to page 1153 of Hansard for the session of 1962, wherein he refers to Mackenzie King's stand on Senate reform and stands bravely forth as saying that aside from that one boner in 1925 the Liberal party has always played it nice and safe and cozy on Senate reform. They certainly have played it cozy without going so far as to say they are really going to reform the Senate. In 1962 they did suggest they were going to limit appointments to 15 years. I suggest that even if Mr. Aird or

Mr. Lang or these other characters are wonderful party bagmen, they are a little too young to be given this fantastic emolument until the age of 75 and, of course, at the rate the Liberals move on some of these reforms we are not even sure they will get this reform setting an age limit of 75 through the house. My friend points out that even this reform does not apply to people who were appointed before the bill comes into effect.


Mr. Habel:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, you know it is against the rules.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I wish you would.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


Hon. J. Walson MacNaughi (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely sure that the discussion of Senate reform is in order tonight because, as the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) said, there is an item on the order paper, order No. 40, which provides for a measure of Senate reform.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have one there too.


John Watson MacNaught: This measure will be brought on for debate as soon as possible after the legislation outlined by the Prime Minister has been dealt with by the house, and I am sure there will be ample opportunity then to discuss all aspects of Senate reform.
I also detected in the remarks of the hon. member for Port Arthur an inference that this party is only interested in appointing what he referred to as party bagmen. I want to point out to him that when I first entered the house back in 1945 a very learned legal light from Stanstead in the province of Quebec, Mr. John Hackett, was sitting on the opposite side of the house. He was appointed to the Senate by the former prime minister, Louis St. Laurent.
I also seem to recall that on another occasion Mr. St. Laurent offered a Senate appointment to Mr. M. J. Coldwell which he, for reasons best known to himself, refused. I do not believe that by any stretch of the imagination these two men could be called bagmen of the Liberal party.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Look at the last eight.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.10 p.m.

Tuesday, November 17, 1964