1964-11-18

CHANGE IN SEATING ARRANGEMENTS OF NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, and I may say it is a very pleasant one. I should like to express the thanks of our party to the hon. member for Chicoutimi and to his party for the kindness they have shown in making available a seat in our area of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One of my hon. friends is asking me to express my thanks to the Progressive Conservative party, too, but that was not part of what I intended to say.
In the light of all this may I ask that the following changes of seating be noted: the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway to seat No. 214; the hon. member for Winnipeg North to seat No. 239; the hon. member for Dan-forth to seat No. 240; the hon. member for New Westminster to seat No. 241; the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond to seat No. 267, and the hon. member for Hamilton South to seat No. 268. This will leave seat No. 269 available for the new member for Waterloo South, Mr. Max Saltsman.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Clerk please take note of the seating changes.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: I rise on a question of privilege at this time on behalf of myself personally and of other newspapermen in the house to protest against the language used by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice last night in endeavouring to answer a question raised by the hon. member for Yukon.
It is bad enough to have a newspaper accused of yellow journalism when it practices deceit, but when a newspaper gives a 20220-646J
straightforward, honest statement of the facts as was the case in the report regarding those two high ranking R.C.M.P. officers in Montreal, no one in the Department of Justice has any right to refer to it as yellow journalism. The hon. gentleman also suggested that no member of this house would want any kind of drumhead justice considered, since the Department of Justice has been studying the pension rights of the two men who have been tried and convicted. I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether arrangements are being made for pensions for printers who are on strike at La Presse, Montreal and at the Telegram, the Star and the Globe and Mail in Toronto. These men have forsworn their pension rights though they never stole anything from anybody.



WATER RESOURCES


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: As minister through whom the atomic energy control board reports to parliament, I should like to make a statement on radioactive contamination in waters in the Elliot Lake area and to reiterate the assurance given last Friday by the Prime Minister that there is no immediate hazard to the public and that adequate steps are being taken.
The question of pollution in provincial waters is of course one primarily of provincial jurisdiction, and to this end the province of Ontario has given the Ontario water resources commission the task of monitoring pollution in provincial waters. To safeguard the health of the public, the commission works in close co-operation with the Ontario department of health. Because, however, of the radioactive element in the present case the atomic energy control board has a direct interest.
Since 1957 the Ontario water resources commission has been actively engaged in carrying out investigations in the Elliot Lake area directed primarily toward minimizing the chemical and physical effects of uranium ore waste on the Serpent river watershed, and during this period has kept the atomic energy control board informed as to the

Statement on Reported Water Pollution presence and levels of radioactive elements in the waters of the area.
In order to rectify the existing situation, which has some long term dangers but no immediate hazards, the commission has been discussing with the mining companies concerned the taking of measures necessary, both in their view and in the view of the atomic energy control board, to bring about an abatement of the existing pollution. I am advised that the steps taken by the Ontario water resources commission to date and the future plans to deal with this situation are fully supported by the atomic energy control board, and further that the atomic energy control board endorses the conclusions reached by the commission and the Ontario department of health, namely that there is no immediate hazard to persons in the affected area; rather, these agencies are concerned with the possibilities of a long term-that is, many years-hazard that could develop should the situation not be brought under control at this time.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, for the information of hon. members, an official statement by the Ontario water resources commission outlining the steps being taken in this regard and their plans for the future.
In so far as other areas in Canada are concerned where uranium mining is being carried on, I am advised that radioactive contamination of water supplies as a consequence of these mining operations is not a problem. A recent report regarding the spreading of dust from the piles of tailings is also unduly alarmist. I am advised by the atomic energy control board that the concentration of radioactive material in this dust is so low as not to constitute a hazard to health.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct two questions to the Minister of Industry regarding the report he made to the house this afternoon, which to my mind was far from reassuring.
First, how does it come about that the atomic energy control board, which has some measure of responsibility, has allowed this situation with reference to radiation pollution to go as far as it has without more effective measures being taken? Second, has his attention been drawn to the statement which appeared in the Globe and Mail of November 17 by Mr. Frank Wright, former health inspector in that area, who said that

he drew the situation to the attention of the mining companies and the health authorities and was told to mind his own business, and was able to get no action whatsoever? I want to ask the minister whether any machinery is being set up to tighten inspection so the situation will not become worse.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam will take the time to read the statement on the situation which I have tabled, I think a number of his doubts will probably be resolved. In regard to his question as to how come this situation has been allowed to arise, I might say that a situation has arisen which does present a long term hazard to health if nothing is done. It does not present a short term hazard to health today. The long term hazard has been some time in arising, and it is being dealt with in time and adequately.
In so far as the statement of the health inspector is concerned, as I recollect the report it was to the effect that he had left that particular job last June and was entirely unfamiliar with what has happened in the Elliot lake area since June. If both he and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam will read the statement I have tabled I think both he and the hon. member will be satisfied.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I listened to the statement very carefully, and all I could gather was that the minister was sure the danger had not reached serious proportions. Will he tell the house what has happened since June in the Elliot Lake area which makes the situation any different from that described by Mr. Wright.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In the paper I have tabled the steps which have been taken or which are being taken are outlined, steps which are designed to lead and which will in fact lead to the abatement of this pollution.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
Regarding the three positions for psychologists now vacant at the federal penitentiary in Kingston (a) how long has each position been vacant (b) what are the qualifications required for each position (c) what is the salary offered for each position (d) is the government engaged in active efforts to fill these positions?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: (a) These positions have been vacant as follows:
(i) One vacancy since 15 April 1959; (ii) one vacancy since 1 April 1962; (iii) one vacancy since 26 June 1962. An appointment has been made to this vacancy which will take effect on the 1st October 1964.
(b)	and (c) The qualifications and relative salary ranges for these positions are as follows:
(i) Psychologist 4, $7,540-$8,040, graduation from a university of recognized standing with a Ph.D. in psychology or a master's degree in psychology plus five years' responsible professional experience; (ii) psychologist 3, $6,940-$7,840, graduation from a university of recognized standing with a master's degree in psychology plus two years' responsible professional experience or completion of all requirements for a Ph.D. in psychology less thesis; (iii) psychologist 2, $6,340-$7,240, graduation from a university of recognized standing with a master's degree in psychology; (iv) psychologist 1, $6,140-$6,940, graduation from a university of recognized standing with a bachelor's degree in psychology, plus three years' suitable experience. Candidates with all requirements for an M.A. degree in psychology less thesis are eligible for appointment to this grade without the experience requirement.
In all cases efforts are made to procure the employment of qualified candidates meeting the highest standard. However, if no qualified candidates are available for employment at the highest rates, appointments are made at the appropriate rates corresponding to the candidates' qualifications.
(d) Yes, these positions have been advertised extensively in the press and in professional periodicals.
Questions


DEATHS OF R.C.M.P. PERSONNEL
Mr. Caouette: 1.	How many members of the R.C.M.P. died during the last ten years?
2.	How many of those deceased officers were in service, and how many were superannuated?
3.	How many members of the R.C.M.P. in service or superannuated have committed suicide during the last ten years?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: 1.	During the period October 1, 1954 to September 30, 1964, 123 serving members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and 397 pensioners died. Of the 123 serving members, 61 died of natural causes, 41 by accidental death, two by misadventure, five were murdered and 14 committed suicide. Of the pensioners, 391 died of natural causes, four by accidental death and two by suicide. It is not known how many former members who were not on pension died.
2.	Of the 520 deceased members, 123 were in service and 397 were superannuated.
3.	During the period October 1, 1954 to September 30, 1964, 14 serving members and two pensioners committed suicide.


R.C.M.P. AIR DIVISION
Mr. Rheaume: 1.	What is the total capital investment of the R.C.M.P. air division under each of the headings, buildings, aircraft, vehicles, parts, at each of the following locations (a) Churchill, Manitoba (b) Fort Smith, N.W.T. (c) Inuvik, N.W.T. (d) Frobisher Bay, N.W.T.
2.	What staff establishment does the R.C.M.P. air division have at each of the abovementioned locations?
3.	What were the total maintenance and operating expenditures for the R.C.M.P. air division for the 1961-62 and 1962-63 fiscal years, at each of the above locations under each of these headings (a) staff wages, including isolation allowances (b) travel and removal expenditures for staff (c) net costs of crown housing supplied to staff (d) total operating costs of aircraft, vehicles and other equipment?
4.	What was the total mileage flown by R.C.M.P. aircraft based at each of the above locations during fiscal years 1961-62 and 1962-63?


Guy Favreau: 1.	Total capital investment
Location
(a)	Churchill, Man.
(b)	Fort Smith, N.W.T.
(c)	Inuvik, N.W.T.
(d)	Frobisher Bay, N.W.T.
Buildings
Aircraft Vehicles	Parts
$ 58,881.00	$118,000.00	Nil61,032.00	128,023.00	Nil156,900.24	130,635.50	NilNil	132,309.60	Nil

2.	Staff establishment: Churchill Manitoba, constable; Inuvik, N.W.T., 1 staff sergeant and 1 staff sergeant and 1 special constable; Fort 1 special constable; Frobisher Bay, N.W.T., Smith, N.W.T., 1 staff sergeant and 1 special 1 staff sergeant and 1 special constable.

Questions
3. Total maintenance and operating expenditures
	1961-62	1962-63
	$	$
Churchill, Manitoba		
(a)	16,116	16,222(b)	3,061	2,352(c)	4,353	1,201(d)	14,150	29,307Fort Smith, N.W.T.	(a)	16,516	17,825(b)	2,107	2,632(c)	2,013	2,417(d)	22,655	14,832Inuvik, N.W.T.	(a)	16,076	16,397(b)	1,498	2,281(c)	2,856	2,856(d)	15,772	28,229Frobisher Bay, N.W.T.	(a)	16,586	16,626(b)	1,772	1,072(c)	3,280	3,280(d)	14,494	13,7984. Total mileage flown	Churchill, Manitoba	62,639	44,860Fort Smith, N.W.T.	26,260	69,219Inuvik, N.W.T.	59,455	77,381Frobisher Bay, N.W.T.	46,760	61,916


DORCHESTER PENITENTIARY STAFF
Mr. Bell: 1.	What is the ratio of staff to inmates at Dorchester penitentiary, New Brunswick, and how does this compare with the other Canadian penitentiaries?
2.	Were any complaints received from staff organizations about understaffing or related problems at Dorchester penitentiary during the past few years and, if so, what action was taken?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. The ratio of staff to inmates at the Dorchester penitentiary, New Brunswick, and its relation to the ratio of staff to inmates with other Canadian penitentiaries is as follows:
Dorchester, 1 officer per 2.1 inmates; St. Vincent de Paul, 1 officer per 2.04 inmates; Federal training centre, 1 officer per 1.8 inmates; Leclerc, 1 officer per 2.2 inmates; Kingston, 1 officer per 2.7 inmates; Joyceville, 1 officer per 2.2 inmates; Collin's Bay, 1 officer per 1.9 inmates; Prison for women, 1 officer per 2.3 inmates; Manitoba, 1 officer per 2.3 inmates; Saskatchewan, 1 officer per 2.7 inmates; British Columbia, 1 officer per 2.6 inmates.

2.	In December 1961, the civil service association of Canada complained of the shortage of staff at the Dorchester penitentiary. Since, there have been 31 additions to the staff establishment.


SUBSIDY TO CANADIAN RAILWAYS
Mr. Woolliams: 1.	What subsidy was paid in 1963 out of the federal treasury to the Canadian railways?
2.	What subsidy has been promised for 1964 and/or paid?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Payments made subject to order number 96300, dated November 17, 1958, of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, which provides for payments to companies of an aggregate amount of $20,000,000 in respect of the period April 1, 1963, to March 31, 1964, to be paid in instalments at such times as may be determined by the said board for the purpose of reimbursing the said companies for such diminution in their aggregate gross revenues during the said period as in the opinion of the said board is attributable to such companies maintaining the rate level for freight traffic at an 8 per cent increase instead of 17 per cent as authorized by the said order; and to provide payments to the said companies of an aggregate amount in respect of the calendar year 1963 of $50,000,000 to be paid in instalments at such times and in accordance with such methods of allocation as may be determined by the said board for the maintenance by such companies of the rates of freight traffic at the said reduced level, $68,086,164.
Further payments in respect of the period from April 30, 1962, to March 31, 1963, to companies as defined in the Freight Rates Reduction Act in the manner and subject' to the same terms and conditions as payments made pursuant to that act in previous fiscal years, $14,761.
Payments to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian National Railways Company, equal to the annual cost of maintaining the trackage between specified points in Ontario on the transcontinental lines of the said railways, $7,000,000.
2. No action has yet been taken on interim payments for 1964-1965; $7,000,000 has been provided in the main estimates for 1964-1965 for payments to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian National Railways Company in respect of the annual cost of maintaining the trackage between specified

points in Ontario on the transcontinental lines of the said railways.


FAILURE TO PROSECUTE UNDER INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Smith: Since April 8, 1963, have there been any instances when the government has not initiated, or continued, prosecutions under the Income Tax Act when such action had been recommended to the government prior to that date and, if so, how many such instances?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: There have been three instances since April 8, 1963 when the government has not initiated, or continued, prosecution under the Income Tax Act when such action has been recommended to the government prior to that date. In one instance, through a misunderstanding of instructions, the taxpayer was led to believe that the payment of a penalty would conclude the case; in another instance, the evidence was reconsidered on the advice of counsel and it was determined to indicate a civil matter rather than fraud; and in the other instance, key witnesses died and before alternative evidence could be obtained, the time within which a prosecution could be initiated had expired.


R.C.M.P. SHIPS, WEST COAST
Mr. Basford: What are the names, sizes, headquarters port and intended purpose, or use, of all R.C.M. Police motorized ships of 20 feet over-all length or more, stationed on the west coast?


Guy Favreau: There are 14 R.C.M. Police motorized ships of 20 feet over-all length or more stationed on the west coast as follows:
Name of vessel	Size	Headquarters portM/L Victoria	92'	Esquimalt, B.C.P/B Tofino	65'	Ocean Falls, B.C.P/B Nanaimo	65'	Prince Rupert, B.C.P/B Masset	65'	Campbell River, B.C.P/B Ganges	65'	Port Alberni, B.C.P/B Alert	65'	Alert Bay, B.C.P/B Sidney	55'	Ganges, B.C.P/B Little Bow	II 55'	Powell River, B.C.P/B Advance	35'	Vancouver, B.C.P/B Westview	35'	Gibsons, B.C.P/B Tahsis	35'	Tahsis, B.C.M/B Fort St. James 29'	Fort St. James, B.C.M/B Port Alice	26'	Port Alice, B.C.M/B Fraser	26'	Vancouver, B.C.
These vessels are used for the enforcement of the federal and provincial statutes in Pacific coastal waters, and in addition, as
Questions
floating police detachments in isolated areas not accessible to regular land detachments. They also provide transportation for police personnel where other means of transportation are not available. These vessels assist the Royal Canadian Air Force air search and rescue operations as required. They also render assistance to other government departments and, when required, transport seriously ill persons from isolated areas to hospital centres, if no other means of transportation are available.


R.C.M.P. BARRACKS CONSTRUCTION, MAYERTHORPE, ALTA.
Mr. Horner (Jasper-: Edson):
Is it the intention of the government to build a new R.C.M.P. barracks at Mayerthorpe, Alberta and, if so, when?


Guy Favreau: It is intended to provide new accommodation for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at Mayerthorpe, Alberta within the next two years. The building will either be constructed by the government or built by private contract for lease to the force.


PENITENTIARY OFFICERS PROVIDED WITH WEAPONS
Mr. Howard: Since January 1, 1964, has any officer in any penitentiary in Canada been provided with a blackjack or other similar weapon and, if so, how many such officers (by penitentiaries) have been so provided?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Since January 1, 1964, blackjacks or other similar weapons have been issued to officers of the Canadian penitentiary service as follows:
Dorchester penitentiary 7; St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, 7; Manitoba penitentiary, 1; Saskatchewan penitentiary, 3; British Columbia penitentiary, 11.


FIRE IN OLD POST OFFICE BUILDING, QUEBEC CITY
Mr. Marcoux: 1.	Did a fire take place on September 3, 1964, in the old Henderson street post office building, in Quebec city, now occupied by the Department of National Health and Welfare?
2.	Were employees of the department hospitalized as a result of being overcome by smoke?
3.	Was this building fireproof?
4.	Are the exits sufficient in number, in accordance with regulations laid down by the federal and provincial departments of public works and, if not, will the Minister of Public Works take the necessary steps to correct any breaches of the regulations?
Questions


Hon. J. P. Deschaielels (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is: Yes; the answer to the second question is: Yes; the answer to the third question is: No.
This is the answer to the fourth question: At the time of the fire, the number of exits was in accordance with federal standards but, on the sixth and seventh floors, they were not connected by a passage. The Department of Public Works is rectifying this deficiency and, as an added precaution, will build an outside fire escape to ensure the safety of the occupants of the building.


ALGERIAN IMMIGRANTS
Mr. Laprise: 1.	How many Algerian families settled on farms in (a) Quebec (b) in Canada, during the year 1963 and to date in 1964?
2.	How many Algerians have held jobs in industry and services in (a) Quebec (b) Canada, since 1963?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. Two French families repatriated from Algeria to France were settled on farms in Canada in 1963 and two more so far in 1964. All four families were settled in Quebec.
2. This information is not available.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS ON BEHALF OF FISHERMEN
Mr. Crouse: Will the government give consideration to amending the unemployment insurance regulations which specify that a fisherman may have a contribution of unemployment insurance stamps paid on his behalf by a buyer only in respect of a catch which is delivered to that buyer in a face to face transaction?


Hon. A. J. MacEachsn (Minister of Labour):: In those cases where fishermen have no actual employer, the buyer of their catch is responsible for the payment and recording of unemployment insurance contributions on their behalf, but only if he is dealing with the fishermen face to face.
This limitation is considered essential in the absence of a real employer-employee relationship. In order that the buyer may make the proper contributions for self employed fishermen, he must know what persons actually participated in making the catch, he must obtain their names and insurance numbers, he must ascertain that no other person is legally acting as their employer in respect of that catch, and he must verify several other particulars specified in the regulations. This can only be done adequately when one of the 
fishermen who has made the catch delivers it in person to the buyer. It is not considered practicable to maintain control over the plan without this restriction.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): 1.	As of October 31, 1964, what is the financial state of the unemployment insurance fund?
2.	What are its future prospects?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1.	On October 31, 1964, the unemployment insurance fund showed a credit balance of $56,750,970.82.
2.	It is expected that the contributions to the unemployment insurance fund will continue to increase the financial state of the fund until some time in December 1964. From approximately January 1965, during the heavy claims season, it is expected that the outgo from the fund will exceed its income.


TENDERS FOR POST OFFICE PAINTING, KINCARDINE, ONT.
Mr. Loney: 1.	Were tenders invited from competent contractors for the painting of the post office at Kincardine, Ontario and, if so, on what date and from whom were the tenders invited?
2.	What were the names, addresses and prices submitted for this contract?
3.	What is the name of the successful tenderer?
4.	At what date was the work to commence?
5.	Did the successful tenderer commence work at that date?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. Tenders were invited by public notice posted in the post office lobby on September 3, 1964.
2.	One tender was received from Wessels Painting & Decorating, Kincardine, Ont., $893.
3.	Wessels Painting & Decorating.
4.	No definite date was specified for the commencement of the work.
5.	Work commenced on October 26, 1964, and was completed on November 10, 1964.


NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT SERVICE REGISTRATIONS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): 1.	How many people have registered with the national employment service in each two week period in 1964?
2.	What proportion of the unemployed workforce is this estimated to represent in each two
week period?
3.	How many people have successfully been placed in jobs by the national employment service in each two week period?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1.	Data are not available by two week periods nor is information available for number of persons registered. The number of applications for employment at N.E.S. offices during calendar months of 1964 including workers who may have made more than one application is as follows: January, 398,043; February, 293,408; March, 290,283; April, 325,655; May, 296,023; June, 344,310; July, 349,349; August, 296,775; September, 316,718.
2.	Data are not comparable. N.E.S. data represent number of applications for employment during calendar months while labour force data represent estimates of persons unemployed and seeking work during a particular week of each month. Also N.E.S. data do not represent unemployed persons by labour force definition.
Labour force estimates of persons unemployed and seeking work during survey weeks indicated in 1964 are as follows:
January 18, 466,000; February 22, 467,000; March 21, 456,000; April 18, 403,000; May 23, 293,000; June 20, 282,000; July 18, 265,000; August 22, 247,000; September 19, 218,000.
3.	Data are not available for two week periods nor is information available for number of persons placed. The number of placements in employment during calendar months in 1964 including workers who may have been placed more than once is as follows:
January, 73,471; February, 66,673; March, 74,756; April, 104,380; May, 109,669; June, 109,134; July, 123,827; August, 111,407; September, 133,281.


AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES, MOOSE JAW R.C.A.F. STATION
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	What was the total cost of the contract to cultivate, fertilize, sow to oats, sow to grass, harvest the oats, and hale straw at the Moose Jaw R.C.A.F. station, Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan?
2.	What was the total number of acres to be cultivated and grassed?
3.	How many tons of fertilizer were used on this project?
4.	Were public tenders called and, if so, how was it advertised?
5.	How many tenders were received and the tender prices of each?
6.	To whom was this contract awarded and for what amount?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In so far as Defence Construction (1951) Limited is concerned, the answer is as follows:
1. A contract was awarded for the aerodrome fencing, grading and seeding at R.C.A.F. station, Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan,
Questions
on May 29, 1964, at an estimated cost of $123,919.55 based on unit prices and estimated quantities.
A portion of this contract was let by the prime contractor to a subcontractor for the field seeding. This included cultivating, fertilizing, sowing to oats, sowing to grass, harvesting the oats and baling straw. The amount of this subcontract is not known.
2.	1,121 acres for the entire project of which 850 acres were cultivated and grassed by the subcontractor.
3.	Approximately 280 tons.
4.	Yes. A tender call for the entire project was advertised in daily and weekly newspapers.
5.	Six, $123,919.55; $148,465.76; $152,530.45; $139,929.45; $152,158; $155,841.
6.	Sprayturf Limited, Delaware, Ontario, $123,919.55.


ONTARIO-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO EXPANSION OF MEDICAL TRAINING FACILITIES
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
Does the government plan to contribute financially to the recently announced expansion of medical, dental and nursing training facilities in Ontario and, if so, what will be the extent of their contribution?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The federal government has not been officially informed on the details of the Ontario proposals for the expansion of medical, dental and nursing training facilities. However, officers of the Department of National Health and Welfare have been working closely with Ontario officials in a careful study of health needs. This is part of a continuing program of appraisal.
As far as the federal government is concerned, it is hoped to be able to establish a nation-wide picture of needs in this area, and this forms part of the analysis of the royal commission report on health services. This analysis is nearing completion and, as mentioned earlier in the House of Commons, it should be possible to make proposals to the provinces early next year.


POSTAL INFRACTIONS OBSERVED UNDER SURVEILLANCE
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Since the Post Office Department began Its policy of peepholes for observing postal employees while at work, or in washrooms, have any postal employees been charged either by the department or in the courts with being guilty of theft and, if so, how many and in what cities?

Questions
2.	Have any postal employees been charged and penalized by the Post Office Department for any other offences such as smoking, as a result of infractions observed from the peepholes and, if so, how many and where?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: 1. Observation galleries were installed in post offices many years ago. Since their installation, employees have been charged with theft but there is no record of the number of charges and the cities involved.
2. The Post Office Department cannot recall any cases where as a result of observation from galleries postal employees have been charged and penalized for such infractions as smoking in the prohibited areas of post offices. Normal supervisory steps are taken where regulations of this type are violated.


ENLISTED AND CIVILIAN PERSONNEL, ARMED FORCES
Mr. Doucett: 1.	What is the total number of enlisted personnel serving in our military service as of October 31, 1964?
2.	What is the total number of enlisted personnel serving in the Canadian army as of October 31, 1964 (a) in Canada (b) out of Canada?
3.	What is the total number of enlisted personnel serving in the Canadian air force as of October 31, 1964 (a) in Canada (b) out of Canada?
4.	What is the total number of enlisted personnel serving in the Canadian navy as of October 31, 1964 (a) in Canada (b) out of Canada?
5.	What is the total number of civilian personnel employed as of October 31, 1964 (a) in Canada (b) out of Canada, in the (i) Canadian army (ii) Canadian air force (iii) Canadian navy?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: 1. 98,779.
2.	(a) 33,876; (b) 7,784.
3.	(a) 35,044; (b) 5,038.
4.	(a) 16,834; (b) 203.
5.	(a) (i) 15,706; (ii) 13,807; (iii) 11,148; (b) (i) 94; (ii) 33; (iii) 43.
The above strengths are as of September 30, 1964, and do not include commissioned officers.


OPERATION OF EXPERIMENTAL FARM, NAPPAN, N.S.
Mr. Coates: Is it the intention of the Department of Agriculture to close out the operations of the experimental farm at Nappan, N.S. and, if not, will operations of the Nappan experimental farm in any way be curtailed?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: It is not the intention of the Department of Agriculture to close out the operations of the experimental farm at Nappan, N.S.
The operations of the Nappan experimental farm will not be curtailed with respect to

work of practical importance to the area which it serves directly. As a general policy it proposed to concentrate basic research at fewer stations. Over a period of time this will involve the transfer of certain basic research studies from Nappan in the interests of providing a better and more efficient research service to the entire Atlantic region.


EXPENSES OF OBSERVER AT OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Coates: Did the government pay the expenses of any person who accompanied Canada's representative to the recent Olympic games in Tokyo and, if so, of whom and what expenses were paid and for what reason?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No.


FIRE PROTECTION, CANADIAN ARSENALS CHERRIER PLANT
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Is the Cherrier plant fire protection system at Canadian Arsenals at St-Paul-l'Ermite, county of l'Assomption, adequate?
2.	In what year was the fire-pump system purchased?
3.	Have the fire hoses ever been replaced?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Yes.
2.	1942.
3.	Yes.


CHERRIER PLANT, CANADIAN ARSENALS
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	How many employees are presently working at the Cherrier plant of Canadian Arsenals at St-Paul-l'Ermite, l'Assomption county?
2.	Since May 1, 1963, how many employees have lost their jobs?
3.	Are there any important contracts forthcoming for the Cherrier plant?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. 299.
2. 120.
3. No; work load dependant on requirements of the Department of National Defence.


ADVERTISING FOR GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): In advertising for Canadian government annuities (a) do advertisements say that contributions to annuities are tax deductible (b) do advertisements say that annuity benefits are taxable, and (c) do advertisements include the phrase "Want to save on your income tax?"


Allan Joseph MacEachen: (a) Yes. The advertisement also explains that the annuity must be registered as a retirement savings plan and that within certain

limits the cost of the annuity can be added to deductions and so lower the taxable income.
(b)	No.
(c)	The coupon accompanying the advertisement contains the phrase "Want to save on your income tax?".


TRANSFER OF BLUEBERRY EXPERIMENTAL STATION, NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Coates: 1.	Is it the intention of the Department of Agriculture to transfer their blueberry experimental station from Tower Hill, N.B., to the experimental farm at Kentville, N.S.?
2.	What county in Nova Scotia produces a majority of the blueberry crop in Nova Scotia and is there an experimental farm located in that county and, if so, where is it located?


Harry William Hays: 1. No decision has been made to transfer any of the blueberry work from Tower Hill, N.B.
2. The majority of the Nova Scotia production of low bush blueberries is in Cumberland county. An experimental farm is located in that county at Nappan.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Marlin (Timmins): 1.	How many Air Canada passengers have (a) embarked, and (b) disembarked at Sudbury, North Bay and Timmins, Ontario, in each month between January 1, 1963 and October 31, 1964?
2.	What has been the revenue in Air Canada ticket sales at Sudbury, North Bay and Timmins, Ontario, in each month between January 1, 1963 and October 31, 1964?
3.	What was the monthly revenue from Air Canada flight 241 (Ottawa to Toronto) between January 1, 1963 and October 31, 1964?
Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, motions 185, 186 and 188 are acceptable to the government. I ask that motions 183, 184 and 187 be allowed to stand.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, as far as motions 183 and 184 are concerned, that is acceptable only in anticipation of getting a favourable response to them next week.
Inquiries of the Ministry


COPIES OF FINAL FLAG DESIGNS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 185-Mr. Flemming (Victoria-
Car leton):
That an order of the house do issue for copies of the final flag designs, in categories A, B and C as voted upon by the special committee on a Canadian flag and listed in detail in the committee's report, page 834, Votes and Proceedings, dated October 29, 1964.
Motion agreed to.
CHEQUES ISSUED BY HAL BANKS Motion No. 186-Mr. Simpson:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all cheques or photostats thereof connected with Harold Chamberland Banks, esquire, (otherwise known as Hal Banks) and referred to in an article published in the issue of November 6, 1964 of the Toronto Daily Star, and which are in the custody of the Department of Labour and/or the maritime board of trustees, or elsewhere under government control.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 188-Mr. Fisher:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all public addresses given, and press releases issued, by John J. Deutsch, chairman of the economic council of Canada.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether he will now answer the question I asked yesterday, in addition to tabling the directive to which I drew attention, concerning his instruction to remove the portraits of Her Majesty the Queen from the citizenship courts.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I see that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) has not yet been successful in reaching the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, but I will be glad-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Monleith:: Who do you think you are?
10218	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


René Tremblay: -when the Leader of the Opposition is in the house, to give a complete answer to the question asked by the hon. member.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Using the words of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration himself, has he the courage to answer the question I asked yesterday?


Some hon. Members:: No.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to table the directive given to the citizenship courts in Canada by the citizenship registrar. I reserve the right to answer later the right hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister would reply to the members of this house rather than trying to dodge the issue. May I ask him this question. Is he accepting full responsibility for the directive which he has now tabled, or is he shifting the burden to a civil servant who is not here in this house to answer for himself?


René Tremblay: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I assume full responsibility for a decision which was made without my consent but which I find in accordance with protocol instructions.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Cote (Longueuil):: Could the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tell us who is responsible for the protocol, as far as this matter is concerned?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, those instructions are transmitted from one department to another. I do not think that the minister should reveal who gave advice in this instance.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: further supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister in a few words would tell us the reason these pictures were removed from these courtrooms.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member insists, I have no objection whatsoever to explaining the matter fully. Since the right hon. Leader of the Opposition raised this matter, I thought it was proper to wait for his return. However, and with your permission, 

Mr. Speaker, I have no objection at all to give all the facts in this matter.
When the right hon. Leader of the Opposition gave his press conference, accusing the government of having ordered citizenship courts to remove portraits of the Queen, he knew very well that no such instruction had been given either by myself or by the government, since I had informed him by telephone that this instruction had been given by the citizenship registrar.
It is customary for the citizenship branch of my department to supply citizenship courts with coats of arms of Canada, flags and portraits of Her Majesty the Queen.
In reply to questions asked by judges of citizenship courts to ascertain where those items should be placed, officials of my department obtained the advice of experts on the matter who said that the coat of arms and flags should be placed in the courtroom while it would be more appropriate to place the portrait of Her Majesty in the judge's chamber, where applicants for Canadian citizenship are interviewed and where the judge can more adequately explain the role of Her Majesty.
May I also add that in our federal courts, such as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Exchequer Court of Canada, only the coat of arms of Canada is placed in the courtrooms.
It is most unfortunate that such unfounded accusations were made by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, which is affecting national unity.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Would the minister indicate to this house the department to which these specialists belong?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question before. I do not think that a minister has the prerogative to reveal from what other department advice was received with regard to a decision made, in full responsibility by the officials of my department, even if advice was sought and received from other departments.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: I have a further supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We started off this afternoon on a happy note, and I do hope that we can continue in that vein.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question. Did the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration not receive some objections from the officers of these courts in reference to this matter?


René Tremblay: No, Mr. Speaker. To my knowledge no objections were addressed to me. Anyway, as I said before, the decision was not my own, but was made by an official in the discharge of his duties as citizenship registrar. But I now assume full responsibility for this decision.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No responsibility.


Mr. Smallwood:: Get a new minister. You should resign.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister to indicate the portions of his department for which he is responsible.


René Tremblay: Until further notice, the whole department, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is becoming a debate, and I do not see any purpose in continuing it.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouetle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Public Works.
Several weeks ago I asked the minister if his department was contemplating the possibility or opportunity to build public buildings in Hull, Ottawa's neighbour on the other side of the river. The minister told me then that the matter had been agreed to in principle and that we should get an answer within a few days or a few weeks.
Well, several weeks have elapsed since the minister told us that the principle had been accepted. Is he in a position today to tell us what his department or the government intends to do in this respect?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I think I will be in a position to make a statement on that matter any time now.
Inquiries of the Ministry


OIL-PRESSURE TO REDUCE EXPORTS FROM CANADA TO U.S.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister or the government received any representations or communications from the United States government with regard to oil imports into the United States from Canada, to the effect that the pressure is on to have the quantities reduced?


Hon. Milchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker, the only reference I have seen to this matter recently has been the same newspaper report which I am sure the hon. gentleman saw this morning.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: In the absence of the Minister of Public Works, Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question-


An hon. Member:: He is here.


John Angus MacLean: I am sorry; the Minister of Agriculture-I should like to address a question to the acting minister or to the minister's parliamentary secretary. Can he assure the farmers of Prince Edward Island that the supervisory zone office of the Farm Credit Corporation for the province is not being moved to Moncton, New Brunswick?


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving notice of his intention to ask this question. I am advised as follows. In February, 1961, the Farm Credit Corporation centralized control of its operations in the Atlantic provinces in a branch office located in Moncton. However, the corporation retained a sub-office in Charlottetown, with a supervisor for the province who also performed the function of assistant branch manager for the Atlantic provinces. In order to improve the operations of the corporation within the Atlantic provinces, the assistant branch manager has been moved to the branch office at Moncton. The supervision office will be retained in Charlottetown

Inquiries of the Ministry and a new supervisor will be appointed, whose sole responsibility will be to supervise the corporation's services to farmers in Prince Edward Island.


PROPOSED MARCH ON OTTAWA BY ONTARIO AND QUEBEC FARMERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry, in his capacity as minister responsible for eastern agriculture.
Has the minister been informed of the proposed march of 10,000 farmers on Ottawa to be organized by the Ontario farmers' union and the Quebec farmers' union, to protest against the government's inaction with regard to their problems and especially the water shortage and the cattle they are forced to sell?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: No, Mr. Speaker, but together with the Minister of Agriculture, I shall be glad to welcome them in Ottawa.


Mr. Peters:: Will he be here?


CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Inasmuch as a committee of the Quebec legislature is well advanced in its study of the Canadian constitution and proposed changes thereto, is it the intention of the federal government to initiate proposals in the near future to set up a constitutional study conference on a national basis, designed to propose positive suggestions which will result in a modern constitution suited to modern times?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this is a question for the order paper, important though it is.


William Heward Grafftey: May I rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker. The urgency of the question is based on the fact that the province of Quebec is the only province at the moment that is carrying out such a study. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether any other province or provinces have indicated to him that they intend to initiate studies of the con-
[Mr. Beer.)
stitution, as Quebec is doing at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps this question also could be put on the order paper.


William Heward Grafftey: I have no intention of putting it on the order paper or debating it at ten o'clock, but I felt it was an important question at the moment.


CONSIDERATION BY HOUSE COMMITTEE OF AMENDMENT FORMULA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question. On Friday, November 6 he assured me that he hoped to be able to make a statement "next week" in regard to the setting up of a parliamentary committee to deal with the amendment formula and the whole procedure as to amending the British North America Act. The week has passed and the Prime Minister has not been able to make a statement. Does he anticipate that he will be able to make it in the near future?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I apologize to my hon. friend; I had the statement ready last Friday and unfortunately he was not in the house that day. I meant to make it yesterday but I forgot about it. The question was asked, as my hon. friend said, on November 6 whether the house will be enabled to make a detailed examination of the proposed white paper on constitutional amendment and whether there is to be a parliamentary committee to look into the subject. Similar suggestions have been made to me by some other hon. members.
The situation is that a white paper is in the course of preparation, and it is hoped that a draft will be ready for consideration by the government next week. Also, Mr. Speaker, the final text of the amending formula as settled at the conference just held has been sent formally to the governments of all the provinces requesting their formal concurrence in the terms of the text.
It is felt, Mr. Speaker, that it would not be desirable to make a final decision on the procedure to be followed in dealing with the white paper or the amending formula in the house until the replies that have been requested from the provinces have been received.


INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could he arrange for every member of the Conservative party to receive a copy of the editorial published in the December 2 issue of Maclean's, which is entitled:
This isn't opposition, Mr. Diefenbaker. this is sabotage.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Surely the hon. gentleman does not wish me to use my frank for that purpose.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the past, questions which have been asked about the welfare of unemployed workers in my own particular constituency have not been allowed. This afternoon we have had examples of facetious questions being put which, before they were completed, the Chair must have realized were definitely out of order, yet the Chair permitted such questions to be asked.


Mr. H. W. Danforih (Kent, Ont.):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister in making his most recent appointment to the Senate receive any advice or suggestions from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who I understand promised several people in the Windsor area that this appointment would be theirs?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman should not worry about these matters.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Could the minister tell me if he will soon table document No. 180, as he promised on October 28 last?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that I was not able to hear what the hon. gentleman said, but perhaps he would allow me to read it in Hansard and answer tomorrow.
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE


RENEWAL OF U.K.-CANADA TAX AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Are negotiations now going on seeking renewal of the Canada-United Kingdom tax agreement, and will they be concluded satisfactorily in time so there will be no interruption of the situation in regard to that treaty?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, negotiations were being carried on with the government of the United Kingdom and, as sometimes happens, an election intervened. They are now being renewed with the new government of the United Kingdom. I have no reason to think they will not be concluded with reasonable dispatch.


BANK OF CANADA HOLDINGS OF BONDS TO BE REDEEMED
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to a guestion asked me yesterday by the hon. member for Cariboo having to do with Bank of Canada holdings of certain issues of securities.
I find on inquiry that details by issues of Bank of Canada holdings are not a matter of public record; therefore I am not in a position to provide details of the bank's holdings of the issues maturing on December 1 and December 15. The Bank of Canada does provide on its weekly and monthly balance sheets broad category classifications of its holdings of government of Canada securities. I might point out that, as I indicated in my public announcement of the new government financing last Friday, the Bank of Canada has agreed to acquire a minimum of $125 million of the new issue.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: A supplementary question Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell me whether there is any reason in the public interest why the Bank of Canada does not keep these records or supply this information?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: In the operation of monetary policy, which is conducted on a day to day basis by the bank, it is not thought desirable to give full details of the securities which the bank is buying and selling from time to time.

Inquiries of the Ministry BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


CONSIDERATION OF LABOUR AND FLAG LEGISLATION, ESTIMATES, ETC.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister regarding the labour standards act, which is a piece of legislation in which more than 500,000 workers in Canada are vitally interested. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether we can be given some assurance that this legislation will be proceeded with before the flag debate is recommenced, in order that we may be sure it will be passed before Christmas.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. gentleman no such assurance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in the event the amendments which are being prepared are ready, will the Prime Minister assure this house that he is prepared to interrupt the flag debate, if it takes up a great deal of time, in order to make sure that this legislation is dealt with prior to Christmas. I am assuming that the Prime Minister is genuine in wanting this legislation passed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there should be no necessity of interrupting the flag debate in order to get this important legislation through before Christmas.


Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the government house leader and ask him, in view of the statement made a moment ago by the right hon. Prime Minister that the flag debate is of prime importance between now and Christmas, whether he thinks there is any purpose in holding additional meetings of house leaders to try to arrange the business of the house.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (President of the Privy Council):: I do not agree with
the hon. member's statement concerning what has been said here today. I thought it was made quite clear that there are two matters of prime importance to the government which we expect to have done before Christmas. One of these is the flag question and the other is the labour standards bill.


An hon. Member:: How about the Canada pension plan?
[Mr. Gordon.)


George James McIlraith: Well, the pension plan is moving very precisely and very well. I hope the estimates are moving very well also. I do not accept the hon. member's statement or interpretation of what has been placed on the record. Since I do not accept it, I cannot answer the question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact there has been no agreement about a limitation of time on the flag debate, we can only assume that if the government decides to put the flag debate first there can be no guarantee that the labour standards bill will be passed before Christmas. Is this the interpretation we are to take from the statement of the minister and the statement of the Prime Minister?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is trying to interpret things in a particular way to suit his own purposes. There has never been at any time an indication by the government that the house will do certain things. The responsibility of the government is to submit legislation to the House of Commons, and the House of Commons disposes of it. All the government can do is submit legislation in the order that it thinks is the most appropriate way in dealing with its responsibilities of office.
When agreement can be reached on the limitation of debate, that is very acceptable. I feel it is common knowledge that the Prime Minister has been on record for at least two years, when these things were the proper subject of debate, as saying he thought there should be limitation of debate on the items of business coming before parliament. However, be that as it may, we have obtained limitation of debate rather successfully, I think, in the eyes of all hon. members, in the last couple of weeks on some subjects. I personally hope we might get it in the future. We cannot give any commitment at the moment as to what the House of Commons will do with the items of business that are submitted.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the house leader's statement that the government's responsibility is to introduce items in their order of importance, am I to take it from his statement and that of the Prime Minister that the flag debate is now much more important than the labour standards act?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has no right to draw such conclusions. The remarks I made will appear in Hansard

and they can be analysed and deductions drawn from them, but the hon. member has no right to put such an interpretation on them. The government has consistently made it very clear that it regards these items as of major importance.


Frank Howard: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has no right to place a particular interpretation upon what the Prime Minister said, neither has the President of the Privy Council any right to do the same thing.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of his statement a few moments ago that he recognized no necessity for interrupting the flag debate in order to ensure the passage of legislation that many members feel is more important, are we to assume that he has had firm assurances there will not be a prolonged debate on the flag issue when it comes up?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman should not inadvertently misrepresent what I said. I did not say there would be no necessity; I said there should be no necessity to interrupt the flag debate.


George James McIlraith: If I may have the indulgence of the house I wish to make a short announcement which I think will be of interest to hon. members. It concerns the business before us.
Following the discussion in the house last night when I announced the business of the house as reported at page 10203 of Hansard, and after consultation with the Prime Minister, I called a meeting of the house leaders of the various parties to discuss house business. I am happy to advise hon. members that agreement has now been reached among the parties that there be an order of the house to the effect that starting tomorrow we shall consider estimates, that they shall be considered each sitting day, and that not later than November 27, all estimates, that is the main estimates and supplementary estimates A, B and C, shall be dealt with, as well as the necessary appropriation bill at all stages. It was understood that the Speaker would be able to leave the chair without question put on Monday and Tuesday of next week, and that private members' hours would be waived during this period.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you would so order.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house in agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
The time for the question period has expired, but through a lapse of memory on my part I forgot to call the hon. member for York-Humber, who spoke to me some time ago and who would like to pose a question. So, with the consent of the house, I propose we have one more question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: I rise on a point of order. When the proposal was made by the President of the Privy Council with respect to the business of the house for the remainder of this week and next week, both the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I rose to make some comment about it, but you did not offer either of us the opportunity to make that comment indicating whether or not there was agreement with that proposal.


Mr. Mandziuk:: But didn't you?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might be heard on the point, namely the suggestion that the house agree to the order which has been proposed by the leader of the house.
The statement that there was a meeting of the house leaders of the various parties this morning and that we gave favourable consideration to the program as outlined in the statement just made by the leader of the house is correct. Our party was concerned about one point, and I reported this back to the leader of the house. This one point had to do with the order of priority, after the estimates have been disposed of, as between the flag debate and the Canada labour code. An assurance was given to me that no decision was being taken on that question, that all we were agreeing to was the order of business until a week from Friday. There was no assurance that the Canada labour code would be brought forward, but neither was there any exclusion of the possibility of our still discussing with the government the fact that we might have it ahead of the flag debate. It was on the understanding that this matter was left open that I reported our agreement back to the house leader.
Obviously there is some concern in this party this afternoon because of the exchanges which have taken place. I can only say our agreement was conditional on there not being a decision at this point beyond what is actually set out in the statement made by

Inquiries of the Ministry the President of the Privy Council, namely that all we are agreeing to at this point is to spend the next seven days on estimates. The business for the rest of the session is left for further discussion.


George James McIlraith: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


Frank Howard: The Prime Minister made some comments today bearing on the priority to be accorded to the other two items, and I do not think we should proceed now to make an agreement when it is only a halfhearted agreement and when the Prime Minister has in effect destroyed it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: It would be far better, in my opinion, if the President of the Privy Council were to withhold his proposal until later in the day and allow further discussion to take place.


Mr. Speaker:: As the Chair understands the situation, it is this. The President of the Privy Council read a statement which had been agreed to by the different parties and their representatives, a statement which I have in my hand. At the request of the leader of the house I asked whether it should be so ordered, and it was ordered.


An hon. Member:: It was not ordered.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: As far as I understand it, that is the situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I have confirmation from the Prime Minister that the statement I made a moment ago is correct, namely that no decision has been made as to the priority of house business beyond a week from Friday?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course it is. The order covers only the business for next week. That is clear. No decision has been made as to what will be done after next week, one way or the other.


Frank Howard: I do not want to be obstinate about it.


Some hon. Members:: You are.


Frank Howard: But it is quite obvious that the government, because of its concern about this rag of a flag, is trying to make a sucker out of parliament.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On a point of order, may I ask whether the order was passed by the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, the order was passed. I said so twice.


AIRPORTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ralph Bronson Cowan: I have a question I should like to put to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister advise the house what progress is being made by the government in its prosecution of Gabriel Robert Johnson, the taxicab driver who has been accused of picking up a fare at Stevenson field, Winnipeg, despite a monopoly contract given to Moore's taxi service in that city.


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question for the order paper.


PENSIONS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, November 17, 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. Speaker:: The hon. member for Esqui-malt-Saanich.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I had the floor at ten o'clock last evening, and my remarks will take a few minutes to complete.


Mr. Speaker:: That is so. It was a mistake of the Chair. The hon. member for Essex West had the floor. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich next.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will only take a minute or so more and then I will be happy to yield the floor to the hon. member.
I find it strange that some of the business executives to whom I was referring last evening as expressing concern over the possible effect of the decisions of politicians on the funds of the Canada pension plan should regularly invest large amounts of the money of their firms and the money of other people in government bonds whose soundness is based on the decisions of those same politicians.
Of course a somewhat different type of criticism, and perhaps a more substantial one, has been made, and it arises out of the possibility that the provinces in using their share of the pension fund may make investments

in a way which could be at cross purposes with the investment policies of the federal government aimed at influencing the entire economy on a national basis. However, because of the present freedom of the provinces to borrow for their own purposes, this possibility already exists and would continue to exist even if a portion of the Canada pension plan fund was not available to them.
I for one feel that the trends of economics, social welfare and technology call for the continued existence of a strong federal government capable of dealing with these matters on a national basis in the interests of all Canadians, and I certainly do not rule out the possibility of constitutional changes to enable our federal government to carry out effectively the role required of it by existing and future circumstances. However, so long as our country continues to be of a federal nature a certain portion of the central government's efforts to deal with the economy on a national basis will have to be made through the continuing use of improved techniques of consultation and discussion with the provinces. The proper use of these techniques through bodies such as the economic council of Canada and a federal secretariat for federal-provincial affairs will enable a cohesiveness in economic and social policies to develop and exist in such a way that we should be able largely to eliminate this risk that the federal government will not be able to act effectively as required to maintain the national economy at a high level.
Fears have also been expressed that the plan would remove savings otherwise available for private investment; but I think it has been made clear that in other countries where similar social welfare plans have been in existence there have not been declining rates of private savings. It cannot be overlooked that the money paid out in pension benefits will be quickly spent on consumer goods and services; it will add to the effective demand which is needed for an active and buoyant economy. The firms that receive the money for these goods and services will thereby have it available to meet some of their own private investment needs. As the Windsor Star put it in an editorial in its edition of November 11:
It is not by chance that the countries with the most advanced social security systems generally are also the most prosperous and with the highest standards of living. These two facts are associated.
Money spent on social security measures does not disappear; it quickly and continuously is placed back in the economic bloodstream of the country.
Canada Pension Plan
I think the same can be applied to what happens to money invested as social capital. Also the Canada pension plan will help workers to meet the possible threat of displacement by automation in several important ways. Since the pensions will be completely portable, it will be easier for workers to seek out new job opportunities wherever they may be, and it will make it easier for employers to hire employees who may be close to but not yet of pensionable age. Also by making it possible to take a pension between the ages of 65 and 70 it will in fact encourage earlier retirement, and not the reverse, thereby increasing job opportunities for younger workers.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, this Canada pension plan will enable steps to be taken for the provision of reasonable standards of income for the retired, the disabled, orphans and widows all across this country. I am therefore pleased to be able to support the second reading of this bill as a measure serving the interests of all Canadians.


Mr. G. L. Chalterion (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I will not be as fluent as the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Gray) because I will not be reading my speech word for word. However, I will not take up too much of the time of the house. I am very pleased to have this chance of saying a few words on the fourth Liberal Canada pension plan. It is obvious that the government and its supporters on the other side of the house are preparing the people of Canada for an election within the next few months. It is obvious, by the travels of the treasury bench members across the country, making partisan, political speeches and attacking the one man they are afraid of, that it will not be too long before we have an election.
We know what happened in the last election campaign with regard to the promises the Liberals made; and being Liberals, they cannot change and will do the same thing in the next election campaign. But I think it is our duty to point out to the people in advance that they should not trust the promises that the Liberals are going to make. To convey this message, Mr. Speaker, I want to read from the Victoria Daily Colonist of March 31, 1963. This is a full page advertisement; they obviously have a lot of money. It is headed, "The policies of the Liberal party". As I say, it is a full page ad with a large number of items that the Liberal government promised to put into effect. I could spend possibly 20 minutes reading off items here that they have promised, have not fulfilled and which of

Canada Pension Plan
course they have no intention of fulfilling. For example, there are municipal loans for schools; national housing loans for existing houses-there are a great number. However, I will refer only to the promises pertinent to the question we are discussing today. Under the subheading "Pensions" there is another heading that says, "Make possible retirement at half pay at 65". This was the first Canada pension plan the Liberals proposed. I ask hon. members to just compare that with the proposal that is now before us. This advertisement also mentions a maximum pension of $296 per month for a couple. It goes on to say that the Liberal party would establish a new national minimum of a $75 a month pension. In this regard the advertisement says that the pension will not be a tax on the people, in effect, because it will come out of contributions.
I would ask the house to remember what actually happened to the $10. On July 18, when the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) introduced the second Liberal plan into the house, we moved that the $10 be paid immediately. At that time, of course, every Liberal member in the house voted against it; but in due course, because of constant pressure from members on this side, the government finally gave in and on September 30 last they brought in an amendment to the Old Age Security Act. However, that increase which we all supported cost the taxpayers of Canada $116 million a year; in other words, it was not paid out of contributions, as was promised by the Liberals.
There has been a great deal of bungling on the part of the government-that is of course no surprise; it is quite common with it- particularly with regard to the Canada pension plan. As I said, the first plan was introduced by the minister on July 18, 1963. Last night the hon. member for Essex West tried to justify all these convolutions the government has gone through in arriving at the present plan by saying that all this was necessary in order to arrive at the best plan possible. But this of course is not what the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) said at the time she introduced the first plan. I quote from page 2343 of Hansard for 1963, where the minister is reported as having said:
This government has taken three months.
She had said before that it would normally take other governments that are not as smart as the present government two years to prepare a plan.
[Mr. Chatterton.l
I say without partisan taint that the exact time of payment is dependant upon the speed with which this chamber adopts the plan.
In other words, according to the minister it was entirely a matter for the house as to how soon this offspring of theirs would be given life. Again I quote from page 2346 of Hansard, where the minister is reported as having said:
Since taking office, we have been working steadily to explore the best type of scheme for Canada. We believe that the scheme now placed before parliament will commend itself to the house-
That was what the minister said at the time; this was the ultimate creation and test of the ingenuity of the Liberal government. Then of course the second attempt was made on March 17 this year, when the minister introduced another resolution for the Canada pension plan, and then the bill, Bill No. C-75. Right up to the very end there has been bungling and fumbling on the part of the government, because even as of now the appendices to the actuarial report are not available to us. We did not get a copy of the actuarial report until the night before last, and at the time of first reading only 100 copies of the bill were available. This brings to mind the fact that during September last the government was obviously anxious for us to continue the flag debate. At that time we demanded that it discontinue the flag debate and bring on the Canada pension plan. As a matter of fact, on two occasions-September 3 and September 8-there was a motion before the house to adjourn the flag debate, presumably so that we could go on with the Canada pension plan. On both these occasions every Liberal in the house voted against the motion, and of course every Conservative voted for it. It is now obvious that the real reason the government wanted to continue the flag debate at that time was because the legislation was not ready.
I will now refer to some of the provisions of Bill No. C-136. We are at second reading stage, which means we are dealing with the principle of the bill. I want to outline for the government what I consider are some weaknesses in the bill as presented. However, I will start by saying that in spite of what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) tried to imply last night no member on this side has opposed a contributory pension plan. We have tried to show up weaknesses, we have tried to suggest improvements and we have asked questions. I repeat that we are in favour of a contributory pension plan, but we feel that the proposal made by the government can be improved.

The first weakness which I note in the plan -I have spent a fair amount of time studying not only Bill No. C-75 but the two white papers and Bill No. C-136-is that there is nothing in this proposal for those who perhaps need it the most, namely the people who are already retired. Shortly after the second white paper was released, which I think was around August 10, I was invited by an old age pensioners association in my riding to explain to them the Canada pension plan. I did this, basing my explanation on the white paper which was issued at that time. When I had gone through my explanation of the plan they said to me, in effect: "Is there nothing in this for us?" I said: "That is the way it is." I am sure that since the white paper was released this kind of reaction must have been received by the government.
Then again, last week I was home for Remembrance day, and on the Tuesday morning when I saw the morning papers they carried a headline to the effect that a new departure in the Canada pension plan was that the old age security pension would from now on be tagged on to the cost of living index. There was great jubilation at this; it sounded wonderful. While I was travelling back from British Columbia by plane I read many papers from right across the country, and it was significant that every one of those papers had almost the same verbatim release, obviously emanating from the public relations branch of the department.
Then when I got back to the house and read the provisions of Bill No. C-136 dealing with the amendment to the Old Age Security Act it immediately became obvious to me- and I would use the words of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) - that this is an absolute, complete, cruel hoax on these older people. In the first place, this particular proposal is not part of the Canada pension plan. It was a very clever trick to include in Bill No. C-136 the amendment to the Old Age Security Act so that the government could say that they had done everything for those already retired. But it is actually an amendment to the Old Age Security Act, in the first place, and in the second place the assistance it gives to these old people is negligible.
Now, Mr. Speaker, how can this proposal in Bill No. C-136 be changed so as to do something for these people who need it most? I should like to refer here to the fund which is being built up. The fund, according to the actuarial report, will build up to $8.4 billion in 1985. It is true that from then on, unless
Canada Pension Plan
the contributions are increased there may be a reduction in the fund. According to the forecasts there undoubtedly will be a reduction in the fund.
These old people to whom I spoke said to me: "Why not use some of the fund built up to give us something? Is it necessary to have as large a fund?" According to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh)-she has now changed her mind, or perhaps, had it changed for her, I do not know-when the first masterpiece was presented, and when talking about whether or not there should be a fund, she said, as reported at page 2342 of Hansard for July 18, 1963:
These were the arguments balanced by the government in coming to its conclusion that this plan should not be funded: thus the plan is framed on a pay as you go basis.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, if that was the position at the time when the first pension plan was presented some amendment can be made to the present plan so that the fund does not build up as quickly and some of the money can be diverted to help those who are already retired.
Yesterday I received a letter from a lady in my riding who is just over 60. She has a small pension which is just enough to disqualify her from local social welfare. She wrote to me and asked me what was in the pension plan for her, and I had to reply regretfully that under the present government proposal there was nothing in it for her, at least until she reached the age of 70. Even at age 65, with the little income she has-it is barely subsistence income-she cannot qualify for old age assistance, so she has to wait until she is 70 before she gets anything at all. That is the type of person who needs it most, along with widows, aged 60 and many others aged 65 who do not quite qualify for old age assistance. They are the people who need help most.
I should also like to refer to one other group of those already retired, and I am thinking of the superannuates, the ex-employees of the government. The government recently released on November 10 last a bulletin which clearly indicates to the superannuates association that they have no hope of getting any help. The government refuse to accept its position as an ex-employer of these superannuates, and the superannuates' proposal has been turned down by the government on the basis of a principle.
What did the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) say on December 27, 1963, in a letter which

Canada Pension Plan
he wrote to Mr. Whitekouse, the secretary-treasurer of the federal superannuates national association? He said this:
With reference to your letter of November 18, as I indicated in my letter of October 4, 1963, the government was not prepared to make any basic change in the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act while the ultimate form of the Canada pension plan has not been decided by parliament following consultation with the provinces.
The Canada pension plan, as explained in the House of Commons and to the public, contained no provision for the adjustment of pensions payable under it once those pensions commenced. This was a point of considerable interest to all concerned and the government was not prepared to propose the introduction of any automatic pension adjustment factor in legislation dealing with the pensions of retired civil servants when none was provided under the proposed Canada pension plan. This, I would say, was the basic amendment most frequently proposed for the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act in the representations which had been received by the government and were under review when I wrote to you in October.
At that time, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said, in effect, that since there was no provision in the Canada pension plan for automatic pension adjustment according to the cost of living index the government could therefore not amend the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act. This Canada pension plan does provide for such automatic adjustment by way of a pension index; yet the Prime Minister refuses to help these people who are already retired and in great need.
As I understand it, Bill No. C-136 includes civil servants. The example I am going to quote now is not by way of criticism. At least I am not trying to take anything away from the civil servants. What I am trying to do is to compare the amount with which the present civil servant will retire with that received by those who have already retired. For example, if the Canada pension plan is created as it is now proposed, and if the superannuation act is not amended, it could happen quite frequently that a civil servant will retire with a combined pension greater than his salary. I will give two examples of this situation.
Assuming that a civil servant, who is 55 years of age when the pension plan begins operating, retires at age 65, and assuming that his average salary for his best six years, on which his superannuation is based, was $5,000, he would receive from his superannuation $3,500 per year and from the Canada pension plan, $1,860, or a combined pension of $5,360, which is $360 more than his salary.
The second example is of a man who continues to work in the civil service to age 70,
[Mr. Chatterton.l
and this is possible because the minister has the authority to extend employment beyond age 65. This happens quite frequently. Assuming that man had 35 years of service and retired at age 70, he would receive $3,500 in superannuation, and $2,148 from the Canada pension plan, giving him a combined total of $5,648, or $648 more than his salary.
This is the kind of thing that might happen in the case of civil servants who retire in future, as compared with those who retired some years ago; and I have used the example of a principal clerk who retired in 1953 with 35 years service. The figures I intend to give are approximate only. His pension from superannuation would be $2,660 per annum. Another civil servant occupying that same position as principal clerk, with the same period of service to the people of Canada, retiring some time in the future, say 1976, would receive $3,650 in superannuation, and in addition, having contributed ten years to the Canada pension plan, would receive a Canada pension of $1,200. In other words, he would have a combined pension of $4,850, as compared to the individual who had the same job but retired in 1953 with a pension of $2,660- a difference of over $2,000. Those are the individuals who need assistance but for whom the Canada pension plan does absolutely nothing. The first weakness I see in this plan is that it does nothing for the old people.
The second weakness, in my opinion, is that great discrepancy between pensions payable to people who have only paid in for ten years, and pensions paid to those individuals who have paid in for up to 52 years, the maximum time. As I read the bill, an individual who pays in for ten years receives exactly the same pension as the man who has paid in for 52 years, provided of course their average annual salaries were the same. There will be many modifying factors which will creep in during the 52 year period, but that is the situation.
Let us consider the example of two men, one from each of the two categories, the man who has paid in for ten years and the man who has paid in for 52 years. Let us call the ten year man Mr. Abel and the 52 year man Mr. Baker. In each case I am comparing only the related earnings part of the pension, because of course they would both be eligible for old age security at age 70. Assuming that Mr. Abel and Mr. Baker had an average annual earnings of $5,000, Mr. Abel during the ten year period would pay in a total of approximately $800 and receive a pension of $104 per month. Mr. Baker during his 52

years would pay in approximately $4,100, which is more than five times as much, and he would receive the same pension as Mr. Abel.
If Mr. Abel purchased a government annuity with his $800 he would receive at age 70 a pension of $9.90 per month. If Mr. Baker purchased a government annuity with his $4,100, he would receive a pension of $136 per month. Yet under the Canada pension plan they would both receive the same pension.
Just as a matter of interest, if Mr. Baker, the 52 year man, purchased a private annuity with his $4,100, he would receive a pension of $175 per month, or if he purchased a private annuity worth $2,500 in life insurance, he would receive a pension of $152 per month. If Mr. Abel at age 60 purchased a government annuity which would give him the same benefit he would receive under the Canada pension plan, namely $104 per month, it would cost him $10,700 instead of the $800 under the Canada pension plan.
Surely the minister should consider changing this proposal so that some of the fund could be used to help those individuals who have already retired. Why not stretch out the transitional period a little more, say to 15 years or longer, or whatever is required, so that some of the revenue can be used to help those who have already retired?
Another weakness I see in this plan, which I think should be considered, is that those people who are earning $10,000 per year or more are also covered by the Canada pension plan. It is true that they will pay only up to the first $5,000, but in order to help those individuals already retired, why not increase the upper limit, with a greater variation in contributions, so the additional revenue could be used in this way?
The fourth weakness I see in this plan is the method of disposition of the fund moneys. The minister has indicated that this money will be lent to the provinces. Last evening the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) indicated that there is a great need for social capital. He suggested these provinces would use this money for technical and vocational schools, hospitals, urban redevelopment, university buildings, transportation and so on. In other words, the fund money which will be advanced to the provinces could be used for these purposes. However, what assurance is there that it will be used for these purposes? I think the lack of such an assurance is another weakness in this plan.
Canada Pension Plan
It seems to me that some of these problems, for example urban renewal and growth of our metropolitan areas, have become national in scope, and will continue to be so in Canada in the future. The central government must accept a certain measure of responsibility. If the government insists on establishing this fund, and lending some of it to the provinces, surely they should tie certain tags to the moneys so that solutions may be found to these problems which are national in scope. That is not the case under this proposal. Some provinces may use the money for higher educational purposes, by building additions to universities, while other provinces may not, and again a situation of inequality will develop throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, I have certain questions I should like to put to the minister, and I hope when she replies in closing the debate she will give some answers. If the minister is not in a position to give answers to some of these questions in her closing remarks, perhaps at the committee stage she will be able to give them.
The first question is related to portability. The minister indicated that there will be agreements with the opting out provinces providing for portability, so that if an individual moves from the province of Quebec to another province his pension will be completely portable. My question is, will these agreements also ensure that the opting out provinces will not materially change their plans, thereby destroying or disrupting this portability? Will these agreements cover that situation?
Clause 115 requires that, by order of the lieutenant governors of the provinces, two thirds of the provinces having two thirds of the population must agree to all changes in rates and benefits. What will be the position if in 25 years this plan goes into the red-* in other words, if expenditures are greater than receipts so that the fund is used up? What is the position then of the federal government if one province, for instance Ontario, vetoes an increase in the contributions?
Another question I should like to ask relates to the R.C.M.P. and the armed forces. Can the minister indicate to us what were the government's reasons for including civil servants but excluding the R.C.M.P. and armed forces? This is the way I understand the bill, but I do not know if I am right. If I am right, why is that so? Incidentally, when it comes to the civil servants, yesterday the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) was speaking about the integration of private

Canada Pension Plan
plans and the Canada pension plan, and he indicated that plans have already been worked out for the integration of the civil service superannuation plan. If that is so, it seems to me that this house or the committee should be given a fairly detailed accounting of how the superannuation act is going to be amended, since Bill No. C-136 now includes civil servants. As I explained earlier, it could happen that a civil servant could retire with a greater pension than his earnings. I believe therefore the minister should advise the house or the committee as to the changes proposed in the superannuation act in order to integrate the civil service pension plan with the Canada pension plan.
Yesterday the Minister of National Revenue referred to clause 87 of the pension bill and said that the pension appeal board would hear disputed cases if the provincial law provided for that. In this way a common jurisprudence could be developed. My question is, if a province that opts out does not pass such a law, will the appeal board then not have jurisdiction in those disputed cases and will we then lose this common jurisprudence? I would appreciate an answer to that question.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, the minister will give these questions consideration. In closing my remarks I again appeal to the government and to the minister to seriously consider amendments to this plan so that those people who need it most, the retired people, will get some benefit from the plan.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the motion for second reading of Bill No. C-136, to establish a comprehensive program of various pensions in Canada, is rather interesting, and the bill is particularly fat.
The Canadian people will get their money's worth trying to find their way in this hodgepodge nobody seems to understand. Since people on all sides are asking the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss La-Marsh) for explanations, the bill must be confusing.
But if you study the schedule which deals with the monthly pension which varies according to age, you see that at 65 the amount of pension will be $51 and that it will be increased by 40 cents each month until 70, that is over five years, when the pension will reach $75 a month.
Mr. Speaker, we sincerely believe that the Canadian social legislation should be improved considerably. We believe that the Canadian people could benefit more from

Canada's economic development. That is what we have been maintaining for the past 20 years. Now, this pension plan introduced by the minister would have the Canadian people and parliament believe that the government is prepared to help elderly persons in Canada. We are told that this plan will improve social legislation, social benefits, when the main purpose of Bill No. C-136 is to permit the government to find the necessary funds to administer its social legislation, and nothing else.
The purpose of this pension plan is to permit the government to force the ordinary Canadian citizen to give money to the government all his life, money which the government will probably never return to that Canadian citizen.
As a matter of fact, this is a glaring example. The Canadian who is 25 or 30 years old and who works in a factory or in an industry will start paying, because this is a compulsory plan. He will start to make his contributions to the government in order to get a pension at 65 or 70. All his life, that is for 40 years, this Canadian worker will be making contributions to the government and when he will have reached 65 or 70 he will not then get back the money he is now contributing, because the government will then be taxing the children of this chap who, today, is 25 years old, in order that a pension may be paid their father when he reaches 65.
We could call that a sort of national "bar-botte". Pay now, and you will not be reimbursed the money you will have paid in; instead we will give you the money that your children will contribute for 40 or 50 years. That is what we will use to give you pensions of $51 to $75-in between, there is an increase of 40 cents a month.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I listened to the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) commending the government for wanting to impose a plan on all, in order to create a fund for the economic development of the country.
It is taxing workers today in order to create a fund for the future economic development of Canada, by promising a pension to those workers when they are 65 or 70 years of age.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the whole thing means an allotment of poverty that is being collected today under this Bill No. C-136. That is the kind of proposal which is put to us today in this bill: to tax the earnings of workers who can hardly meet their obligations and whose salary is mortgaged for three, four and five years; to

mortgage their salary further and to deduct from this salary the contributions required to give them a pension in 30 or 40 years hence.
This is indeed to collect, today, poverty from people who cannot possibly pay anything more, in order to redistribute this poverty in 30 or 40 years hence.
We have also other cases where the pension plan is not too clear. In my riding, there is the Noranda company where miners have been working for 25 or even 30 years. At Noranda mines, there is a pension plan to which the employee contributes $1; the company agrees to contribute the same amount. At this point, many Noranda miners have a pension of $7,000 to $8,000. These people are wondering whether this pension plan will be involved in this accumulated fund. They do not know where they stand.
Even if the national pension plan does not affect the pension plan to be adopted in Quebec, it remains that the principle of the two plans is the same. They are worth approximately the same thing. And I maintain that this pension plan proposed by the government is far from being as advantageous as the plans provided today by private enterprise for workers, labourers, all classes of society in Canada. Insurance companies, other types of companies, industries, have pension plans for their employees. I just mentioned the Noranda mine. I worked in an industry in the northwestern part of the province where we contributed a weekly amount of $1, and the company was pledged to double that amount, that is to add another $1. I believe that plan was more advantageous than the one which the government is offering us today.
Before the government intervenes in such a matter, why did it not transact with those who at the moment have pension plans? Then we could see what plans are the most advantageous and the less expensive for the population as a whole. That was not taken into consideration. The government wishes to justify Bill No. C-136 by saying that private enterprise failed miserably in an area where the government had not yet intervened.
Mr. Speaker, let us beware of the government and of the promoters of government interference in this social legislation, because I am convinced that private enterprise can better help human beings and the Canadian society than the government or the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
At present, there exist all kinds of plans on a national basis or joint plans on the national-provincial level. Those plans cost the 20220-647
Canada Pension Plan
Canadian citizens and taxpayers twice what they would pay if we turned to private enterprise instead of applying measures with an ever-increasing socialistic character. In a country like ours, where we can guarantee economic security and personal freedom to every citizen, why, Mr. Speaker, do we need a bill like this one which states: You shall pay all your life and, when you reach the age of 65, we will give you $51?
What will we do with the 45 year old men who will lose their jobs at that age?
At the present time the government is faced with the problem of people over that age. Employers are being offered, especially in the winter in a period of unemployment, $75 a month to hire a man over 45. What will the government do with these men between 45 and 65 and its pension plan established under Bill No. C-136?
What security is there for the men replaced by machines, for instance? Does this bill provide a measure of security for the worker who will be put out of a job by automation? No, Mr. Speaker, we fail to see anything in it.
What we see is a pension at 65 or 70. Mr. Speaker, Social Credit has been saying for a long time that all those government measures, all those plans are absolutely powerless to solve the problem.
To reach into the pockets of a group of citizens to redistribute their poverty to another group who need it still more is not a solution. To take from those who have something and give it to those who have nothing is not an answer: the government is not a public charity agency. What the government should do is to balance the Canadian monetary system according to our large physical possibilities, instead of setting up a plan to pay pensions at age 65, and to establish immediately a national dividend for all the citizens who build and make this country. That would be a solution. They are afraid to consider it.
Yesterday I read in the Canadian Labour magazine the statement of an economist which appeared in a publication of the federal government:
Report of a conference by Robert Theobald, a British economist in the employ of the American government, before the International Association of Employment Security Personnel.
This report was published in the September 1964 issue of the Labour Gazette, which is a federal publication.
This is what the article says:
"A guaranteed annual income for each child and each adult, as well as the payment of a salary to university students were the main recommends-

Canada Pension Plan
tions of Robert Theobald, a British economist, who is now adviser to the American government.
Mr. Theobald said that we are on the threshold of an era with demands as different from those of the previous industrial revolution as the exigencies of the industrial era were from those of the agricultural age."
Today, in Bill No. C-136 we are still thinking in terms of the agricultural age, or even in medieval terms.
Speaking of the consequences of automation and cybernetics, Robert Theobald stated:
-their consequences will be so deep and will happen so fast that full employment will be impossible.
And I am asking my friends of the New Democratic party to think about this:
*-in other words, will the combined production system of machines and cybernetics be so effective that employers, governments in their capacity of private contractors, will prefer, from an economic point of view, to purchase or rent machines instead of hiring workers.
Mr. Speaker, we have come to that point and the government is taking steps to the contrary. We are doing away with the machine in order to hire workers under the winter works program. The pension plan provides also that a person has to work hard for 40 or 50 years of his life in order to receive a pittance at 65 or 70 years of age.
And Mr. Theobald continues:
-full employment will never be attained and even if it were, certain groups of people should have a guaranteed revenue: those who are too old or too young to work; those whose responsibilities prevent them from working, such as widows with children and young people in schools or. universities.
Concerning minimum income, Mr. Theobald states-note that the suggestion does not come from Social Credit members but from an economist who does not suggest a monthly pension of $50 or the distribution of misery among the poor people-that this minimum income should be $1,000 per annum for each adult and $600 for each child. That is what an economist suggests for the rehabilitation or the improvement of the economic situation in the United States.
With respect to a salary for students, Mr. Theobald said:
We must admit that the student already works at least as much as the factory worker. The time has come to introduce the new concept of a salary for students, possibly starting at the age of 14, with increases until students finish their university studies.
That is perhaps a revolution along the lines of the social legislation we must contemplate here in Canada.
Let them stop introducing bills which reduce or minimize the economic importance

in our country, bills which suggest absolutely nothing new, bills which tend only to levy taxes in order to distribute what is left after paying the administration costs. Millions of dollars, even billions are at stake and the people will get nothing out of it, because tremendous administrative costs will have to be paid to apply this pension plan under Bill No. C-136. Now, we are fed up with all that.
A while ago, I heard the previous speaker say that the government stated it needs social capital. Does the government not recognize that the Canadian worker also needs social capital? Do not the farmers, white collar workers, professional men, also need a personal capital, although it is not social nor supplied by society? Why, under the pretence that social capital is required for Canada, as I said a while ago, take away from one group, while trying to persuade them that we must act in this way to help another group?
Private enterprise is generally attacked, but Bill No. C-136 does not recognize it. It will be said that private enterprise and insurance companies exploit the public, etc. What difference is there between exploitation of the public by a private company and exploitation by a government which does not know where it is going with its pension plan?
Fantastic amounts are obtained in an attempt to alleviate poverty among the Canadian people. When these people are taxed less, they do not spend their time accumulating money in the banks or institutions here and there, or hiding money in the corners of their bedrooms and in basements or vaults. These people work, expand their industries, their private enterprise, and, often enough, they allow other private enterprises to appear here and there.
The government will keep this money from circulation among the population, by accumulating that money itself and trying to socialize us further, by all possible and imaginable means.
When I see bills like that, which spread hardship in Canada, I wonder why the government and the Minister of National Health and Welfare do not take into consideration the economic realities of our country? We are told-the economists, with statistical data in support of their case

that Canada's gross national product will be over $46 billion this year, while the total national income will amount to about $32 billion. Are the minister and the government not aware that Canada will be short $14 billion in purchasing power? While the government prepares to levy more

taxes, instead of giving impetus to the Canadian economy with new credits-not credits bearing interest and forcing us to pay twice the amount in 20 years-why is the government not making use of the Bank of Canada, which is a Canadian institution, which belongs to the Canadian people, which has the authority to create the necessary credits in order to distribute, not a pension at the age of 65, but a dividend from birth to death? The government and parliament would then respect all the human beings which constitute our Canadian nation.
We, in this corner of the house, have had enough of these starvation bills in the midst of plenty. This is not a bill increasing the old age pension by $10. This is a bill providing for a pension at 65 years of age which it will be compulsory for workers, farmers and everyone to pay for 30, 40 or 55 years of their life, in a rich country like ours.
Did we not hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) say, recently, that the Bank of Canada was authorized to grant loans to England to reinforce her financial position or to give some kind of guarantee to the pound sterling? The Bank of Canada must create funds for that, and it would not have the right to create funds to give to the Canadian people an adequate pension system and free dividends? Let the minister give us an answer on that.
Once again we may be called Utopians, people chasing after the moon, but the two old political parties in Canada have been on the moon for a long time and are no longer able to produce results for the Canadian people. We hear promise after promise, but when the time comes to take some action we are presented with concrete results of $51 a month.
I wonder whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare could live on $51 a month at the age of 65? And what are they going to do with those aged between 45 and 65 and who do not have any job?
Those are the considerations I wanted to bring forward respecting Bill No. C-136 which, I know, will not interfere with the pension plan to be introduced in the province of Quebec.
If I take part in the debate on this bill, it is because I am not entitled to speak in the Quebec legislature, and I want them also to know what we think, we of the Ralliement Creditiste, about those programs of poverty amidst plenty. What we want for our Canadians is that production should be used for the Canadian people, that the financial system should no longer be the master, but 20220-647J
Canada Pension Plan
rather that Canadians should be the masters of their own destinies from an economic, political and social standpoint.


Mr. Lawrence T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: It is
not my purpose to intervene in order to debate the merits of the legislation now before the house. That aspect has been extensively dealt with in the course of many able contributions from both sides of the house including, if I may say so, the admirable address of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh). I rise for the purpose of giving such assistance as I can by explaining some of the technical matters which may arise in relation to the integration of other plans, in particular the Public Service Superannuation Act, with the Canada pension plan.
It goes without saying that all persons covered by pension plans, either private or those for which the government is responsible, have a special interest in the development of the legislation now before us. The proposals contained in Bill C-136 leave untouched the question whether private plans will be adjusted so as to integrate or coordinate with the Canada pension plan.
Those responsible for each of the private plans are left free to decide according to their particular needs whether and in what way modification should be made in their plans. This bill does not affect the control of private plans in this respect, and indeed it is open to question whether parliament has constitutional authority to regulate private plans in this way.
There are two basic situations that most readily come to mind in any discussion regarding the integration or co-ordination of private plans. In cases where the rates of contribution are already relatively high it may be felt that the over-all rates of employer-employee contributions should not be increased and that benefits under private plans should be adjusted accordingly, but not in such a way that the combination of the two plans would lead to an over-all reduction in benefits. I understand it may be possible in some circumstances that integration could lead to a modest increase in the total benefit without an increase in the total contributions. In other circumstances it may be felt not unreasonable to completely superimpose the Canada pension plan on the existing private plan.

Canada Pension Plan
I now turn by natural transition to the nature of the adjustments which will have to be applied to the numerous existing plans for which the government is responsible. The largest of these is the Public Service Superannuation Act, which covers some 175,000 employees. It would perhaps be convenient if
1	outlined in a very summary fashion the scope of this act. Males working in the public service pay 6J per cent of their salaries into the superannuation fund, and female employees pay 5 per cent. The government matches these contributions regularly and from time to time contributes additional amounts which are required in respect of the liabilities created by pay increases which are not covered by the ordinary matching contributions. Subject to certain detailed conditions, pensions are calculated by multiplying the average salary over the best six years by
2	per cent for every year of service up to 35 years. In other words, the act provides an employee with an opportunity to secure a generous pension as high as 70 per cent of his average annual salary over the best six years.
Bearing in mind the substantial existing plan, and with a desire to deal equitably with the legitimate interests of the civil service, the government decided to apply two principles in adjusting the superannuation act to the Canada pension plan. The first principle is that the total contributions paid by the employee and the government should not be increased, but instead a portion of the contribution should be diverted away from the superannuation fund in each case to the Canada pension plan. To balance this diversion, the benefits earned under the superannuation act after the Canada pension plan goes into effect will be reduced. The second principle is that this reduction in benefits under the superannuation act would not bring the total level of benefits below the level that would have prevailed under the superannuation act before adjustments.
At the risk of oversimplification, I would point out that the total contributions by the employees would not increase, and their total benefits would not decrease. So far from decreasing the total benefits, the relationship between benefits, contributions and the funding under the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Canada pension plan are such that if the combined rates of current contributions for the two plans are the same as the present rates under the Public Service Superannuation Act-that is, 6J per cent for male employees and 5 per cent for female employees-then a formula might be devised

whereby the combined benefits in some cases would exceed modestly the benefits, and at no time fall below the benefits, which the present superannuation act will provide.
As a result of these relationships the government has decided to recommend to parliament at the appropriate time that the Public Service Superannuation Act be amended so that the following method of co-ordination could be applied: First, the combined contributions under the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Canada pension plan should be equal to the present contribution rates under the Public Service Superannuation Act, but the contributions paid into the public service superannuation account would be reduced by the amount of the contributions required under the Canada pension plan. It follows that the government's matching contribution into the superannuation account would be correspondingly reduced by the amount the government pays into the Canada pension plan.
In the second place, superannuation benefits paid before age 65 to persons retiring between the ages 60 and 64 will be the same as is now paid under the Public Service Superannuation Act; that is, by multiplying the average salary for the best six years by 2 per cent for each year of service. In the third place, superannuation benefits paid to persons who become eligible for a pension under the Canada pension plan at age 65 or on subsequent retirement will be determined by a formula which I shall shortly attempt to explain to the house. I apologize for resorting to a tedious formula method of explanation but I find myself unable to deal adequately with the matter in any other way. The formula divides itself into two parts:
(a)	A portion of the public service superannuation pension weuld be calculated at the rate of 1.3 per cent instead of 2 per cent on the average salary for the best six years up to the earnings ceiling of the Canada pension plan for each year of service after the Canada pension plan commences, while
(b)	the portion of the superannuation pension benefit based on that part of the salary above the earnings ceiling of the Canada pension plan would be calculated at 2 per cent for each year of service as is presently determined under the Public Service Superannuation Act. It would be entirely wrong to suppose that the formula I have outlined to the house for the co-ordination of the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Canada pension plan could be applied without alteration or refinement to other existing pension

plans. I wish to make it abundantly clear that the full 2 per cent will be paid in respect of services rendered prior to the start of the Canada pension plan, since there is to be no reduction in the pension rights which have already accrued to a contributor.
Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word about disability benefits. The method by which the superannuation pension benefits are calculated in the case of ordinary retirement would be applied immediately in the case of a disability retirement where the disabled person was entitled to disability benefits both under the Canada pension plan and the Public Service Superannuation Act. In other words, a person becoming disabled would be dealt with in the same manner as a person reaching age 65. I am also concerned to make it clear that there would be no reduction in widows' and children's benefits under the Public Service Superannuation Act following the co-ordination of the two plans.
Mr. Speaker, may I sum up by stating that the oo-ordination of the two plans will provide civil servants retiring on immediate pension with at least equal, and probably slightly higher, over-all benefits for some years at no extra cost to them. I should also add at this juncture that the approach I have attempted to explain to the house was recommended to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) by the advisory committee under the Public Service Superannuation Act, representing the official and the staff side of the public service.
Before concluding there is one other point which I might bring to the notice of the house. A similar review will be carried out wherever this question of double participation comes up under pension plans for which the government is responsible.
I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that I can usefully employ the time of the house any further on this subject. I hope that my few remarks may have been of some help to all hon. members.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I found the remarks made by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Pennell) most interesting. They have brought some enlightenment on the bill now before us. As last speaker of the official opposition, I should like, at this stage of the business of the house, to make a few observations concerning this very important measure.
Several hon. members criticized, so to speak, the government of the province of
Canada Pension Plan
Quebec for wanting to secure the full and complete control of the large amount of money which will accumulate through the contributions paid in the province of Quebec.
May I point out to the house that the British North America Act gives full and complete jurisdiction to the provinces in the field of social security, and if the province of Quebec wishes to administer the fund and distribute it as it sees fit, this is consistent with the constitution, it is its concern. Furthermore, there is nothing to prevent any other province from doing the same, from following the example set by the province of Quebec.
Instead of borrowing $200 million from British Columbia as it did recently, the government of the province of Quebec will be able to draw from this fund the money required to meet the educational, material and economic needs of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec, perhaps more than all the others, needs funds to stimulate its economy, for it is now in a rather unfavourable economic situation, especially considering the fact that somehow Quebec seems to have the unemployment monopoly.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it might not be important for the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) and the committee to which the bill will be sent to study certain details of this very important measure. There is some fear with regard to this pension plan, and I am of the opinion that it will constitute too heavy a burden for the farmers of Canada, especially those of eastern Canada and the province of Quebec, whose annual income is $1,200 or less.
Under this bill workers will pay a contribution of 1.8 per cent of their earnings and the employer will pay the same amount. But what happens to the farmer? He will have to pay 3.6 per cent, that is twice as much as the worker; the married farmer will pay 7.2 per cent, while the married worker will pay only 3.6 per cent.
In my opinion, it would only be fair and reasonable for the farmer in this country to be on equal terms with the worker and to pay only 1.8 per cent of his income as his contribution. Moreover, the Canadian people as a whole should absorb the 1.8 per cent contribution that would have to be paid by the farmer.
Mr. Speaker, one must also take into account the fact that, with this pension plan, contributions may increase from year to year. No provision in the act provides that contributions must be static or remain at the

Canada Pension Plan
level established in the bill. They can increase by 1, 2 or even 3 per cent, over a four- or five-year period. Then, the farmer will have a double burden to carry, because he does not have the protection enjoyed by other social classes.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it would only be fair and equitable if the farmer, like the worker, paid a contribution of 1.8 per cent of his income in order to be on an equal footing with the latter.
I hope, when the legislation has been referred to the committee, that the representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, of the catholic farmers' union and of the co-operatives will come and express the views of the farmers, in order that the latter be treated fairly and on the same footing as the other classes of citizens as far as contributions are concerned.
Mr. Speaker, I also wonder if it would not be possible to amend section 66, in order that the pension be paid when one becomes 60 years old. The hon. members know very well the problem which arises presently for the workers aged 45 years and over. Besides, it is practically impossible for those who have already reached the age of 60 to obtain employment.
Therefore, I think the pension age should be reduced to 60 years, in order to give social security to this class of citizens, who, at the present time, face a serious problem when they want to find employment.
Such are, Mr. Speaker, the remarks I wanted to make, and I believe it would be very important that the farmer be treated on the same footing as the worker and that the contribution he will have to pay be the same as the one paid by the worker, in brief, that the extra assessment of 1.8 per cent which the farmer has to pay be paid altogether by the Canadian taxpayers at large.


Mr. Pepin:: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member allow me to ask him a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The hon. member mentioned that certain members were opposed to Quebec having its own pension plan. Could he identify these members?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to indulge in personalities in this house. Some members were opposed to this, and I said so quite frankly; whether they are from the government or the opposition, it does not matter. I said what I thought, according to my conscience and, as I said, the provinces

have priority in the field of social security. In fact, the provinces have no lesson to receive from the federal government and from members of the house whoever they are, from whatever side of the house they are.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian public have waited many years for a change in the system of social security welfare. In the area I come from the adoption of a portable pension plan operated by the government will provide security for the elderly, and many employees who under no circumstances would have been able to receive this type of benefit. I refer mainly to people such as miners, woodworkers and in many cases farmers.
In the area I represent we have been suffering from the disadvantage that persons working on a particular contract are not eligible for a pension because the operation does not continue for the minimum required length of time to permit the establishment of a pension plan. Second, governments over the years have been plagued with regulations made by the federal Department of Finance, which were set up to provide for vesting, so as to allow the carrying forward of employers' contributions into a pension plan for retiring employees. The fact that this government has decided to implement a social security system not unlike those of many other countries is, I think, a very good thing.
I hope that what was said by the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Whelan), and the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Pennell), will be taken into consideration by those who read about the pension plan in the records of parliament. The hon. member speaking for the Minister of Finance did add considerable detail, and further confused my understanding of the supplementary benefits of this plan. However, upon further study of what he said I am quite sure it will prove to clarify some of the points that previously were confusing.
On the other hand, the hon. member for Essex South, who probably took some direction from the political pundits of his party, wrote a purely political pension speech. That speech should be examined by the members of this house, because it is probably the type of election propaganda we will hear during the forthcoming election campaign, whenever that may take place.


Mr. Whelan:: Thank you for the compliment.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member has thanked me for the compliment. I should indicate that it was a compliment. I think both speeches have enlightened the members of this house and have clarified what was a confusing situation.
Mr. Speaker, I think the reputation which parliament has established during this session, and the attitude of the government in particular toward the business of this house, and the disrepute this country generally feels toward this parliament, has been reflected in the presentation of the Canada pension plan. That is a regrettable situation. It is a shame that a limitation has been suggested for the debate on second reading. Second reading is actually the stage during which a bill is accepted in principle. With such a limitation many contributions which might be made will not be made.
I am also disappointed because this Canada pension plan is not nearly good enough for Canada. Had we adopted a pension plan years ago when the Unemployment Insurance Act was passed, we would at that time have gone to the provinces, held federal-provincial conferences, and come to some kind of a compromise on the part of all governments, including the government of that province which was least willing to accept unemployment insurance, and found a solution to the unemployment problem of much greater advantage to the Canadian worker than would have been possible in any other way. What is being done today by the Liberal government, is adopting legislation as a result of provincial-federal conferences, followed by a request that parliament rubber stamp what that conference has decided.
I give the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) full credit for the additional plan she introduced, and while we may or may not agree with its terms, the plan was being offered to all the provinces. On the other hand, the bill now before us does not qualify as either fish or fowl, but is a plan developed at federal-provincial conferences, after taking into consideration the wishes of a province which has decided not to participate. I have heard many members who represent that province stand in their place and attempt to make some contribution to this debate, just as though they were going to participate in this plan.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: They are.


William Arnold Peters: The minister says they are going to participate. They are going to participate only because the federal government
Canada Pension Plan
has agreed that provinces can develop similar comprehensive plans, but I suggest that one province has already put into effect the plan which the federal government is going to adopt.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would remind the hon. member that all members of this House of Commons will become contributors in respect of their indemnities in this place.


William Arnold Peters: The members from Quebec may be able to do that, and that creates another round of arguments as to who is going to make contributions, and to whom.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the government of Canada should have been prepared to propose a plan to be administered in a manner similar to the Unemployment Insurance Act, even though the development of such a plan would require more time and effort. The government should establish an act, even though requiring an amendment to the British North America Act, which amalgamates old age security and old age pensions. Such a plan would provide basic pensions, and all provinces would have to participate, or would not receive any old age security or old age pension.
I see the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) shaking his head. He probably will not agree with my suggestion because such a plan would not involve negotiation with the provinces, and the provinces would have to accept it or reject it. I think that situation will eventually exist.
Many people in this country are becoming tired of this parliament rubber stamping the agreements negotiated at federal-provincial conferences. It seems impossible for the federal government to stand up and say, this is the legislation we are presenting and Quebec can either like it or lump it. This government is afraid to say that what it proposes must be accepted and participated in by all provinces, and that it could not care less which course the provinces followed, but that if a province did not wish to participate, that is its prerogative, and it would receive nothing. Someone else I am sure will say that such a proposal would involve an amendment to the British North America Act. This bill now before us involves two amendments to the B.N.A. Act, in order to provide for some of the supplementary benefits.
This social security scheme has certain benefits, advantages and disadvantages. I believe the main advantage is its portability. That is

Canada Pension Plan
a very important aspect of any national pension scheme. It will allow Canadians to take their pensions from one job to another job, and from one province to another province. This involves a significant step forward, and is a step which no federal-provincial plan could neglect.
This aspect of the proposed plan will provide mobility of the working force of this nation. This mobility has not existed in recent years, even in government agencies, because applicants over 40 years of age have been turned down on the basis that if they at that age began to contribute to existing pension plans, this would throw out the actuarial studies already being made by those agencies. This plan will allow individuals to take their pensions from one job to another and remove the disadvantage to older employees, who are unable to obtain new jobs.
Many individuals, including one Creditiste who spoke yesterday, have suggested that we should share our responsibilities toward poverty stricken areas. I would not suggest that pensions of $104 per month, plus old age security, would represent abject poverty, if this plan were put into operation immediately; but I do believe that greater contributions would be welcomed by employees if suitable and graduated increases in benefits were made applicable.
In Germany for instance you are able to retire on at least half of the amount you earn in the highest five year period of earnings. They are much more advanced than we are. If you examine some of the pension plans in Europe you will find that for 50 or 60 years there has been portability between provinces, as we are suggesting here, and between other countries as well. I think the door should be left open in this regard in our pension plan so that there will be portability of sections of our social security system. Then those who wish to return to their homes will be able to carry their pensions with them. This scheme of course involves a great deal of negotiation by the external affairs department with other countries in order to make this interchange possible. Perhaps the minister is going to be able to do it; I hope she does. She probably has in mind the Geneva conventions as a possible means. I strongly urge her to consider it. I know that I, personally, have received a number of letters from persons in sunny Florida, England and other places to the effect that these persons have been prevented from receiving even their old age pensions under the terms of our legislation.

There is no interchange between Canada and other countries that would allow portability of pensions at the present time.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It is in the bill.


William Arnold Peters: It is partly in the bill; this mobility is only partial. Our pensions are not portable to the extent that pensions are portable in Germany, Luxembourg, Denmark and so on, where it is 100 per cent. They are referring of course to the employees pension plan and not to the whole social security system. I understand, however, that in recent times there has been a move in these countries toward portability of all of their social security.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Would the hon. member accept a question?


William Arnold Peters: Yes.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Is he not aware that there are provisions in the bill permitting the government to make agreements with other countries regarding this international portability to which he is referring?


William Arnold Peters: I am in agreement that there are such provision. When the minister nodded her head, I assumed some steps would be taken in this direction by her department, I would assume through some of the existing agencies. I am not saying we have closed the door on this possibility. I am saying that I strongly urge the minister to proceed with these arrangements as quickly as possible so there will be portability with other countries. This has been a drawback of the plans we have had in Canada so far.
I am quite pleased with the fact that this plan is available, when it goes into effect, to those who are less than 65 years of age. We have been plagued with many persons who are not able to find employment after they reach the age of 50, sometimes even less. It is going to be absolutely necessary to provide them with assistance, either in the form of welfare payments through provincial governments as we are doing now, or through some form of contributory pension. I know that if we can reduce the pensionable age to 65, as we have done in this bill, it is quite possible that when the plan is fully in operation adjustments will be made to reduce the age still farther. I suggest that this be considered as soon as it is feasible.
One of the disadvantages of this plan, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that it is not universal. It is compulsory for some categories, but it is not universal. Many persons who are self-

employed, whether they be farmers or businessmen, will have to make a decision. I know many businessmen who say: I can look after myself; I could use this money to better advantage in my business today. Some of these people will find when they reach retirement age they are not able to make contributions to their retirement. They are not all going to be in the favoured position of the member of the Liberal party who received an old age pension the other day, calculated at about half a million dollars, by being appointed to the other place. Some of these people are going to have to make their own arrangements under this plan. I suggest the plan should have been made universal, and that the government should have arranged for everybody to contribute to the plan.
I notice there is great consternation about this. I believe that it is the right of a farmer to contribute to the plan if he wishes. This is the right of the self-employed. Arrangements can be made whereby they can do so, but it is not compulsory.
There has been considerable discussion, and I think it is worth-while discussion, about whether or not we should have a fully funded plan or the semi-funded plan that we have. I am not really committed to either side because I feel there should have been a great deal more consideration given to the point and more information available to members of parliament about it. I know there are many who say that in 20 years this plan will have $8 billion in it, and that this is a sizeable amount of money that can be used to advantage in the development of our nation. There are of course those, and I share their view, who say this money should have remained with the federal government, and that the federal government should have used it for the development of new industries. One such development which I hope will come into being in my lifetime is the Grand canal, which it has been indicated will cost about $2 billion. The indications are that this will be a self-liquidating plan in 50 years. It seems to me this is the type of development that a fully funded plan would have made possible for the federal government. However this money has now been allotted to the provincial governments. I believe this will cause some consternation. There will be provinces that will use it and other provinces that will leave the money with the federal government to invest in federal bonds and other securities.
I am of the opinion that we are not really qualified, as members of parliament, with the
Canada Pension Plan
information available, to decide whether or not this should have been a funded plan. I know the minister's department has considered this matter at great length, but I believe that she had to consider it in the light of the discussions that had taken place with the provinces and the fact that the provinces themselves said they would only participate in this type of plan if they were allowed to invest the money that was raised in their own provinces. I feel that our hands were bound before we faced a decision as to whether or not to accept the principle of this bill as a result of the discussions that took place between the federal and provincial governments.
There are many other parts of the bill, Mr. Speaker, upon which I feel the minister is to be congratulated. I am not completely in agreement that they should all have been brought into one bill. I am not sure that the Canada pension plan should not have stood on its own two feet without taking into account all these other things. If I had been the minister I would have kept the pension plan separate and distinct. I would not have referred to it as a social security system but would have called it a Canada pension plan.
However, I am not in disagreement with the additions that have been made. I think the minister is to be congratulated on making provision for survivor benefits in the Canada pension plan. In my opinion this is something that would normally have been included in a straight pension plan. However, in my view supplementary benefits do not really fall within the jurisdiction of what I would consider to be a pension plan. So far as disabled persons, widows, dependants of widows, and widowers in some cases are concerned, we have had joint federal-provincial plans which have been highly unsuccessful. They have provided very limited benefits to people who are totally dependant on such contributions for their very welfare.
I know that the Speaker should have some knowledge of this matter. I deal continually with a member of his family who is responsible for a very large area of this supplementary field at the provincial level and has to do with disabled persons allowances, mothers allowances and so on which are administered by the provincial government. Recently there has been a terrific deterioration in this field. These matters are now back in the provincial office rather than being dealt with regionally, and inasmuch as the law says a person must be totally and permanently disabled the

Canada Pension Plan administrator has not in the past been able to exercise any leniency. The matter now comes before a board. A person may say, "I am totally and permanently disabled, I have lost a leg and I am crippled with arthritis and can hardly move around". The doctors' reports all indicate this is the case, but the board says, "Well, you got here, didn't you?".
I am happy that under this new social security scheme the federal government will give consideration to such cases. Certainly all you have to do is to read the new provision and you will see the difference. I congratulate the minister on this because I have seen a great hardship and abuse under the present federal-provincial plan. The controlling words up to now have been "totally and permanently disabled" but in the white paper these are the words used:
-if an examination reveals a medically determinable impairment in which physical or mental disability is so severe and prolonged that he is unable to secure regular, substantially gainful employment.
Then he is considered to be disabled. Let me tell the minister that there will be thousands of persons throughout the nation who will be found to be disabled to the extent that they are not able to earn a living, not able to look after their families and in many cases not able to look after themselves. It would seem that with this change thoroughly fair and reasonable treatment will be accorded to them, and the minister is to be congratulated. I do not want to take the time to go into the other changes in these federal-provincial shared plans but I think that all the changes are advantageous.
I wish that parliament and the government had been strong enough to develop a completely federal plan because I believe that when we take into consideration the whims, the wishes and sometimes the eccentricities of ten provincial governments we cannot end up with the best plan possible. In my opinion the federal government should have had the audacity and the guts to introduce a completely federal plan and to tell the provinces that they could either participate in it or not but that the federal government intended to provide for those who wished the best plan possible for the money available from every Canadian who wanted to subscribe to the plan. If the government had done this I believe that the disagreement with the province of Ontario in particular would not have arisen.
But I was particularly surprised to find at the time of the second plan or possibly even


the third plan that the province of Quebec had developed a much more humane and advantageous pension plan that the federal government was providing. When I found this out I agreed that the government of Ontario should also say "me too". I think the minister should have disregarded the pressures that were being exerted by the insurance companies, pressures that do not appear to be evident at all today because members of the Conservative party have not risen in their seats to oppose the plan in any organized fashion. Therefore I presume that the insurance companies have abandoned their opposition to the plan. But as a Canadian I do wish that sooner or later the government would have the guts to present a plan on a national basis for the money that is available to them at that time. I also wish that they would then say to the provinces: You are welcome to participate in this plan if you wish, but this plan will be provided for every person in the country who wants it and we are not going to make any other arrangements. We will provide the right for you to opt out if you wish, but that will be final. You will not be allowed to come in and opt out as is the case with this plan.
Surely one day, Mr. Speaker, we will have a federal plan that every Canadian in every part of the country will be proud of and that we can brag about throughout the rest of the world as being the best pension plan in the world. I am sure we cannot do so today with the plan we have before us, but I believe that we have the facilities and the growth in productivity that should have enabled us to say that about the present plan.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Will the hon. member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: Certainly.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Is the hon. member not aware that the bill before us provides for compulsory coverage of the self-employed and the farmers? Perhaps the hon. member's speech was founded on the previous bill.


William Arnold Peters: Well, there have been so many of them. I agree there is a clause with regard to limitation of income but having regard to the incomes that most farmers report under the Income Tax Act I do not believe they will meet the compulsory requirement and therefore they will not be covered.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare also wanted to speak, but

as I did not see him rise I will proceed to make a few remarks with respect to the bill before us. In the first instance I want to indicate that because there are a number of bad features in the bill, because, as the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and others have pointed out, it is not really adequate enough for the people of Canada, my support of the bill is conditional at this stage. I say "conditional" because this bill is to be referred to a committee where presumably there will be an extensive presentation of briefs and arguments for or against either the bill itself or with respect to particular provisions in it and I would hope that as a result of the work of this committee and the examination given to this legislation the bill will be reported back in a better form than the one in which we see it now. It is with this in mind that I say the support I give to it is conditional and qualified.
A number of people have indicated-I will not name them at the moment-that because we have raised doubts about the efficacy of certain provisions in this measure, because we have sought to point out where the bill fails and the extent to which it fails, we are really opposed to the bill itself. In order to prevent any attempt at misrepresentation of this sort we hope at the conclusion of the debate when the vote is taken to have a recorded vote so that everyone in the house may have an opportunity to stand and be counted either for or against this measure, because we know from past experience that politicians, being what they are, tend to take a position and misrepresent and distort it for their own political advantage. We would not like that sort of thing to occur with respect to the particular item before us.
A number of members have spoken about this bill as though they really believe in their hearts that it will finally be enacted as the law of Canada. There is some doubt, at least in my mind, that this bill will ever get on the statute books of this country. It is one of the most important that parliament has had before it for many, many years. It is also one of the most complex. It affects, or will affect, every person in Canada. It affects too a great number of organizations, companies and corporations across this country to a far greater extent than has any other single bill in recent years. Millions of people are concerned with the legislation and will be involved in it. There is the relationship between the plan proposed and private plans. While at the moment there seems to be some solution to
Canada Pension Plan
this problem there will, nevertheless, in the future be continuing concern about this relationship. There is the possibility of provinces enacting their own plans. There is the influence of the attitude of the various insurance companies of Canada, and there are the billions upon billions of dollars involved as well as the way in which this money will be used during the time it is contained within the fund.
Because we are at this particular point of our proceedings approaching, perhaps, a Christmas recess; because we are approaching, perhaps, the prorogation of this session in anticipation of the start of another, and because a number of Liberal cabinet ministers in recent weeks have been making noises at public gatherings about the possibility of an election in the early months of next year, we could be facing the dissolution of this parliament. We all know what would happen to any piece of legislation before parliament or before a committee should dissolution take place. It would be the end of it. In accordance with our normal practice should even the prorogation of this session take place in readiness for the start of a new session in the early part of the year, this too would mean the death of the bill now before us-it would have to be started all over again. There is a way out-and I commend it to the government-in the report of the committee on procedure submitted a few weeks ago to the effect that we should not have a new session of parliament but merely a recess, in order that the committee charged with the responsibility for considering this bill might have as long as possible in which to carry out its work and hear witnesses, and so that this parliament would still have the bill in existence at the time when the committee reports its proceedings. Failure to make such an arrangement would simply mean that when we do begin another session of parliament we shall have to start all over again from scratch; the bill would have to be preceded by a resolution, given first reading, and we should be back again doing what we are doing today. That seems to me to be a senseless waste of time, especially when one is dealing with a subject as vitally important as is the Canada pension plan presently before us.
If, as is expected, the government intends on its own initiative to ask for the dissolution of this parliament some time in the early months of next year with the result,

Canada Pension Plan
of course, that an election must follow, and the committee has not completed its hearings by that time, it would mean the death of the Canada pension plan, and this would be a regrettable state of affairs. But past experience of the Liberal party both here in Ottawa and in various provinces leads me to suspect that this may happen. In that way the Liberal party would be able to sell the idea of the Canada pension plan to the contributors, or potential contributors, in this nation in exchange for votes and support while at the same time allaying the fears of the insurance companies that the plan would actually be put into effect. If what I am suggesting does take place it would be another blot on the record of the Liberal party, a record which is filled with instances of chicanery and double dealing in such affairs as this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: Hon. members opposite may chortle but they need only read a little of the history of their party to realize that this is the case.


An hon. Member:: What about the C.C.F. party?


Frank Howard: Occasionally we hear these bleatings from the other side when they feel their honour is pricked and wounded, but I am merely telling them something which is a fact. I do not have any great expectations at the moment that this bill will finally get on to the statute books of Canada, if it is correct that the government is doing all it can to engineer an election this spring, and my doubts will not be allayed unless steps are taken to guarantee that this committee which is already established will be able to continue sitting continuously from now until its hearings are completed, and find itself in the position to be able to report to this present session of parliament. This would mean having to forgo the usual arrangements for dissolution and the calling of a new session of parliament. The present session would have to continue, and if we arranged for this to happen only because of the pension plan it would be a worth-while undertaking. It would mean we should have to continue the present session of parliament, even though it might extend into the middle of next year. By agreement-and agreement appears to be available any time the leader of the house wants it, these days-arrangements could be made for the resumption of private members' hours on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and for

the putting forward of the various supply motions so that we could consider the estimates of the next fiscal year and so on. Some agreement could be reached about arranging for a speech from the throne, if we really needed to have one, as well as about those other proceedings in parliament which normally follow the calling of a new session.
I submit that the only course open to the government at the moment is to attempt to keep this session of parliament in being until such time as the committee which is studying this bill has an opportunity to report back to us. We can thus guarantee that at least it will not die on the order paper as a result of prorogation, and can hope that dissolution will not take place until such time as we have the law on the statute book-s. Unless the government are willing to do this, I think we are quite justified in making the accusation against them that they are not really sincere about proceeding with even this watered down version of a pension plan. Mr. Speaker, I had other remarks that I would have made, but these in essence were made by my colleague the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and others in this party who have spoken; therefore I will not take the time of the house to repeat those contentions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Marvin Gelber (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce my few remarks on the Canada pension plan with a quotation from Psalms which has been chanted through the ages:
Cast me not off in the time of old age: forsake me not when my strength faileth.
Provision for old age through the social welfare state expresses not alone our social conscience but reflects the transformation of our society from a rural to an urban one. The patriarchal society which was historic presented no special problem as long as the moral responsibility for old people was recognized. The aged and the young lived together and respect for the fathers was the norm of the civilized community. On the other hand we must provide through these present special measures, partly because of our growing individualism. We no longer think in family terms to the extent that our ancestors did. The young wish to be free and the old do not wish to be dependant. In the patriarchal society and in rural society, the older members of the family participated as of right and not by grace of the good will of their

children. We have moved away from that and we think ourselves advanced. In fact, we have created many problems and only in the last decades are we really beginning to face them. The generations live apart. The filial bond is at something of a discount. To many of the young, it is a burden; to some of the old the toleration of their children is itself intolerable. One of the great problems of the aged is loneliness. This is a real challenge. Age itself has not fashioned this yoke; it is our society that is lacking-and this is a comment on an age that prides itself on its social consciousness.
We in this parliament and particularly in this generation must do something for a group of Canadians who reached their prime in the great depression of the 1930's. As late as 1935, one out of every seven Canadians was on relief. We hear appeals for self-reliance and advice to all to provide in advance for unhappy vicissitudes, and particularly for years of declining economic productivity. But how could a generation condemned to idleness through forces much larger than its own capabilities provide for the future when the impoverished present was so very terrible? Now in its later years we must take measures for those who were the victims of the economic holocaust that swept so much of the western world 30 years ago. This gives special urgency to enacting an additional measure at this time to provide for people in their older years.
There is another special problem which is most compelling. Our economy and our society is in the throes of a great revolution. It is a revolution based on the most sophisticated techniques of production and control. It goes by the name of automation. Automation is transforming not only our industrial and distributive processes but forces us to examine our concept of the value of work and the place of work in society since the dawn of history. We have glorified the biblical dictum that "by the sweat of thy brow shalt thou earn thy bread". One of the great humane values of the social revolution that swept Europe commencing with the middle years of the 19th century was the idea of the dignity of labour. This was not only a great egalitarian doctrine but held aloft a moral precept which is central to the highest ethical ideals of our civilization from its beginnings thousands of years ago. Now hyper-efficiency is forcing us to examine this central thesis of our society. It is forcing us to look to our directions and to prepare for results that we never really anticipated.
Canada Pension Plan
Some months ago in this house I mentioned the fact that 14 glassblower operators tend machines that produce all the glass bulbs and all the radio and television tubes, excepting picture tubes, for the United States. With that one exception, 14 tend machines which produce 90 per cent of the total. Some weeks later a colleague in the house, who apparently was paying careful attention to my remarks, was discussing this information with friends and they found it unbelievable. What was my authority? I told him I was quoting the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mac-Eachen).
In point of fact, this is the core of the problem. The direct relationship of commodities to labour expended fascinated the classical economists. It provided ideas for Adam Smith and David Ricardo, and inspired the revolutionary and evangelical economic theory of Karl Marx, who stood the labour theory of value on its head. Tomorrow we may not be relating directly commodities to labour expended. Fourteen men tend machines that produce 90 per cent of the bulbs and tubes-they might easily produce all that is required, plus a surplus. The measurement of output in terms of labour hours could become an obsolete concept. This is something quite revolutionary and goes to the root of our society, which is so intimately related to our economic processes.
We live in a country of abundance, despite the poverty which is too widespread. The representations made by the Ontario federation of labour on poverty in Ontario in 1964 are a challenge to all. The Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) has also pinpointed this problem and proposes to do some things about it. The Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) has special programs to stimulate growth in designated areas, and the over-all economic program of the government has taken certain important steps. It is a paradox that we have these areas of impoverishment in a society of abundance. It is also a most serious consideration that with a great potential in the western world much of the world community lives in abject poverty. Hunger is the first problem for more than half the human race, and our country which has increased its participation in foreign aid must continue to do even more. The fact remains that the new processes are producing great bounties and the problems of automation oblige us to examine with great seriousness the organization of the labour market.
I have been an advocate of more serious programs of industrial training and larger

Canada Pension Plan
attempts to upgrade our labour force. However, we are also faced with the necessity to abstract from our labour force aging workers who, through their own efforts and those of all of us, can provide for their older years. This pension plan means that the bounty of automation will not exact too great a price for older workers. We are not as yet really facing the challenge of obsolescence in the skills of our workers. Every day thousands now working are finding their means of livelihood destroyed because the skills that have stood them in good stead for most of their adult lives have become obsolete. In part, this can be met by retraining, but for many of the older workers it will be necessary to withdraw them from the labour market in dignity and with security.
This is the greatest aspect of the Canada pension plan; we are protecting the dignity and the self-respect of our workers. We not only give them a greater mobility by ensuring the portability of pensions, but we are saying: In your declining years it is not to the state which you are looking but to the provisions which through the state you were able to make for yourself, together with the contribution of your employer, to security and well-being.
If we have moved from the patriarchal society to a highly individualized community, the older worker is entitled to all the dignity which his son, who with his skill and his two arms is able to provide for his wife and children and himself, has in his prime. Not through the toleration of his children, but through his own provision, the older worker can hold his head high and face his later years with a sense of dignity and well-being.
Our problems do not end here We shall have to give thought to organizing the leisure which a society of automation affords us. We shall have to make it creative and satisfying. Canada has a challenging present and a great future, and the Canada pension plan is a step towards its realization.


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister a question before we proceed any further; she can deal with it when she is replying. Can the minister tell us whether she has any assurance from the nine provinces that they will participate in the plan at this stage?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the minister speaks now she would, of course, be closing the debate.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, I was seeking to ask the hon. member who has just con-

eluded his speech whether he would permit a question before he took his seat.


Marvin Gelber: Certainly.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I listened with interest to his speech and I noted that earlier in his remarks he made reference to the generation of Canadians who were in the prime of their earning years when they were caught in the holocaust of the great depression. I should like to ask the hon. member whether he would not have to agree that it is precisely that generation of Canadians for whom we are not making provision in this bill, because of the age they have now reached.


Marvin Gelber: I would say it depends how old they were then.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those against the said motion please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And five members having risen:


Mr. Scott:: Mr. Speaker, I and my colleagues would like to record a vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is too late.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No; the Chair did not declare the motion carried. I called for yeas and nays, and five members having stood the Chair has to call in the members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to the joint committee established to consider Bill No. C-136.


PERSONNEL OF COMMITTEE
Mr. Maurice Rinfret (St. James):: May I
have unanimous consent of the house to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Rinfret: I move:
That the members of the House of Commons on the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons to consider Bill No. C-136, approved November 16, 1964, be composed of: Messrs. Aiken, Basford, Cameron (High Park), Cantelon, Cashin, Chatterton, C6t6 (Longueuil), Francis, Gray, Gundlock, Klein, Knowles, Laverdiere, Lloyd, Macaluso, McCutcheon, Monteith, Moreau, Munro, Olson, Paul, Perron, Rheaume and Scott.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader about the business for tomorrow?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, perhaps before announcing the business for tomorrow I might take the opportunity to thank the house for its co-operation in the last three days in dealing with the important piece of legislation which has just been given second reading. Tomorrow we propose submitting the estimates of the Department of External Affairs for consideration-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the member for Red Deer be back tomorrow?


George James McIlraith: -and on Monday we propose submitting the estimates of the Department of Justice. There has been a request that time be allocated as between the department proper, the penitentiaries branch and the combines branch, but perhaps that can be dealt with later. I am not able to announce the business to be submitted on Friday. I should like the opportunity to consult with

Business of the House the house leaders of the other parties before announcing business for that day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if I have missed something I am sure I will be corrected, but were we not going to refer Bill No. C-136 to the joint committee, now that it has been appointed?


George James McIlraith: That was done just a few minutes ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good.


[Stage Direction]
It being fourteen minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.