1964-03-17

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
queen's printer and controller of stationery OTTAWA, 1964
20220-73£
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 17, 1964


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister, as the custodian in the house of the rights of parliament, a matter that I think it will be agreed constitutes a contempt of and an affront to parliament. I refer to the action taken by the directors of the world fair, the Canadian centennial fair, to which this parliament contributes, in deciding they would not follow the direction of parliament and would use the symbol which parliament deleted from the bill.
This to me is an arrogant affront to parliament. They may not think we are judges of art, but we are supplying a large amount of money in this connection. All sides of the house agreed and the Minister of Justice joined in the drafting of the amendment, but the directors decided, without regard to any consideration for parliament, to act as they saw fit.
That is not the kind of co-operation, I suggest to the Prime Minister, to which parliament is entitled. I am not in any way blaming him, but I would like to know-as he is the custodian of the rights of parliament, as I mentioned a moment ago-what he has done to bring to the attention of the directors what must be the feeling of all hon. members in this regard.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be making inquiries at once into this matter, which was brought to my attention by press reports only this morning. I am glad the right hon. gentleman has raised this matter in the house, and I will make inquiries and report to the house at the earliest possible date.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister
of Labour and ask him whether it is a fact that an agreement has been reached between the S.I.U. of Canada and the United States whereby Banks is to be fired within the next three weeks.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have no information that would support the suggestion contained in my hon. friend's question.


Michael Starr: I wonder whether the Minister of Labour would check into this possibility and advise the house if there is any truth in it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to make inquiries.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may now answer a question asked yesterday by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition with respect to the alleged wiretapping of the board of trustees office in Montreal.
In reply to the question raised yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition, I have learned that evidence has been found of wires attached to one of the telephone lines to the board of trustees office in Montreal. With suitable equipment these wires could have been used for monitoring conversation on the line. The investigation into this matter is proceeding, but I am informed that it may not be possible to establish definitely whether the attempt was successful.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the minister in a position to advise when this illegal and unlawful action was first ascertained, and whether there has been anything to indicate who might have participated therein?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not absolutely sure as to the date when this particular matter was discovered, but I will make inquiries on that point. I do not think any information or evidence exists at present as to the persons responsible for this attempt but I understand that an investigation is currently going forward into the matter.



MEETING OF COMMONWEALTH MINISTERS PRECEDING UN CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiflam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The

Inquiries of the Ministry morning press carries a report that a commonwealth ministerial meeting is to be held in London on Thursday and Friday of this week as a preliminary to the United Nations trade and development conference which is being held in Geneva next week. May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce two questions. First of all, who will represent Canada at the commonwealth conference on Thursday and Friday of this week? Second, is it true that one of the items on the agenda is a discussion as to the possibility of abandoning the present commonwealth preferential trading system?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Canadian government will be represented by my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs at the United Nations conference on trade and development. The meetings that are to be held in London are meetings of commonwealth ministers preliminary to the United Nations conference. We will be represented at those meetings by Mr. Dana Wilgress.
As to the second question about the agenda, it is not my understanding that commonwealth preferences as such are on the agenda, but there is on the agenda, of course, a proposal made by Mr. Prebisch, who is secretary of the United Nations conference, for a system of preferences for the trade of less developed countries with the industrialized countries of the world.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister if this is likely to lead to a commonwealth prime ministers' conference on trade and have any representations been made by the Canadian government for the holding of such a conference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to say at the present time whether anything developing out of the United Nations conference would require a commonwealth prime ministers' meeting, but my hon. friend knows that a meeting of commonwealth prime ministers to be held some time this summer or in the early autumn is currently under consideration.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the meeting in London on Thursday and Friday of this week is a ministerial meeting, may I ask the Prime Minister why Canada is not being represented by a minister?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will have to look into that, Mr. Speaker, but I do not think all the commonwealth countries are being represented by ministers at this London meeting.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE DISCUSSION OP REDISTRIBUTION OP TAXING POWERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could he tell us, after the budget that was introduced last night, whether there are still possibilities of discussion for the next federal-provincial conference to be held in Quebec in a few days, concerning fiscal redistributions between the federal and provincial governments?

Right Hon. L, B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
No, Mr. Speaker, the conference will be held as scheduled, and the major item of the agenda is shared programs and their effect on fiscal matters.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Was the Prime Minister invited to meet the several thousands of university students of the province of Quebec who are to hold meetings in Quebec city on the occasion of the next federal-provincial conference?
If he is invited, does the Prime Minister intend to meet those students to hear their views?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think I have had any such invitation.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES WINNIPEG MAINTENANCE BASE  REPRESENTA- TIONS BY UNION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Margaret Konanlz (Winnipeg South):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister any information to give the house about a statement issued by union lodge 714 in Winnipeg concerning employment at the T.C.A. maintenance base?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the alert member for Winnipeg South-


Mr. Churchill:: I was up on my feet three times.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -having been able to get in ahead of a privy councillor should be congratulated. This matter was brought to my attention yesterday afternoon by a telephone call which I received from Mr. Gurney Evans, minister of trade and industry in the

government of Manitoba, who told me that certain reports had appeared in Winnipeg emanating apparently from the union to which the hon. lady referred.
I asked at once if T.C.A. could inform me precisely what had happened. I knew there had been a meeting between the union locals in Montreal and Winnipeg and the management of the air line something over a week ago. I asked T.C.A. if they could give me an account of what had happened. I think, in view of the very widespread interest in this question, it would perhaps be just as well if I put on the record precisely what I was told.
T.C.A. advised that a recent announcement regarding the agreement between the Winnipeg and Montreal lodges of the international association of machinists, and concurred in by the company, does not in any way change the previously announced plans of T.C.A. in relation to the Winnipeg base. The announcement referred to was released by the international association of machinists.
Discussions have been held at the request of the union between T.C.A. management and representatives of the international association of machinists to clarify seniority rights of the air lines' maintenance and overhaul employees, particularly as they involve transfers from one location to another. In the course of these discussions, the question inevitably arose concerning the status of Winnipeg based employees whose seniority rights under existing agreements contained certain regional limitations. It is the wish of both air line management and the union to protect the rights of senior employees under any circumstances that might arise, and it was therefore felt necessary to modify the rules with respect to the application of seniority rights as stated in existing labour agreements between the company and its employees so as to provide wider scope for exercise of these rights.
The fact that this essential exercise in long term planning has been undertaken in no way implies that T.C.A. is contemplating immediate large scale reduction in its Winnipeg maintenance and overhaul staff. Employment at Winnipeg will continue to be related to the required volume of Viscount maintenance and overhaul work, as publicly stated hitherto by both the government and by T.C.A. management. I might say that as soon as I received this statement from T.C.A. this morning I communicated it to Mr. Evans so that if he had any questions in the legislature of Manitoba he would be able to give the information to those concerned.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a supplementary question. I have a short question for the Minister of Transport which would entail a short answer, such as is customary on orders of the day.
Inquiries of the Ministry Will the Minister of Transport give the same assurance that was given by his predecessor in office, that employment at the T.C.A. base in Winnipeg will increase rather than decrease during this year and the coming years?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would say that to the
best of my knowledge, sir, no such assurance was ever given by my predecessor, and I am bound by the statements that were made by the Prime Minister and by the company.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question on this matter to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a telegram from the union in Winnipeg with respect to this matter, indicating in particular its concern about the report that the phasing out would start in 1964? If so, what has been his reply to the union in Winnipeg?
Right Hon. L. 5. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, it may be that a telegram on this matter came in this morning, but I have not had a chance to deal with it yet.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport a supplementary question.
As the other day the Minister of National Defence made a statement in the house to the effect that the two radar bases of St. Sylvestre, in the county of Lotbiniere, and Parent, in the county of Chapleau, have been closed down in order to save this country $6 million, what does the Minister of Transport propose to do with regard to the established fact that this country would save $40 million carrying out repairs of T.C.A. aircraft in Montreal rather than in Winnipeg?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of seeking in any way to modify the position taken by T.C.A. itself in 1962 and reaffirmed by the Prime Minister on more than one occasion, that so long as the Viscount aircraft was in service with T.C.A., the maintenance would be done in Winnipeg.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: As a supplementary question, could the minister tell us whether he agrees with the statement which has been published in the press that if the move from Winnipeg to Montreal does not take place it is going to cost $40 million more?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have never posed as an expert in these matters and I am not going to start now. T.C.A. engaged management consultants who made certain statements that have been distributed in this house,

Inquiries of the Ministry and the hon. member for Three Rivers is just as capable of interpreting them and just as competent to interpret them as I am.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, as a further supplementary question, could the minister tell us whether the government has been asked by T.C.A. to take over this $4 million yearly deficit on its own account instead of having it charged to the account of T.C.A.?


John Whitney Pickersgill: To the best of my knowledge T.C.A. has never indicated to the government that there would be any such deficit; therefore there has been no request to take it over.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kootenay West.


Mr. McIntosh:: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: There are two more supplementary questions and I think that should terminate the discussion. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister whether he would consider putting the Viscount back on the prairie run, and that would solve the problem for everybody.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go into the business of running an air line myself.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport whether political pressure has been put on his department for keeping the maintenance station for T.C.A. aircraft in Winnipeg rather than in Montreal, and, if so, can the minister tell us what sort of political pressure was exerted upon his department?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, sir, a question as long as that should be read and meditated about carefully before it is answered.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is the minister in a position to report the results of his meeting yesterday with national officers of
TMr. Pickersgill.]
various veterans associations with respect to the future of veterans hospitals in Canada?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would take me some considerable time to give an adequate answer to that question. To be as brief as possible I can say that, as the hon. member would expect, it was an excellent meeting, and I found a very general understanding and appreciation of the problems we are faced with in respect to these hospitals.
The real concern shown at the meeting was that if any such transfer should take place the veterans rights would be protected in such a way as to ensure nothing would be taken away. This was the major matter of concern placed before me. As I say, it was an excellent meeting, but I would need 15 or 20 minutes to do justice to a question of this kind.


Mr. F. J. W. Fane (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I should first like to ask the minister whether he would care to make any amendments to the answer given to a question I asked him yesterday, as recorded on page 934 of Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I point out to hon. members that it is now 4.15 and there are at least four more hon. members who wish to ask questions. Perhaps we could proceed with the business of the house.


Frank John William Fane: Then, Mr. Speaker, I raise a question of privilege. My question of privilege is that in the answer the minister gave to my question yesterday he definitely misled this house and anybody who receives information as to what occurs in this house. I asked the minister:
-exactly when, and in what words, the standing committee on veterans affairs recommended that veterans hospitals should be taken over by other authorities?
The answer with which the minister provided me was:
The recommendation of the committee was that if and when any transfer should take place, veterans organizations be consulted.
I refer now, Mr. Speaker, to the report of the veterans affairs committee. This is to be found in the minutes of proceedings and evidence No. 13, of Tuesday, December 10, 1963. Recommendation No. 12 of that committee was as follows:
Your committee is aware that a point has been reached where a decision must be made regarding treatment services in both areas of responsibility and administration. Your committee recommends that fullest consultation be carried out with veterans organizations before any changes are made.

I realize perfectly well that the meeting the minister attended yesterday, with regard to which he reported to some extent today, was carrying out that recommendation; but the answer of the minister was not correct according to the report of the standing committee on veterans affairs.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is an excellent illustration of attempting to answer questions without notice.


An hon. Member:: Without knowledge.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I interpreted, I believed
correctly, the recommendation. It was an interpretation; I did not have the text before me. If I have misled my hon. friend I should be glad to apologize. However, I think if he will read the answer again he will realize it is a fairly close interpretation of that recommendation.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs whether he can indicate to the house how many beds will be available, and what it is proposed to do with those veterans who are chronically ill. Is there a proposal to put them into nursing homes, or what is going to be done with these veterans? My second question is this. With regard to the outlying areas which are some distance from veterans hospitals, what is the proposal respecting those veterans who become ill and who were previously sent to the bigger centres for treatment? Are they to be put on the ordinary waiting lists of these hospitals, many of which have long waiting lists at the moment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to the minister that he take this question as notice.



REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF ALLOWANCES FOR CHILDREN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. F. Kennedy (Colchesfer-Hanls):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the announced extension of family allowances to children of 16 and 17 years, does the minister now intend to announce a similar extension under the veterans charter in respect of children in this age group?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: May I take that question as notice?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: As one
Inquiries of the Ministry Irishman to another, I should like to address a question to the honourable and learned Secretary of State for External Affairs. Knowing the proper interest taken by the minister and the government in wider United Nations participation in the Cyprus operation, is the hon. gentleman in a position to report on any wider range of United Nations member involvement in this important peace keeping operation or on any other aspect of the role of the United Nations in this very important operation?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I cannot report that any country, in addition to those already announced has given any indication of intention to join the force, but efforts along that line are being pursued.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Has Canada been pursuing this matter with some of her friends in an effort to get them to participate, or is it the secretary general who has been doing the pursuing?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is being done both by Canada and by the United Nations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can the secretary of state tell us anything about the Finnish contribution which was rumoured last week?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Finland has already decided to join the force.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: May I
direct a supplementary question to the minister, and ask him if he would care to comment on a report that the Turkish parliament has authorized the government to land troops on Cyprus if necessary? Could he indicate whether, in his view, the Canadian peace force now being assembled on the island would be able to cope with such a situation?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I am sure the government of Turkey, having expressed, as it did, its pleasure and satisfaction at the establishment of the force, would not wish to take any steps that would make impossible or difficult the operations and work of that force.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, may I reply to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre with regard to a news report that Canadian troops were being paid in U.S. currency in order, according to the report, to pay any debts before leaving for Cyprus. In actual fact the payment was made to ensure that each man was in possession of a small amount of money easily negotiable to cover any expenses that might be incurred en route to Cyprus or in

Inquiries of the Ministry Cyprus itself. I have been unable to discover anything about using these funds to pay debts. Cash pay in Cyprus will be in local currency in accordance with United Nations foreign policy.


Mr. Sluarl A. Fleming (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Can the minister tell us why Canadian currency is not easily negotiable?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I happen to think that Canadian currency should be easily negotiable all over the world, but it so happens that the United States is a little better known than we are and its currency is more easily negotiable in some countries.


Mr. Bell:: What is the minister doing about that?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre asked what arrangements had been made for hospital services for Canadian troops serving in Cyprus. I can now give a detailed answer to the hon. member.
The Canadian army has obtained information from the British war office concerning the availability of medical resources in Cyprus, and such information has effected the formulation of the Canadian medical support plan.
The Canadian contingent includes the regimental medical officer and eight medical assistants of the Van Doos, together with normal medical stores. In addition, there are a second medical officer and four medical assistants attached to the Canadian contingent. Hospital facilities made available by the British consist of the British military hospital at Dekhelia and the Royal Air Force hospital at Akrotiri, both full treatment hospitals.
It is not the practice of the British to hold long term patients at these hospitals and, should the necessity arise, a Canadian air evacuation plan has been made using the R.C.A.F. 3 air wing hospital facilities at Zweibrucken in Germany.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melforf-Tisdale):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Has the minister been informed by Mr. F. C. Cronkite of Saskatoon, chairman of the prairie regional employment committee, of a resolution recently adopted by the convention in Winnipeg requesting that
[Mr. Gordon.}

unemployment insurance coverage be extended to include farm labour? If so, has the minister any comments on this very important and urgent matter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not recall receiving the resolution to which the hon. member refers, but I will make an investigation to see whether I have received these representations with respect to the coverage of farm labour.


PAYMENTS TO PERSONS REFUSING EMPLOYMENT IN STRIKEBOUND PLANT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: wonder if the Minister of Labour is in a position to answer the question put to him yesterday with reference to the strikebound plant owned by Canadian Forest Industries Limited, and the complaint that persons refusing to take employment in this plant might forfeit their unemployment insurance benefits. Is that in fact the situation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no. Section 59(2) (a) of the Unemployment Insurance Act provides that employment arising in consequence of a stoppage of work attributable to a labour dispute is not suitable employment. A claimant may therefore refuse such employment without loss of benefit.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: I have a question which I should like to address to the Minister of Labour. Will the minister inform the house what he is doing to ensure that his policy of helping older workers to obtain employment is being implemented within the public service itself?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I shall be glad to look into the activities of the Department of Labour with respect to encouraging other government departments. I know that in all aspects of our employment program an effort is being made to encourage the government as an employer to follow in this direction.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question. Is the Minister of Labour aware that the penitentiaries commission refuses to consider applications for work from individuals over the age of 45 for jobs other than those of a custodial nature? This being the case, will the minister make the strongest possible representations to the penitentiaries commission and to the civil service commission about discrimination of this sort? I ask this question-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Heward Grafftey: -because I have to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member please take his seat. Might I point out to the hon. member that he is making a statement, not asking a question.


William Heward Grafftey: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour, in view of this anomaly, whether he will make the strongest possible representations to the Minister of Justice and the civil service commission. I make this differentiation because, as I understand it, the penitentiaries commission are independent of the civil service commission for hiring purposes.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if the facts as set out by my hon. friend are correct I will be glad to make proper representations to my colleagues.


William Heward Grafftey: On a point of order, the minister says "if the facts are correct". I believe they are correct. This being the situation, could I also address a supplementary question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. A policy which discriminates against people who are 45 years of age and over completely nullifies the effects of veterans-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is repeating the same form of statement. If he cares to ask a question he may do so, but I do not think it is up to the hon. member to make a statement unless he has absolute proof.


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. There is some confusion about whether the bridge subsidy payments have ended. Apparently the railways have told certain shippers that the bridge subsidy has ended, and if that is so I should like to ask what is the purpose of the several million dollars in the estimates for this year, and when the action formally ending the subsidy was taken.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it- though I am not sure that this is a proper question for the orders of the day-the bridge subsidy is provided by parliament and can only be changed by parliament. Some day I hope to introduce some legislation on this matter which has not been introduced yet.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question. Would the minister investigate at once and
20220-74i
Inquiries of the Ministry seek an explanation why a rate increase was passed on to the shippers as from March 1, the reason being given that the bridge subsidy was ending?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman can provide me with some concrete evidence of these things so that I can make an inquiry about them I will be glad to do so.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I want to address a question to the Prime Minister concerning the national problem of hospital bed shortage in metropolitan Toronto. In view of the meetings being held now in Toronto to try to solve this urgent matter, would the Prime Minister consider making a decision one way or the other as to whether the federal government will increase its grants, so that the people who are trying to solve this problem will know whether they can look to the government for assistance or whether they are going to have to solve the financial problem in other ways? Would the Prime Minister consider making a decision one way or the other, instead of giving the indecisive answers which we have been getting over the last eight months?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate both the importance and the urgency of this matter, and I will be glad to discuss it with my colleagues directly concerned and make a statement at the earliest possible date.


Reid Scott: A supplementary question. Is the Prime Minister aware that this is just about the answer he gave me six months ago, and would he again consider making a firm decision one way or the other in the very near future?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think this is the first time I have answered my hon. friend on this question.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Finance arises out of press reports that the federal Departments of Agriculture, Northern Affairs, Veterans Affairs and Transport are to be made guinea pigs for Glassco commission economies. In view of the absence of any

Inquiries of the Ministry reference to this subject in last night's budget speech, would the minister now advise the house as to the nature of the experiments that are to be performed on or in these departments?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, without agreeing for a minute with the phrases used by my hon. friend in introducing his question, on the recommendation of the organization which has been set up to consider and implement the proposals of the Glassco commission it was decided by the treasury board to employ firms of management consultants to work with officials of the four departments referred to in studying the detailed application of the recommendations of the Glassco commission in respect of those particular departments.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. A dominion bureau of statistics release shows an 18J per cent increase in bankruptcy in the last quarter of 1963 as compared with 1962. Can the Minister of Finance explain this alarming increase?



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliette-L'Assomption-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask the Minister of Finance. Can the minister tell	the	house whether	the	supplementary family allowances to be paid by Ottawa to 16 and 17 year old students will be added to the similar allowances already paid by the Lesage government to Quebec students?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to speak for	the	Lesage government.	The
allowances referred to in last night's budget will be paid to all people who qualify for them.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary	question to the	Ministerof Finance. In view of his excellent relations with the premier of the province of Quebec, can he ask the latter not to act in the way he	did	at the time of	the	$10
increase to pensioners?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for underlining the excellent relationships that prevail between this government and the government of the province of Quebec-
[Mr. Rheaume.l


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: -and I will do everything possible to see that those relationships are maintained.



INQUIRY AS TO BREAKDOWN OF SALES TAX REVENUE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Does the Department of Finance keep figures on the revenue that has accrued to the crown as a result of sales tax introduced in the 1963 budget and, in particular, is there a breakdown-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David Vaughan Pugh: A simple yes or no will do. Is there a breakdown showing the amount received from the lumber industry and the building suppliers throughout Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is a question for the order paper.


David Vaughan Pugh: With respect, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member certainly cannot expect the minister to answer a detailed question like that without notice.


David Vaughan Pugh: With respect, Mr. Speaker, it requires a straight answer, yes or no. Does he keep figures?



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the right hon. Leader of the Opposition asked me two questions. I assured him that I would answer them as soon as possible. He asked if I had any information about a certain postal box, namely box 22, station E, Toronto 4. He inquired whether that particular box had been brought to my attention and whether it had been closed. I told him that I had received information on the subject from a member of the press gallery, but I was not sure whether it was the same box.
I have since confirmed that the box mentioned by my right hon. friend is the same one that had been brought to my attention by the gentleman in the gallery. Our investigations show that box 22 was rented in 1961 to a senior citizen in Toronto, who furnished excellent references to the postal authorities. The only suggestion that the box in question may have been used for other than legitimate purposes has come from the member of the press gallery and from my right hon. friend. No information has been brought to

the attention of the postal authorities which would justify closing or interfering with the use of the box in question by the gentleman who rented it and who has been using it for the past three years.
On the same subject, Mr. Speaker, may I say that in the course of their investigations the postal authorities in Toronto learned some days ago that, in addition to postal box 431, which was closed on January 13, and the box in St. Catharines which I mentioned earlier, the 19 year old youth to whom I referred last week in answer to a question put by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition had leased a third postal box in Toronto, and it also has been used for the distribution of this objectionable literature. That box also was closed some days ago.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Porlage-Neepawa):: Mr
Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of a similar question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg South about a week ago today regarding a submission from the Manitoba government in respect to a national air policy. Will the minister assure the house that the province will be consulted prior to the finalizing of a national air policy for Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is a matter about which one would expect to have a federal-provincial conference, but I would naturally be interested to have the views of any provincial government or those of any other interested person who has any views on the appropriate national air policy for our country. I assure the hon. member that I wrote to Mr. Evans after reading his submission and asked for some more copies, so it would be sure to be studied thoroughly by all those concerned with the devising of any amendments that may be required to the air policy.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. O. Cooper (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. It refers to the use of dieldrin as a grasshopper spray on cereal crops. Since I asked the question last session Manitoba has abandoned the use of dieldrin. Has the minister received any report from the people concerned with the
Inquiries of the Ministry Food and Drugs Act as to the effects of this dangerous poison on human beings as well as on cattle?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must intervene here. This type of question demands a detailed answer, which I believe could better be given on the order paper.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Could the minister inform the house when the amendments to the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, designed to stimulate prospecting and pending now for over a year, will be brought before the house?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we have some hope that they will be brought before the house this session.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, and it is based on the hope which he expressed yesterday that the bill respecting the Canada pension plan might receive second reading and be sent to a parliamentary committee before the Easter recess. My question is, will the government consider postponing either all or part of the six day budget debate until after the Easter recess, so we can get some pieces of legislation such as the Canada pension plan and one or two other items through before the Easter recess?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is still possible, I hope, for this house to deal with the resolution and second reading of the bill respecting the Canada pension plan and at the same time have at least half the budget debate and dispose of the amendments before the Easter recess.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister intend to press for the passing of the bill concerning the Canada pension plan before the Quebec legislative assembly has the opportunity to introduce its own pension plan?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to get the bill before a parliamentary committee with the least possible delay.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he has anything to report on the matter of the bridge at Three Rivers following his meeting with the minister of highways of Quebec yesterday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have been advised that the Lea report will be available in a very few days, probably this week, and I so informed the minister of highways when I saw him yesterday.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, basing his question on an article appearing in Le Petit Journal, asked if it was true that a group of machine guns had been removed from La Citadelle, Quebec city. I am now in a position to confirm my original answer to the effect that the report is incorrect, and that no weapons have been withdrawn from La Citadelle.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Before asking my question, Mr. Speaker, I think it only fair to point out that the question period started at twenty minutes to four and has lasted 45 minutes now. My question is to the Minister of Transport. It is based on proposals of the C.B.C. or the board of broadcast governors to construct radio transmission towers 473 feet high south of the Calgary international airport at Shepard. Has the minister received representations from general aviation associations in the area, and is it his intention to convene an inquiry on the basis of the individual assessment that he discussed with these associations in order to determine the hazard presented to general aviation by these towers?
[Mr. Gregoire.l


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


Erik Nielsen: With respect, Mr. Speaker, this question is urgent.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I fail to see the urgency. The hon. member for Lapointe.


Erik Nielsen: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I rose to ask the minister a question concerning the safety of general aviation in this country. The construction of towers almost 500 feet high, which might be proceeding any day or at any moment now, is in my opinion an urgent matter, since in the last 18 months 14 lives have been lost in accidents through flyers striking cables and towers. I am sure the minister has an answer prepared for my question, and the aviation industry is very interested in hearing about the safety measures that he proposes to take.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid I do not see any point of order there. The question the hon. member has asked requires a considered reply, and the minister is entitled to take sufficient time to prepare that considered reply.


Erik Nielsen: I wonder whether the minister might be allowed to answer for himself and say whether he is going to hear the representatives of the aviation associations concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Lapointe.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Is he aware that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) has been criticized by the minister of municipal affairs of the province of Quebec? Does he intend to reprimand his colleague accordingly?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am only aware of the fact that my hon. friend has asked another improper question.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime

Minister a question relating to the business of the house. When the motion regarding Canadian periodicals was tabled it was in the Prime Minister's name, and today it is under the name of the Minister of Finance. I wonder whether there is any significance in the change, or what significance there was in the original intention of having the Prime Minister sponsor the motion?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no significance at all. If this matter is dealt with apart from the budget I will deal with it; if it is decided in the budget the Minister of Finance will deal with it.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister explain more fully his comment about it being decided in the budget?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think I can explain it at this time. I will try to make it quite clear to my hon. friend on an appropriate occasion.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry and Minister of Defence Production. Could he tell us whether some progress has been made concerning the setting up of industries in designated areas in the near future?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, we had a good deal of success concerning the setting up of new industries in several designated areas. A rather long report would be necessary to describe in detail what has been done, but I can assure the hon. member that our efforts have been successful. [Text]



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to shut off any hon. member, but is the question really urgent?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is an urgent question.
Canada Pension Plan [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that in Toronto on March 5 he stated that French Canadians, because of their situation in the federal administration, were frustrated, as the minister responsible for justice, what steps-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I find it impossible to ask my question with the noise the hon. member without portfolio is making.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I heard the hon. gentleman. The question is for the order paper.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I repeat my question. In view of the fact that in Toronto on March 5 the Minister of Justice stated that French Canadians were frustrated because of their situation in the federal administration, as the minister responsible for justice what steps does he intend to recommend in order to remedy that situation he finds unfair?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is out of order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister is ready to answer my question.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the hon. member that two wrongs do not make a right, and if his question is not in order then the minister is not called upon to reply.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I	put a question to the Minister of Justice who is now ready to give me an answer.
I would ask Your Honour to allow the Minister of Justice to answer my question.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



PENSIONS


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure, to be known as the Canada pension plan, to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions in Canada payable to contributors, and to provide,

Canada Pension Plan
among other things, for the payment of retirement pensions beginning at any age between 65 and 70 years; for the payment of pensions to surviving spouses beginning at any age from 65 years; for the progressive establishment of full pensions over an initial period of ten years; for the co-ordination of pensions payable under the Old Age Security Act with pensions payable under the Canada pension plan and for the payment of adjusted pensions under the Old Age Security Act beginning at any age from 65 years; and to provide further that all expenditures under the Canada pension plan, including costs of administration, shall be financed from contributions by employees, employers and self employed persons.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased today to have the opportunity, even at this late hour, to introduce into this house a resolution proposing the introduction of a comprehensive system of contributory retirement pensions, the Canada pension plan. Hon. members will recall that a resolution very similar to this one was introduced into the house in July of last year. At the time of its introduction I tabled and the house ordered printed in Hansard, a so-called white paper, which was the scheme of the bill to be introduced, couched in non-legal language. This was provided in order to assist members in ready comprehension of this highly technical matter. It served also to provide a basis for discussion with provincial governments.
Those discussions began at the end of July. They were continued at a conference with provincial ministers and their technical advisers early in September last. There were further technical discussions at the official level with Ontario and Quebec. And then, at the full federal-provincial conference last November, there was a long discussion of the government's plans with the premiers of the provinces, under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister.
In addition, during the eight months since the introduction of the 1963 resolution, the Canada pension plan has been exhaustively discussed by interested groups across the country. Much of this discussion has found its way into the public press. There can be very few occasions when the intentions of a government have been so fully discussed prior to the introduction of the actual legislation into parliament. Our proposals have produced wide interest and, I think, increasingly favourable support. Members will have noted the three tabled returns made in response to motion Nos. 84, 88 and 105 which comprise more than 700 folios of correspondence on the subject. Many members will also be aware that important national organizations, such as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the National Farmers Union
[Miss LaMarsh.j
and the Canadian Labour Congress, have expressed themselves in favour of the pension plan.
The wide discussion of pensions has been welcomed by the government, for our hope is to produce the best possible retirement plan for Canadians generally.
Since the second world war, private pension schemes have burgeoned in Canada. Some of these schemes were designed and paid for entirely by management, but many of the biggest were the product of labour negotiation and are considered a part of the wage package. It is now estimated that approximately 1,800,000 Canadian workers have some type of private pension arrangements.
These schemes are making an important contribution to improved security. But it also soon became apparent that those who are not covered by private schemes, and those who worked through the depression years when they could make at best only meagre provision for their own retirement, were facing an increasingly difficult future. This gave impetus to a study in parliament as to the action which ought to be taken to provide elderly Canadian citizens with some measure to meet their retirement needs. A joint committee of both houses exhaustively explored the available alternatives and concluded by recommending that a pension payment of $40 per month should be made to every person who attained the age of 70. Since this is taxable income, those with substantially greater incomes return part through taxation.
In order to effect this major departure, permission for a constitutional amendment had to be sought from the provinces. It was obtained and pensions thus became a field of concurrent federal-provincial jurisdiction.
The $40, as everyone in the chamber knows, has been increased, most recently by this parliament to $75. It is surely now apparent that we must seek an additional approach if we are to achieve the goal of providing real retirement benefits for Canadian workers. As the amount of the old age security, sometimes called the fiat rate pension, has risen, its limitations have become more apparent. In some parts of Canada, the aged parents in a family receive more cash income than is brought to the family financial pot by the family breadwinner. In low-income, low-cost areas, the retirement benefit seems relatively large. At the same time, at the other end of the scale, no matter what reasonable increase may be legislated, by this or successive parliaments, it is never enough to provide an adequate subsistence for the aged, who have no other resources in the high cost urban areas where more and more of them live. There is, therefore, increasing public awareness that our retirement

programs are not good enough for the present, much less sufficient to give us pride, and provide comfort for the aged, for the future.
The Canada pension plan was devised for the present and for the future. Very shortly after it comes into operation it will begin to pay pensions, modest at first, but building over a 10-year period of transition. We could not meet social needs by stretching out the period of transition appreciably beyond 10 years, as some have suggested.
The way in which this parliament is asked to provide modestly adequate pensions, available as widely as possible through the aegis of the Canada pension plan, is before the house in the terms of the resolution. Briefly, and avoiding detail as far as possible because it is outside the scope of debate on the resolution, the Canada pension plan provides a modest but adequate retirement pension related to the income earned over the contributor's working life. It is a two-part scheme integrating the new pension with the existing universal flat-rate old age security pension.
In order to ensure a constant dollar value at retirement, the ceiling on pensionable earnings will rise as average wages rise. This of course will mean an increased flow of contributions, at the same percentage rate, and an increased amount payable for benefits.
The Canada pension plan calls for compulsory participation by employees and for voluntary participation by the self employed. It is open to all whom we can administratively cover, within participating provinces. The employee will pay annually 1 per cent of the first $4,500 of his pensionable earnings. That contribution will be matched by his employer. This initial low rate will continue in force for 15 years, followed by a gradual increase over the years. Foreseeably the rate will rise to 2 per cent, but that is 50 years away.
To translate this into understandable terms, John Jones, an employee, making $2,500 per year will pay $25 a year; his employer will pay the same. His brother Tom, who is self employed, will pay $50 annually. No one can pay more than $90 a year and those are only the self employed at the top level of $4,500 per year of pensionable earnings.
What then will the pensioner receive and when? He or she may decide to begin to draw the pension at age 70, or if retired, at any time after age 65. Initially, commencing 1st January, 1966, retired persons of 69 or over may draw pensions if retired. A year later the age will be lowered to 68, and so on until in 1970 any retired person 65 or over may draw his or her pension. The amount of this pension will be made up of two parts, but paid in one cheque. The earn-
Canada Pension Plan
ings-related part will be 20 per cent of average pensionable earnings. This will remain constant at whatever age, from 65 on, the pension is drawn.
The other portion of the pension, the flat rate old age security portion, may be drawn at the sum of $51 per month at age 65. It will be somewhat larger for each month that it is postponed, up to the age of 70 when, of course, it will be $75. This is in order to encourage those who wish to, and can, to keep working beyond 65.
While at the resolution stage we are dealing with principle, for greater clarity, I shall cite the example of an employee who has had pensionable earnings of $3,600 per year. He pays $3 a month for his pension. If after the transition stage (of 10 years in which full benefits build up) he retires at age 65, he receives $111 per month or, if he works to age 70, $135 per month for the rest of his life. His wife, although never a contributor, may of course receive her own flat rate pension of between $51 per month at age 65, or $75 per month if she waits until she is 70. It goes without saying that if she herself has been a contributor during her own working years, she will be entitled to her personal income-related pension.
Provision is made for benefits for the widow or widower, age 65 or over, of a deceased pensioner.
These pensions are not intended to be the sole provision for an individual's retirement. There is ample scope, over and above a plan of this scale, for private pension schemes and personal savings and investment. Indeed the effect of such legislation has been in other countries to encourage individuals, who could afford it, to make additional provision for their own future.
This plan is, by its nature, portable throughout participating provinces. Canadawide portability will also be ensured. The bill does not deal with, nor can this government constitutionally deal with, private existing contractual relationship for pensions between employers and employees. That lies within provincial competence. The spirit of such legislation as that enacted in Ontario and announced in Manitoba is good, we think, providing for portability of private plans.
I do not propose, Mr. Chairman, to deal at length with the financial provisions of this bill. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance will deal with this in his turn.
However, I would like to refer briefly to the financial and other ways in which the plan proposed in this resolution differs from that of the resolution I moved last July.


Mr. Monteiih:: It seems to me somewhat strange that the minister should have gone into such detail at this stage, giving full particulars of specific cases, and so on. I cannot hope at this stage to deal in specifics, not having had the opportunity to study the hon. lady's statement.
I am pleased to hear that an up to date white paper has been prepared, and I assume this will be made available to members of the house shortly, probably later today. Again, it will not be possible to study this adequately in the time available, presumably over the dinner hour, and I am afraid I shall not be in a position to comment on the details of the particular scheme set out in the white paper.
I was pleased to hear the hon. lady say there is to be a joint committee set up to consider this question. However, I feel the Prime Minister should have reconsidered his position in this regard as of yesterday when he replied to a question addressed to him by myself. At that time I asked whether he would consider sending the bill to committee before it received second reading. His answer was to the effect that he hoped the bill would receive second reading and then go to the committee. We understand that the committee is now to be a joint committee.
I do not feel this is good enough. In a matter as complex and important as a Canada pension plan we need to have the fullest inquiry possible before second reading when the bill itself would be approved. At that point it becomes a matter of political necessity on the part of the government to put the bill through practically unchanged. I feel the Prime Minister should have reconsidered the stand he was taking, and I would recommend to him an article by Mr. John Meyer which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of February 24 of this year. This article began as follows:
Canada Pension Plan
Prime Minister Pearson, having first promised public and expert scrutiny of the Canada pension plan, now promises passage of the plan in the current session.
It goes on to indicate that the Prime Minister has given two impressions as to his feelings in this respect. I feel the right hon. gentleman should read this article with great care because there are other suggestions in it which affect this argument; I do not intend to go into detail now.
I want to impress, first of all, upon the House of Commons and upon the country the fact that the Progressive Conservative party is 100 per cent behind a Canada pension plan. There are no "ifs" "ands" or "buts". Let me make it abundantly clear. We wish to see a comprehensive contributory plan brought in at the earliest opportunity. We want to see the bill, and we want to see it as soon as possible. We are most anxious to have it in our hands so as to give it the close study which even the government concedes it will require. This plan has been widely discussed and written about for many months, as the minister stated, and we in this party feel no further purpose can be served by delaying and arguing over the resolution at this time. We certainly do not intend to hold up the introduction of the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jay Waldo Monteith: We want the bill introduced at once so that we can study the plan in great detail and determine to what extent it does or does not provide a good pension for all Canadians.
I wonder if I might call it five o'clock?


The Chairman:: It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed with private members' business pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.




Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: May I have leave to revert to motions, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Before the house proceeds to the next item of business may I have leave to table the document to which I referred during the proceedings in the committee of the whole and ask leave, as well, to have the said document printed as an appendix to today's Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is that the white paper? Is the white paper not available now, prior to this debate continuing?

Private Bills


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have just tabled that document, and it will be available to all members of the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow. We shall not see it until tomorrow.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: There are some 500 copies available in the distribution office for any members who seek them.
[Editor's note: For text of document above referred to, see appendix.]



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: May I ask leave of the house to stay with motions for a moment and announce the business of the house for the rest of this week.
There will be no change in the order of business already announced as far as the beginning of the budget debate is concerned. We shall be proceeding with the budget debate tomorrow, Thursday and Friday. On Thursday I shall be in a position to announce final plans for the business of the house next week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the house leader a question. When he states that the budget debate will be the order of the day tomorrow, is he aware of a certain notice of motion on the notice paper today which would take priority in tomorrow's business, or have arrangements been made for that?


Guy Favreau: I am speaking of government business as such. I am aware of that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock the house will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. John R. Maiheson (Leeds) moved: the second reading of Bill S-5, respecting the general council of the Canadian branch of the St. John ambulance association.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move second reading of Bill S-5, respecting the general council of the Canadian branch of the St. John ambulance association, as passed by the Senate on March 12, 1964. The St. John ambulance association is well known to all hon. members of the house. Honorary presidents include the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson) and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). The work of the St. John ambulance is familiar to the members of this house. I would refer hon. members to the answer given to question No. 19, as reported on page 511 of Hansard, which indicates that the number of

our military personnel trained in the last 10 years with St. John ambulance qualifications was something of the order of 155,000. This is a fractional part of their work when you consider what has been done for emergency measures organizations and for civilians generally.
The principal purpose of the bill is to provide the corporation with objects and powers appropriate to the only function it has in fact been fulfilling since 1946, namely, that of a bare trustee for the priory holding title to property beneficially owned by the priory, as more particularly set out in the recitals in the preamble of the bill, and in connection therewith to define the trusts upon which the corporation holds such property. Additional purposes of the bill are to provide a location for the head office of the corporation, to define its membership consistent with its control and direction by the priory, and to change its name to one more appropriate to its functions.
I might point out that the bill has received lengthy study by a special committee set up under the chairmanship of Brigadier G. E. Beament, Q.C., of Ottawa, who will be available at the committee stage. I respectfully ask for unanimous consent that this bill receive second reading.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few brief comments concerning Bill S-5, which came to my knowledge only a few minutes ago and for which unfortunately we do not yet have the French version.
Having been a doctor for the St. John ambulance association, as was my father before me, I believe one can only feel proud to have belonged to an organization which has rendered such great services to Canada.
Since, as I have just said, I did not have the time to examine the bill, I suggest we adopt the motion preceding second reading and ask for additional information, if need be, at the committee stage.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Mr. Jean Chretien (St. Maurice-Lafleche) moved: the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. C-2, respecting the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I had suggested that I second the motion. Therefore, I wonder why you did not follow my suggestion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member will agree that he is raising the point rather late, as I had already recognized the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Armstrong).


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: But I did say "seconded by Pigeon".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Public bills:
Second reading of Bill C-5, an act to provide in Canada for the dissolution and the annulment of marriage-Mr. Peters.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Stand at the request of the government.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I realize that it is a little late perhaps to rise on a point of order, but I wish to call your attention to the fact that although we asked for a French version of Bill S-2 moved by the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien), I have just been informed that there are no French copies of that bill. I wonder what the government means by full bilingualism?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am informed that the French version of the amendments appear on page 96 of the Votes and Proceedings of March 13.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, when a bill comes back to this house after amendments have been moved at the other place, is it not usual to have the bill printed in both languages?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No, it is not.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-7, to establish the office of parliamentary commissioner.
Office of Parliamentary Commissioner
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill to establish the office of a parliamentary commissioner is basically the same as the bill presented last year under the number of C-19 and which was disallowed by Your Honour because it incurred the expenditure of public funds. It is also similar to a bill presented the year before known as Bill No. C-98. The adjustments which have been made to this bill, Bill No. C-7, are such that there can be no question about its demanding the expenditure of public money.
My reasons for introducing this bill are twofold. First of all, I am personally familiar with the working of the Scandinavian ombudsman which has operated in Sweden for 150 years, and I have likewise had the opportunity of studying the operations of the New Zealand ombudsman. In fact, it is my privilege to know the New Zealand ombudsman personally. I am convinced of the value of such an office and believe that we urgently need such a set-up in Canada.
Second, the tremendous expansion of administrative authority, giving vast power to the executive side of government, has resulted in an ever increasing number of tribunals and agencies carrying with them authority over the person or property of the private citizen. As a result, citizens very often having legitimate complaints regarding administrative injustices too often find themselves unable to speak out about them. The courts in Canada are no longer the bulwark of individual rights, since much of the common law has lost its flexibility. The office of ombudsman is intended to be the protector of such individual rights. He may be called, in English, as we have entitled him in this bill, a parliamentary commissioner, although actually his responsibilities are those of a public defender.
It is evident to me that the existing protection of the average citizen against executive power is rapidly becoming inadequate. In my opinion such an office would keep watch over the way in which government officials apply the laws and regulations to the public, and would investigate the complaints of private citizens against such officials. He would not have power to overrule, but would be in a strong position to suggest that injustices be corrected. He would report directly to parliament annually. When this report is presented to parliament, the session of the parliamentary committee concerned would be open to all persons, private and public. Actually the status of an ombudsman, or parliamentary commissioner, would be that of a high court judge and would have the powers of a commissioner under the Inquiries Act.
1168	HOUSE OF
Office of Parliamentary Commissioner
The first ombudsman as such originated in Sweden and is found provided for in article 86 of the Swedish constitution of 1809. The decision to include this office in the constitution came immediately following 37 years of absolute monarchy. There had been a coup d'etat; the king had been deposed, parliament had taken over and it was parliament which forced through this new provision. The ombudsman was one of the powers of control imposed on the new administration. No one knows exactly who had the original idea when the ombudsman was first provided for in the Swedish constitution. However, the principle was not new in Sweden, for there had been a similar position in existence as early as 1713, when Charles XII, known as the madman of the north, ruled that country. This position was then named the king's chancellor of justice. In Sweden there are two ombudsmen, one for civil and one for military affairs. Their legal position compares with that of a public prosecutor. The civil ombudsman is appointed for four years by a special committee of 45 members. Regulations briefly classify the duty of an ombudsman as concerned with, "error which comes from partiality; dereliction of duty; mistakes by government administration, or other situations created contrary to the rights of a citizen".
Probably one of the best authorities we have in Canada is Professor Donald Rowat of Carleton University. He states, in a paper published by the Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science:
The ombudsman in the Nordic countries is a special parliamentary commissioner whose job is to receive complaints from citizens who are aggrieved by official action, to investigate these complaints and, if he finds they are justified, to seek a remedy. He may also conduct inspections and take up cases on his own initiative. He is appointed by and responsible to parliament, reports annually to a special committee of the house, and is entirely independent of the executive.
New Zealand passed legislation providing for an ombudsman in 1962; Finland has had such an office since 1919; Denmark since 1955, and Norway since 1962. The British society of jurists recently recommended, in its Wyatt report, an ombudsman for the United Kingdom. Likewise there is much talk of such an office being established in the United States, both federally and in some of the states; also in Ireland, Holland and India. It should be of special interest to us in this house that in the speeches from the throne in two of our provinces, namely Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, it was stated that those provinces were intending to establish a provincial ombudsman.
There are a number of countries with appointments or committees holding similar


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, may I, first of all, congratulate the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) for the excellent legislation he just submitted to the house.
The position of parliamentary commissioner, which in Swedish is called "ombudsman"- defender of the people-seems particularly appropriate at this time in the federal administration.
At present, there are 21 government departments, 40 crown corporations and several boards with which taxpayers often have to deal.
Undeniably, if a person sincerely feels that an administrative decision is unfair to him, he will be confused, will not know what to do and will lose the benefit of a right to which he is entitled. In view of the constant expansion of public powers in Canada over a number of years, laws are often arbitrarily administered at all levels of government. Sometimes, we, the elected representatives of the people, are unable to help our constituents claim their rights because we fail to break through the solidarity of various groups of officials.
The ordinary citizen, therefore, needs extra protection which he can no longer get from ordinary courts.
Furthermore, when the taxpayer does resort to judiciary procedures available to him, these are more likely to be too slow and surely too expensive. Some people feel that it is not necessary to provide the services of an ombudsman to citizens whose rights have been encroached upon by the government. They maintain that members of parliament are already providing this service to the electors, either when they take up complaints personally with the responsible minister or when they ask questions in the house in this connection.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, when the case of this young sailor, Gordon Knott, came up during the last session, I was particularly impressed by the unfair treatment which he had received as a result of administrative decisions which are sometimes too arbitrary.
We find out, time and again when discussing with some of our constituents who often have to deal wdth officials of important federal departments, that they run into arrogance and indifference, because those officials are often appointed for life and they do not care about the rights of the individual as long as they, the permanent civil servants, are right.


I must say that on several occasions, I was really put out when I met with rebuffs on behalf of my constituents.
I am convinced that a completely independent office should be set up so as to enable any citizen, in any constituency, to assert his claims and to obtain justice when he is wronged and even when he feels that an administrative decision encroaches upon his rights.
I should like once again to congratulate the sponsor of this bill, and I hope that it will be fully looked into in the near future so that we may enable our constituents to assert their claims before a proper organization in our country where government authority is ever expanding and where we have an ever increasing number of agencies. The present situation should also be corrected, because when a member of parliament submits the cLaims of his constituents, he often has to put up with the arrogance of officials who think we are only trying to protect our own interests.
I am convinced that the office of ombudsman is urgently needed, and I shall be very pleased to vote in favour of this motion when it is considered in committee.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity of adding my support for the bill that has been presented by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson). I fully agree with the principle involved, and I think probably the majority of the members of this house do. The hon. member for Red Deer has advanced a number of cogent reasons for the necessity of instituting this office. There are one or two other additional ideas which I should like to present at this time.
I think everyone is familiar with the enormous growth of government, in all its administrative branches, which has spread into virtually every form of our existence during the last 25 years. The need for this office now has been pointed out particularly in another context-


Mr. Frenetle:: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member who now has the floor but the French interpretation system does not seem to be operating properly. As I am interested in the debate, I would like to be able to follow the arguments of the hon. member on the matter under consideration at present.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will have the trouble seen to immediately. Perhaps the hon.

member might wait just a few seconds. The latest report is that things are now under control.


Jean-Louis Frenette: The French interpreting system is now operating properly, Mr. Speaker.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am glad to hear that, Your Honour.
One thing that is particularly important is the fact that at the moment if the ordinary citizen feels aggrieved by some administrative act of government, he or she does not know to whom to go. Reference was made to this fact in another debate by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), and I think his remarks in that regard are worthy of attention. In large metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, this government has a number of offices to which a person can go, not necessarily with regard to complaints, but to secure information. In the smaller cities and rural areas, the only person to whom a citizen can turn is the member of parliament. The citizen often tries to find out from a member how to do certain things such as fill forms for old age pensions, and the like.
However, when it comes to a complaint, about which we are particularly concerned at this time, even in the metropolitan areas there is no one to whom the ordinary citizens can go except the member of parliament. After the member of parliament gets the complaints, he can go to the government offices in Ottawa and ask for redress. There may or may not be redress depending upon the caprice or whim, in most cases, of a senior civil servant or the minister concerned, if the minister has any discretion at all. Many of our regulations are so rigid that there is no discretion. I know it can be argued that it is not wise to give a minister or deputy minister too much discretion because it might be exercised in a political way. I would agree that there is some merit in that argument. On the other hand, if no discretion at all is granted, citizens of our country are often exposed to all sorts of arbitrary, heartless and even thoughtless penalties which are not necessary.
As has been pointed out, other countries have introduced remedies for this situation. I refer to countries like the Scandinavian countries and New Zealand. I think it would be an excellent thing if this institution were brought into effect in Canada.
Another thing which I feel is important is the fact that since the only avenue for any redress of an administrative wrong is a
Office of Parliamentary Commissioner member of parliament, this certainly interferes with the duties of a member of parliament. As I understand it, a member of parliament was never intended to be a sort of service club, welfare officer and the like. This is what a member of parliament has become because citizens have no other way of bringing their complaints to the foot of the throne, so to speak. Perhaps one of the reasons for a great deal of criticism of the parliamentary system in the last few years is the fact that about 40 per cent of a member's time is taken up in dealing with individual problems and grievances. I have spoken to many of my colleagues and I know they spend a great deal of time doing this work because there is no other person to do it. As a result, a member is severely restricted in using time which should be properly spent on legislative matters, and other matters which are really the proper concern of a member of parliament.
I feel that many members of parliament do not get the proper amount of time to do some of our homework for committees and in many other fields, which is our proper function. This office of ombudsman or commissioner, whatever you might want to call it, would be a great help to the institution of parliament.
I do not want to take up too much time as I know others wish to speak on this subject, but in conclusion I want to give an example of the type of arbitrary behaviour which can take place and which I am sure an ombudsman would remedy. I referred to this example previously, and I think it is a particularly good one.
In my city of Woodstock, Ontario, an elderly lady fell down the post office steps and injured herself. A representative of the department concerned, the Department of Public Works, came to her and admitted the steps *were slippery. He told her to sign a paper and that she would receive consideration for her complaint. She signed the paper in good faith, believing she would receive redress of some sort.
When I brought up the matter with the department we were told, in a very cold letter, that since the lady had not properly laid her complaint within seven days with the Attorney General of Canada she was out. of luck. This is a good example of where an official at a fairly low level in a department enticed somebody into signing a statement which barred that person from further complaint, and I believe this is one of the things which an ombudsman could help redress. I hope every consideration will be
1172	HOUSE OF
Office of Parliamentary Commissioner given by the government to instituting a measure of this kind, either now or some time in the immediate future.


Mr. R. W. Priitie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party are in agreement with the principle of the bill. At our party convention in Regina last summer we adopted a resolution along these lines, and I would remind the house that the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) has a resolution dealing with the same subject on the order paper, and which will come up for discussion later this session.
It is almost trite to say that the government has become very big, but this is necessary in a complex society. Not only has the government become big, but private companies and corporations have also grown very large. We sometimes hear the words "bureaucracy" and "bureaucrat" used in a derogatory sense, but this is something we cannot get away from, because the complex society in which we live demands this bigness.
A bill similar to this one was introduced by a private member in the British Columbia legislature but was rejected. I noted that when the attorney general of British Columbia spoke on that bill he said no ombudsman was necessary in the province because every elected member of the legislature was an ombudsman. But quite apart from the problem created by the lapse of time, such as was mentioned by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), other problems arise. For example, in the British Columbia legislature they do not have an oral question period on orders of the day. That method of questioning ministers is not open to the members, and further, the ministers quite frequently do not answer the questions which are placed on the order paper. This can happen here also. We do have the opportunity to put questions on the order paper but ministers are not required to answer and many of them die on the order paper at the end of the session. Therefore there are certain obstacles to the effectiveness of members of this house or members of a provincial legislature acting as ombudsmen.
I think we all sympathize with the points of view put forward by the hon. member for Oxford, but I imagine that even if we had two or three ombudsmen we, as private members, should still get letters of complaint and would have to spend a certain amount of time dealing with the complaints in them.
A few cases have come to my attention which I think show the need for an ombudsman, or someone with special powers, to investigate government departments. One constituent of mine has a complaint which goes back over seven years. There is only


a matter of some $70 involved, but his feeling of injustice is so great that he refuses to give up his efforts to seek redress.
When this man was on a visit in the United States he called the office of the Canadian consul and made an inquiry regarding the entry of a certain item free of duty into Canada. He was informed it could be brought in free of duty and acted accordingly, but when he arrived at the border crossing point he was told it was not duty free and he had to pay about $70. Since he did what he considered was the right thing in calling the representative of the Canadian government, and in acting on the answer he got, he feels very strongly about the matter.
During the past six or seven years he has written to the successive ministers of national revenue and ministers of justice, but all to no avail. I have tried to help him all I can, and I think it is a very bad thing that this citizen carries this strong feeling of injustice, because he is absolutely certain he did the right thing.
It seems to me that a person who would be a parliamentary commissioner or an ombudsman would have to have some special powers. In the case I have mentioned, the customs official at the border was acting within the law. The item was not free of customs duty and the official was required to collect the duty, but the fact is that the Canadian representative in the United States gave the wrong information. I think that a parliamentary commissioner ought to be able to make an order stipulating that the amount of money involved should be refunded, if he is satisfied that the citizen in question has made a good case.
If this bill is not adopted today, and there is always that danger during this hour, there will be an opportunity later this session to discuss the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Port Arthur. I hope the government will take into account the growing demands throughout the country for the provision of such an office. It has been mentioned by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) that the office of ombudsman is working satisfactorily in Sweden and New Zealand. He also mentioned that Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia are discussing the creation of such an office. I hope all provinces will, and especially the province of British Columbia where, with the government we have there, we would need about six ombudsmen.


Hon. J. Walson MacNaughl (Soliciior General):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. MARCH 17, 1964
Benidickson) that the subject matter of this bill be referred to the special committee on procedure.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Since there is a resolution on the order paper dealing with the same subject, and since he has made this motion, it seems almost superfluous for me to keep that resolution on the order paper. Would he also consider having that resolution sent to the committee, since it covers the very same thing?


John Watson MacNaught: I may point out Mr. Speaker, that there is a distinction between the resolution and the bill. It is possible to refer the subject matter of a bill to a special committee, but it is not within the rules to refer the resolution.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I understand the minister has moved that the subject matter of this bill be referred to the committee on procedure. Is this the committee of the house on rules and procedure?


Mr. Walker:: The special committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether this is the type of subject matter that that special committee should be considering. What has this particular bill to do with the rules of procedure of the House of Commons? This has to do with the setting up of an official to investigate complaints which may originate from all quarters of Canada. It has no relationship whatever to the conduct of business within this chamber. If the committee diverts its attention to a subject as comprehensive as this, it will not have time to deal with the matters which we, as members of the House of Commons, thought the committee was going to deal with, namely the rules and procedure of this house. Having had experience over a number of years as a member of similar special committees I can say it is a heavy task, indeed, that the special committee has undertaken. If that committee is to revise the rules of the house and present its findings for consideration, it will have no time at all to deal with the subject of an ombudsman; or members of the committee could easily give their attention to that matter rather than to their prime task.
So the minister's proposal amounts, in effect, to one of two things. It is either, in an indirect way, giving a six months hoist to a private member's bill or it is saddling the committee on rules and procedure with a subject with which it has no concern whatsoever. For these reasons I think it would be far better if the minister were to withdraw his motion. Otherwise-I see it is only seven minutes to six-I believe I could think up other things to say about it, and we could postpone consideration of the motion.
Office of Parliamentary Commissioner


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, perhaps at this point-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is the hon. member raising a point of order?


Robert Norman Thompson: I thought the hon. gentleman was sitting down.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh no, I have the floor. If
I sat down the hon. member would be speaking again, and I do not want to listen to him any more. Besides, you would be closing the debate on this subject.


Robert William Prittie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I am not sure if it is one or not. I do not intend to hold the floor. If the objection raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) is valid at all, may I ask whether the minister might consider sending this subject to some other committee, possibly the committee on privileges and elections? I do not want to see the motion talked out when there seems to be a good opportunity for an investigation of the bill.


An hon. Member:: Privileges and elections.


John Watson MacNaught: I would have really no objection to referring the subject matter of this bill to the committee on privileges and elections if that would meet the objection raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We could give unanimous consent to the minister withdrawing his motion and presenting another.


Mr. Lambert:: Might I interject merely to say that I doubt whether there is power to refer this matter to Mr. Speaker's committee on procedure, because that is a special committee which is bound by specific terms of reference. On the other hand the standing committee on privileges and elections-and here I am subject to correction-is not bound by any specific terms of reference; it stands already by the rules. I share the opinion of my hon. friend that this question of an ombudsman is one with which the committee on privileges and elections would be better qualified to deal. In any case, I can assure hon. members that the committee on procedure has more on its plate, now, than it can readily handle.
Motion (Mr. MacNaught) withdrawn.


John Watson MacNaught: I move, seconded by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Benidickson):
That the subject matter of Bill No. C-7 be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Canada Pension Plan
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for private members' business having expired, the house will now resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Miss La-Marsh-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure, to be known as the Canada pension plan, to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions in Canada payable to contributors, and to provide, among other things, for the payment of retirement pensions beginning at any age between 65 and 70 years; for the payment of pensions to surviving spouses beginning at any age from 65 years; for the progressive establishment of full pensions over an initial period of 10 years; for the co-ordination of pensions payable under the Old Age Security Act with pensions payable under the Canada pension plan and for the payment of adjusted pensions under the Old Age Security Act beginning at any age from 65 years; and to provide further that all expenditures under the Canada pension plan, including costs of administration, shall be financed from contributions by employees, employers and self employed persons.
Lucien Lamoureux: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, at five o'clock I had barely commenced my remarks on this resolution but I had expressed my regret at the Prime Minister's not having acceded to my suggestion that a committee study the bill prior to its having second reading. I had also mentioned that I thought a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons would be an appropriate body to give the bill the necessary examination. I have done a great deal of reading on this matter over the last several days, some of which favoured the plan, some critical of it. I have reread the speech of the minister on July 18 last when she introduced the resolution which was supposed to herald the panacea of all pension legislation. It made very interesting reading. I expect the minister has learned that it is wise to make haste slowly.
We all remember, Mr. Chairman, the budget speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) last June. No one ever delivered a greater political diatribe than he did that night. Then last night, while all was not sweetness and light, there was some change

in attitude. I am not going to get into a budget debate but I cannot help but recall how that previous effort fell completely apart. We shall have to see what happens to his latest effort. I am sure the hon. lady has taken a leaf out of the book of the Minister of Finance but gone one step further. On July 18 last she went out of her way to insinuate all sorts of political motives to the opposition, just as had the Minister of Finance. I suggest that the minister reread her speech of that date. Probably she has done so very recently.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I read it every morning.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It shows how vulnerable, Mr. Chairman, one can be when he or she undertakes to be the know-all and end-all on any subject, let alone a subject as complex as pensions. Today, Mr. Chairman, the minister has shown complete control and presented her statement in a quiet and sober manner, for which I congratulate her. However, I doubt whether this transformation can be permanent.
The minister, in the short space of less than eight months, has had to take back so much of what she said on that previous occasion that it seems incomprehensible that she stand here today and expect the House of Commons and Canadians to accept her statements as anything approaching the last word on the subject. The minister's experience since undertaking the responsibilities of this portfolio has surely taught her to move less hurriedly and less blindly than in the past. Probably the most glaring example of her reversing of position is that the taxpayer is now paying something like $100 million more in income taxes per year to pay the $10 increase in old age security. This was supposed to be paid out of the Canada pension plan. And by the way, those elder citizens now receiving that extra $10 can thank the Leader of the Opposition for forcing the government to keep their election promises, and not delay as they would otherwise have done.
In her July 18 speech the minister intimated several times that action which we had taken in this field was for votes. I would say to her that the largest share of our social welfare legislation was brought in early in our regime and that we kept our election promises. I would also say to the hon. lady that if anyone has been vote conscious in any piece of legislation which has been brought before this country, she deserves the highest marks. It is strange indeed, Mr. Chairman, how a speech can be made on a resolution such as that of the minister on July 18 last, and then such a different approach takes

place so shortly thereafter. If she believed so strongly and was so convinced that she was right at that time, how in the world can she be so convinced that she is right now? We are having, Mr. Chairman, at least two chances at this legislation, which reminds me of the story of the man trying to jump a chasm in two jumps.
I have before me, Mr. Chairman, a speech prepared for delivery by Hon. Judy LaMarsh, Minister of National Health and Welfare, at a meeting of the Canadian pension conference in Toronto on Monday, September 30, 1963. I think this is a rather interesting document. As I recall, that was the day parliament reconvened after the summer recess, and the first item of business for discussion that day was the increase of the old age security by an amount of $10 per month. I believe that as a consequence the minister was detained in the house and was not able to be present herself; but I am assuming this was read to the meeting by the-


Mr. Munro:: You are doing it now.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have not read anything yet. Be patient.


An hon. Member:: What do you mean, "yet"?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think this was read to the meeting by the parliamentary secretary, or at least this is what I understand. This indicates how the government of the day was so confused at that time. This speech, which was read by the parliamentary secretary to that meeting on the evening of September 30, because of the enforced absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare due to her presence being required here in the house in regard to this particular piece of legislation, deals with the situation as it existed on July 18 last. This is not an up to date picture, as we have had presented to us today. On that very day parliament reconvened, and we undertook in this House of Commons to raise old age security by $10 per month and to pay for it by at least $100 million in extra taxes imposed upon the taxpayers of this country. I have said this shows how confused was the government, and I now suggest that they did not know at all where they were going. The present plan has apparently been constructed and devised entirely since this statement, at which time the minister was presumably in a position to give what she thought to be an authoritative statement on the situation which then existed. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this again demonstrates backtracking, backsliding, reversal and just not knowing where one is going in the first place.
Canada Pension Plan
I should like to review the actual resolution before us today. I shall read it, and read it slowly so we may analyse the full import of the actual words used:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure, to be known as the Canada pension plan, to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions in Canada payable to contributors-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jay Waldo Monteith: We all agree with this. I think the government may well applaud, Mr. Chairman, because we all agree with it. The resolution continues:
-and to provide, among other things, for the payment of retirement pensions beginning at any age between 65 and 70 years-
I am sure we all agree with this, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is very heartening, I might point out, to be applauded so heartily by those on the government benches. The resolution continues:
-for the payment of pensions to surviving spouses beginning at any age from 65 years-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That also, Mr. Chairman, we agree with, except that it does not go far enough and provide real survivor benefits or any disability coverage. I continue reading the resolution:
-for the progressive establishment of full pensions over an initial period of ten years-
Yes, indeed:
-for the co-ordination of pensions payable under the Old Age Security Act with pensions payable under the Canada pension plan-
I say yes, again:
-and for the payment of adjusted pensions under the Old Age Security Act beginning at any age from 65 years-
I am sure we are all for that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I go on:
-and to provide further that all expenditures under the Canada pension plan, including costs of administration shall be financed from contributions by employees, employers and self employed persons.
That seems sound, Mr. Chairman, except the Prime Minister has said that all administrative costs would not be financed out of contributions, in the early stages. Who, or what party, could be against those provisions set forth in the resolution? They are all of admirable purpose. They agree, in part at least, with what we in this party have been trying to bring into being since 1962.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Canada Pension Plan


Jay Waldo Monteith: They do not go as far as the Liberal election campaign propaganda claimed they would go. But then that does not seem to worry the government; nor does it mean that we should not support even this abbreviated version of what was promised us. I shall now read one or two sentences from the Liberal propaganda of the election campaign of 1962.


Léon Balcer: Oh, spare us.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I quote:
People will be able to start drawing a contributory pension at age 65 If they wish. There will be benefits for disabled people, widows and orphans.
We know that last sentence was a complete fabrication of the imagination. We tried in 1962-as promised in the speech from the throne-to obtain the consent of the provinces for that very purpose, and we failed when Quebec did not give that consent. An amendment to the constitution is required for this purpose. The government knows it now, and knew it then, but held out this promise of action. There are no survivor benefits in this plan, in the real meaning of the term; we know that. Nor are there benefits for disabled people, widows and orphans. I should like to read another section of the Liberal campaign literature, which is as follows:
The Liberal plan will add a contributory pension to the existing old age pension. The addition will be paid for entirely by contributions, not by taxes.
We know what has happened, as I mentioned earlier. Only by being forced by the opposition to give this extra $10 to old age pensioners did it ever come into force; otherwise it would not yet be in force.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Despite a promise not to increase taxes, this was done. Mr. Chairman, I have here a full page advertisement which appeared in the Daily Colonist of Victoria, British Columbia, of March 31, 1963. Obviously the Liberals had a great deal of money for election purposes. Here it is. I should like to refer to the section headed "Pensions". How misleading this all is. It is utter misrepresentation. I am not going to read it all, but there is a long paragraph concerning the amounts of pension to be paid. We now know how misleading this paragraph was because the amounts have all been changed. Incidentally, I think it should be pointed out that this government has been waffling all over the place in many respects, and I am just wondering if even now they have made up their minds.
It will be recalled, and it is set out in this advertisement, that the maximum earnings

to be covered by pension were to be $6,000 a year. Then last July 18 they said the maximum was to be $4,000 a year and now we understand that the maximum earnings to be covered will be $4,500 a year.
Here again we have it pointed out that this scheme is supposed to provide pensions for the disabled and for widows and orphans. How completely misleading. We were given to understand that assistance was to be available to single women and widows at age 60. It says so here in the advertisement. Certainly there is no mention of that in the press release by the Prime Minister.
I note also that the Liberals promised to increase old age assistance to $75 a month and to increase disabled and blind pensions to $75 a month. You know quite well, Mr. Chairman, that these things were not brought into legislation until the government was forced to do so by all opposition parties last autumn. Then, of course, those particular increases came into effect two months after old age security payments had been increased. The disabled, the blind and the aged were forced to forgo increased pensions for two months because of the dilatory action of the government.
In the 1963 campaign pamphlet we find more of the same thing. I am not going to go into detail, except to say that the Madison avenue approach of hoodwinking the people has been adopted by the government, and the people of Canada have been misled by this kind of misrepresentation.
Particularly due to the fact, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare intimated in her speech of July 18 last that the Conservative party when in office had done very little so far as social security is concerned for the people of this country, I want to put a few things on the record. Let us see what the situation was when we came into office in 1957.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I know you do not want to hear it.


An hon. Member:: Keep reading.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Perhaps the hon. member for Rosedale could sit and listen for a change.


Mr. Macdonald:: Mr. Chairman, I am waiting for the hon. member to say something, for a change.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I repeat, let us see what the situation was when we came into office in 1957. The previous government had had a succession of surpluses, and only as election bait in the budget of 1957 did they bring in an increase of $6 a month in old age security payments.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Let me repeat. In all those years of surpluses they did not care two hoots for the welfare of the common man or the aged, who were forced to get along on $40 a month.


An hon. Member:: What has this got to do with contributory pensions?


Jay Waldo Monteith: As I said before, in 1957 they held out as election bait an increase of $6 per month in old age security, effective July 1 or after the date of the election. It was a straight bribe to the old people.


Mr. Winkler:: A real Grit trick.


Jay Waldo Monteith: But I should like to point out that in the almost six years we were in office we actually legislated for an increase of $19 per month, and it was only as a result of our insistence that the $10 increase of last October 1 was forthcoming.


An hon. Member:: This is the thirtieth time you have said that tonight.


Jay Waldo Monteith: We know that the minister in her speech to the house last July 18 said that the $10 increase, which the Liberals had promised during the last election would go into effect immediately, would not be put into force until early 1964. Again I repeat that we forced this increase, and can take the responsibility or credit for the total amount of the increase in these pensions, ever since they were at the level of $46 a month.
For the information of the present government, who have been promising so much and doing so little, I think that a few of our other accomplishments in the welfare field should be mentioned. I have here a booklet entitled "Social Security for Canada", which is a policy statement adopted at the annual meeting of the Canadian welfare council, June 2, 1958. This is a very comprehensive booklet and while not all the things suggested in it were possible I should like to mention just a few of the matters to which we gave consideration. For instance, recommendation No. 2 reads as follows:
Consideration should be given to arrangements which would enable certain classes ol people in the 65-69 age group to qualify for the old age security pension.
This was considered by us and embodied in our plan for which we failed to secure agreement from all the provinces.


An hon. Member:: Is that the reason why you did not bring it in?


Jay Waldo Monteith: When we first came into power we were cognizant of the need for study in regard to old age security and contributory pensions. Consequently, Mr. Chairman, we appointed Dr. Robert Clark of the
Canada Pension Plan
University of British Columbia to make a study for us of the old age and survivors insurance program in the United States.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member but his time has expired unless he has unanimous consent to continue. Is it agreed that the hon. member has unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Read on.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I should like to suggest that if the first speaker for each of the parties were allowed extra time we might be able to confine ourselves to one speaker for each party.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I should like to thank the house for its courtesy in allowing me extra time. I had just mentioned that we appointed Dr. Robert Clark of the University of British Columbia to prepare a study for us on the old age and survivors insurance program in the United States. This he did.
After many meetings of the interdepartmental committee of officials, we were prepared to present our contributory plan for all Canadians. It was then we applied to the provinces for an amendment to the British North America Act, which would permit us to provide survivorship and disability pensions. As the house knows, this was refused by the province of Quebec.
There are other departments in the health and welfare field about which our government, when in power, saw fit to do something, so that there would be a semblance of social justice for the people of Canada. The hon. member for Greenwood has been questioning the minister as to whether or not the present government would consider increasing grants for hospital bed construction. We doubled those grants back at the beginning of 1958, realizing that the previous government had refused to face the fact that construction costs had increased so greatly since these grants were first brought into being in 1949. This was only one item.
Another discrepancy in the legislation at that time was the fact that unemployment assistance could only be paid to provinces who signed agreements with Canada, and then only if .45 per cent of the population of the province was unemployed. We rectified this early in 1958 so that the federal government would share 50 per cent of all unemployment assistance benefits paid by the provinces, without any ceiling on the number of unemployed. This actual expenditure by the federal government on behalf of the citizens of Canada has increased from something like $8 million when we came into office to an estimated amount for this current

Canada Pension Plan
year of $110 million. It should be mentioned that this category of payment includes 50 per cent of any supplementary payment by a province over and above the regular old age security or other welfare payments.


An hon. Member:: What about the pension plan?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think it should be pointed out-


Michael Starr: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the hon. member for Perth would excuse me for a moment? My point of order is this: When the Minister of National Health and Welfare read her statement we listened attentively and courteously. Now, the hon. member for Perth is making a statement on behalf of the official opposition and I think the same courtesy should be extended to him by the arrogant members of this arrogant government.


An hon. Member:: What about the arrogance displayed by the members of the opposition?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I think it should be pointed out-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think it should be pointed out that prior to our amendments some five provinces had had agreements with the federal government. After this legislation was amended all provinces signed agreements with the federal government.
I am going to mention hospital insurance, which is certainly one of the most important pieces of legislation ever brought into being in this country. I feel it should be mentioned. During the first year we were in office, that is until March 31, 1958, there were no expenditures for hospital insurance. Last year, according to the white paper issued by the Minister of Finance there was an expenditure of $390 million in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Jay Waldo Monteith: We all know, Mr. Chairman, what a boon this has been to the people of Canada. Nobody can dispute this. Let us not hear it said, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare did on July 18 last, that the previous government had done nothing toward benefiting the people of Canada by way of social justice. We admit that the law was put on the statute books by a Liberal government, but under pressure from the premier of Ontario, Mr. Frost. They must, in turn, admit that the law could not be effective until an amendment permitting any province to join in the scheme was passed. Following that, we signed an agreement with all ten provinces and the two territories.

There were, Mr. Chairman, many other things, such as a welfare grants program which I had the honour of presenting to this house. I happen to know how much these grants were appreciated by the people in the field. This move had been recommended by the Canadian Welfare Council. As we all know, the funds available were to start at $500,000 a year and increase by a like amount annually until a total of $2.5 million had been reached. I would point out that the Hall royal commission on health needs was instituted by the previous government, consequent on the realization that there were some inadequacies and we wished to find out what they were. This, again, was a course of action dictated by Conservative principles and philosophy. We did want to know just what the situation was across Canada before action was taken, and as a consequence we asked this royal commission to make a very comprehensive study of the whole field. We are told that the commission is to report soon, and we are looking forward with great anticipation to its findings.
There are so many other fields in which the government of which I had the honour to be a member took positive steps. There was the $5 million annual grant for fitness and amateur sports. Then there were increases and adjustments for war veterans pensions and allowances. There were the steps taken by the minister of labour. There were so many, in fact that I could not enumerate them all here.


Mr. Haidasz:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I believe that when the house granted the hon. member for Perth the courtesy of speaking beyond the 30 minute limit, we extended that courtesy to him subject to his remarks being germane to the resolution and not straying as much as he has.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In so far as the point of
order is concerned, Mr. Chairman, I would refer you to rule 31. You will observe that a minister moving a government order and a member speaking in reply immediately after such minister is not limited as to time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: I would refer the hon. member to standing order 59 (3).


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was just going to say, Mr. Chairman, that I am surprised the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has not read the whole of standing order 31. Had he done so, he would have seen it does not apply to the committee stage.


An hon. Member:: Why not sit down and read the whole of the book for a change?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I would only put one question to the house. I am wondering upon what

authority the present member for Parkdale speaks on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare? I understood, and I am subject to correction, that there had possibly been a falling out somewhere along the line.
In order to emphasize the general outlook of the Conservative party, I would recommend as excellent reading a book entitled "The Conservative in Canada" written by Mr. George Hogan. In the portion to which I specifically refer, he has been writing about Conservative philosophy on social welfare and what it implies. I quote from page 98 of this book:
It may be said that the Diefenbaker government's record of expanding social services coupled with recurring budget deficits contradicts everything I have just said.
I would dispute this on two grounds. First of all, this government, as its opponents never tired of pointing out, was faced through most of its first term of office with a condition of economic recession. This recession had already started when the Conservatives came to power, and in line with the concepts we have been discussing, they deliberately budgeted for deficits in order to counteract it.
The author goes on to say:
The two remaining fields where the contributory principle might be applied are old age pensions and health services.
I am quoting, now, from page 101 of this book which I think it would do hon. members opposite a great deal of good to peruse.
The Diefenbaker government announced in the speech from the throne of January 1962 its intention to implement a contributory old age pension plan. The introduction of this plan depends upon certain constitutional arrangements with the provinces.
The present government knew all about this when they were advertising their election campaigns of 1962 and 1963. Here is another interesting quotation:
The objective, as we have said, is simply to meet the need; to make it possible for every Canadian to have a satisfactory pension plan if he wants one. The proposed plan of the Diefenbaker government meets this need. It would be, in the first place, voluntary. No one will be forced to join it. In the second place, to quote from the speech from the throne, it "will take into account private pension arrangements". In other words, as Mr. Diefenbaker said, it "should not require additional contributions by those already contributing under satisfactory private arrangements." This proposal offers us as clear an example as we shall see of the essential difference between socialism and Conservative social justice.
Mr. Chairman, the philosophy of the Progressive Conservative party in this whole field is that we must care for those who cannot look after themselves. The action of Quebec in refusing permission for an amendment of the British North America Act was a body blow to our pension scheme. I am told the same old Liberal propaganda and rumour mongering is going on, now. I am given to understand on very good authority 20220-75
Canada Pension Plan
that the whispering of an election campaign is on and that people are being told that the Conservative party is against contributory pensions. Yes, it is the old story. It has been done before by the party opposite. Even some sections of the press, I believe, are falling for this type of information. It is the same old story. I recall being told in 1953 when I was first campaigning in my home constituency of Perth-the Liberals had been in power for 18 years-that they were spreading rumours to this effect: Elect Monteith and you will lose your old age pensions and family allowances. What utter rot.


Mr. Nowlan:: The same in Nova Scotia.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I understand it is not permissible to read from previous debates in this house in the same session, but it is obvious that even the Prime Minister is not above trying to mislead the people of Canada. As will be borne out by reading page 55 of Hansard of this year, the right hon. gentleman did his best to leave the impression with the people of Canada that the Conservative party was against this plan. That is an absolute falsehood. Fortunately, the Leader of the Opposition was in his place in the house and was in a position to rise and refute such a statement. I simply repeat that the government to which I had the privilege of belonging did more in less than six years of office by way of bringing social benefits to Canadians than had probably been accomplished in 50 years of Canadian history. That is true. I suggest anyone interested should make a comparison of the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare for the year 1956-57, which was the last year in power for the Liberal government of that day, with the estimates of 1963-64, the last year for which we prepared estimates. The public will see that an increase of at least 100 per cent took place in that period.
I have read in detail the Prime Minister's press release of January 20, 1964, the letter to him from the premier of Ontario on February 13 and, in turn, the Prime Minister's last letter dated February 25. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I do not believe this is the time to go into all the details of the plan. There are so many questions to be answered. I believe we should get the bill before us, and we should like to see this done as soon as possible.


An hon. Member:: Well, sit down.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I must say, I am receiving a really courteous reception from across the way. It is typical of the old line Grit government of 1956.

Canada Pension Plan


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Same old gang.


An hon. Member:: Same old bull.


Jay Waldo Monteith: We are all keenly interested in the subject of pensions and should be as well versed in it as possible. I suggest to all those members opposite who are interrupting that they would be spending their time to much better advantage if they would do a little reading on the subject. I recommend that they secure a copy of "Pensions in Canada". This is a CCH Canadian publication compiled by Laurence E. Coward. There are many worthwhile contributions in this book, including one by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh). Read it. When you read it you will observe- and it is perfectly obvious-that her paper was written prior to the new plans being presented to us, and I am just wondering whether eventually there will not be more deviation with still another version.
To paraphrase what the right hon. Leader of the Opposition said on July 18 last, when he was replying to the minister of health upon the presentation of that previous ill-fated resolution, even this present resolution is only in general terms. It is far from clear, it is window dressing and it demonstrates hopes only for some ten years hence. As I said before, we are in favour of contributory pensions to the most Canadians possible, pensions which carry with them the most benefits possible. If, however, we felt that this was the time to press for definite answers there are so many questions we should like to ask. For instance, how can this plan be considered an all-Canadian pension plan representing one Canada when roughly one third of the population has already opted out? To me a Canada pension plan should be all-comprehensive and cover all of Canada, not just certain segments.
Another question which I fail to see has been properly answered is this. Why has the government chosen to accept with such alacrity the refusal of Quebec to join the pension plan, at the same time putting the onus for any possible failure of the plan on Ontario in case Ontario should decide not to enter? I am not putting forth Ontario's case at this time but I should like to ask the minister whether she or the government really put up a good and persuasive case to the province of Quebec as to why they should join with other provinces and thereby make this a comprehensive scheme for one Canada. Then, Mr. Chairman, what is going to happen to many of the fine pension plans now in force? These are questions on which I could press for an answer at some other date.
[Mr. Monteith.l
Where does the individual get off in this situation? The Prime Minister has said in his press release of January 20 that some of the better existing plans would require fairly early adjustment. Just how are these going to be adjusted? Obviously any adjustment is downward. One of the best pension plans in Canada is that of the federal civil service. Where does this leave the civil service? Are civil servants in all spheres of government going to be unduly affected? What will happen to the Ontario hydroelectric plan, the C.N.R. pension plan, teachers' plans, banks' plans, universities and so on? Many excellent pensions for employees have been developed only after protracted management-labour negotiations. What is going to be the effect on them? Just what actuarial compilations have led the government, first, to come up with their scheme of July 18 last, and now to change to the present one? I ask this because other actuaries apparently differ. Has the minister of health, like the Minister of Finance, now decided not to bring in outside experts to advise with regard to the pension plan, as, I understand she did originally? Mr. Chairman, I repeat that if I were going to press for answers today these are some of the matters about which we would want to know. However, I say again let us see the bill and at that time we will give it the necessary close examination.
There have been newspaper conjectures concerning what is going to happen in Quebec city at the federal-provincial conference starting in Quebec on March 31. The government probably knows by now what its approach to the provinces is going to be. It was obvious after last night's budget that there is going to be a cold shoulder put to the provinces concerning any further financial easement for them. What is going to be the position concerning the Canada pension plan? Is the government going to that conference with its mind made up that if everything does not go according to their wishes they will call an election? This has been intimated more than once. May I suggest, sir, that an attitude of conciliation would be much more beneficial to all the people of Canada. Surely the greatest step toward unity in Canada would be to stress to Quebec the importance of this being a comprehensive one-Canada pension plan, and I plead with the government to do this.
Let me close my remarks, Mr. Chairman, by repeating what I said at the beginning. I want to impress on this house and the country that the Progressive Conservative party is 100 per cent behind a Canada pension plan. There are simply no qualifications. Let me make it abundantly clear that

we wish to see a comprehensive contributory-pension plan brought in at the earliest opportunity. We want to see the bill and we want to see it at once.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, eight months ago tomorrow we took the first step in connection with the matter we are discussing tonight. It was on July 18 of last year that we debated a resolution similar to the one now before us. I expressed the view on that occasion that when we get upon our statute books legislation of the kind we are now discussing we will have taken one of the most important steps in the history of Canadian social legislation. I will make it clear as I go along that there are some aspects of the plan now before us which are inadequate, but in principle what we have before us is the proposal that we move into a new stage with respect to security in old age. Therefore, we support this measure.
Many years ago the idea was started that the government should do something about old age. Then a number of years ago we moved on and established the principle of universality when we provided for pensions under the Old Age Security Act to be payable to everyone at age 70, without a means test. But we still have to take the all important step of putting pensions for old age on a basis that will make those pensions adequate for retirement with dignity and security. We will not achieve that, Mr. Chairman, until we have, on top of a flat rate benefit, an earnings-related program. In principle that is what the Canada pension plan proposes; that is why we are in support of the Canada pension plan and want to see it enacted at the earliest possible date.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have referred briefly to the debate of eight months ago tomorrow. Most of us must recall it. Some things have changed; some things have not. I made some notes during the supper hour, Mr. Chairman, as to what I might say when opening my remarks. When a speaker is third in line he should not make notes, because things change as you go along. However, one of the notes I made was to take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister of National Health and Welfare on her speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do so quite gladly. Last July I had to chide her for the terrible partisan note that she imported into her speech on that occasion. But today it was not there. Today she presented the facts of the case and did it well. I congratulate her on the speech she made this afternoon. I also want to express my warmest congratulations to 20220-75i
Canada Pension Plan
those in the minister's department who prepared the white paper which the minister tabled this afternoon and which will be an appendix to today's Hansard. I regarded the white paper which was tabled last July as a very useful document. I believe the white paper that has been tabled today is an even more useful one. It gives more details than the white paper gave last time; and I suggest to those who are honestly desirous of knowing what is in the Canada pension plan, as well as to the critics who say they want information about it, that they read and study the white paper. I would even offer this suggestion to the hon. member for Perth, that he include in his reading the white paper that we have had since five o'clock this afternoon. In any case, Mr. Chairman, I welcome the tabling of the white paper. I hope it will receive very wide distribution, for it does answer many of the questions the hon. member for Perth asked tonight and it answers many of the questions that people are putting to us about the Canada pension plan.
There are other questions that we will have to discuss either in committee of the whole house or in the special committee to which the bill will be referred; but I suggest, in all fairness, that we have been given a good deal of information about this proposed piece of legislation. In fact, I suggest that when one realizes that generally we do not get the details that are in a bill until we get the bill itself, on this occasion we have been given a good deal of information in advance.
Another note that I put down on paper during the supper hour was to congratulate the hon. member for Perth. That, of course, was on the basis of what he said during the five minutes in which he spoke between five minutes to five and five o'clock. Most of the members who are here now were here then, and I am sure all will agree with me that we welcomed and were heartened by the tone of his remarks. He made it clear that the members of the Conservative party were 100 per cent behind a Canada pension plan. He said there were no ifs or buts about it. He said there had been enough discussion and that the Conservatives felt there need not be endless debate on the resolution, but we could get the resolution through and thus get the bill introduced without delay. I was greatly encouraged by that. It has been my fear for some time that the way this session has been going we would not get this resolution through, that we would not get the bill before Easter, and that this would jeopardize the future progress of the plan. From what the hon. member for Perth said between five minutes to five and five o'clock I was encouraged to believe that we might get this

Canada Pension Plan
resolution through tonight, and therefore get the bill, see it, know its details, and all of us in the house and the country would be that much better off.
The hon. member for Perth also said, between five minutes to five and five o'clock, that he regretted not being able at that moment to comment on the white paper which had just been tabled. He said he would have to study it during the supper hour. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, what he did during the supper hour, because he certainly did not come back tonight and discuss the white paper or the Canada pension plan. He changed his tune completely and decided to make the same kind of partisan speech that we have heard before on this issue; he gave us no construc-ive criticism of the plan itself.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: What are you doing now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I submit that this is not good enough, coming from a former minister of national health and welfare, coming from one who is supposed to know something about this matter, from one who should be able to give us the benefit of his views about the subject that is actually before us, namely the Canada pension plan. I hope that as this debate proceeds, at this stage today, on second reading of the bill or in the special committee to which the bill will be referred, we will get down to the bill itself, to its details, and will give to it the benefit of the consideration we are supposed to give to it.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few things about the Canada pension plan on the basis of the information we have been given. It will not come as a surprise if I divide what I want to say under two main headings. On the one hand I want to indicate the things about the plan that we think are good; then I want to indicate the things about the plan that we feel should be improved.
First of all, the aim of the Canada pension plan, despite the fact that the dollars it proposes as rates of pension in the next ten years or so are not really very magnanimous, are not really sufficient for the dignified living in old age that is referred to, is to provide pensions, not just on the basis of subsistence but on the basis of the idea that people on retirement should be able to live in accordance with the standard of living that has been achieved by that time. In the white paper that was tabled by the minister this afternoon there are a couple of sentences along this line that I think are worth underlining. On page 7 of the mimeographed copy of this white paper I find these words. Referring to the plan, it says:
-it will provide a basic measure of "real *security, because people will be assured of pensions

that are related to general earnings levels at the time they retire, not to money incomes which have become out of date.
That, I suggest, is extremely important. For far too long pensions have been thought of as a subsistence amount, or as somehow related to what people were earning in their working years or back when they first started to work. But pensions, if they are to be worth while, must be related to the earnings levels at the time people retire. I would go further and say that even after people retire, as the earnings levels of the general community increase, so should pensions increase. But at any rate, the aim of the Canada pension plan is to put pensions on that basis. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, over on the next page of the mimeographed copy of the white paper the same thought appears again when it is said:
[DOT]-people... can be assured of pensions which will still provide a secure retirement in line with economic conditions at the time.
That, Mr. Chairman, is what must become our aim in the old age security field-not just a fixed sum of dollars that bears some relation to what was earned in the past, but a pension related to earnings at the time of retirement; a pension related to the economic conditions during the years in which people are retired. Because this Canada pension plan aims at that, because in principle its purpose is to provide pensions looking toward adequacy, looking toward people in retirement being able to enjoy the standard of living that is possible when they are retired, for these reasons the plan is good and deserves the support of all of us.
A slight improvement has been made in the version of the plan we have now, compared with the plan of last July, in that greater emphasis is placed upon possible retirement at age 65. I want to make it clear that the plan has not gone all the way, has not gone as far as we think it should go. We think the plan should make age 65 the normal retirement age and then if there is a desire to increase the rate of benefits for those who retire at a later age, let that be the exception. As I say, we think 65 should be the normal retirement age and that pension benefits should be geared to that age. However, I will give the minister and the government credit for having shifted the emphasis slightly. Last July it was a plan for retirement at age 70. This time it is still a plan for retirement at age 70 but there are increased inducements to people to retire at 65. In so far as the government has gone in pursuit of this goal, the plan is good.
May I emphasize again our acceptance, our welcome, of the fact that the Canada

pension plan is a portable plan. It is not necessary to say that in the resolution or in the bill, but once it is a federal plan for Canadians the benefits of which they can draw wherever they live in Canada, that makes it portable, and on that basis it is welcome.
We also welcome the fact that the government has not yielded to the pleading that it lengthen the period before the plan becomes full grown, in other words that it has not extended the 10 year period. If it were to be extended, if it were to amend it so that 15 or 20 years would be required before the pension plan would pay the full benefit, it would not be of any use to a great many of our people at the present time, or in the years immediately ahead.
One other feature about the plan that we think should be recognized as a good one is that it is set up in such a way that the amount of pension under it can be increased. It is quite clear that the maximum earnings ceiling can be raised from time to time, and therefore the maximum benefit can be increased. It is also clear, if one reads the report of the actuaries on the previous plan, that through the years there can be increases in the basic flat rate old age security payment as well. In other words, both stages of the plan are capable of increases so far as amounts are concerned, and therefore once we get this plan under way and we get some of the kinks ironed out we can anticipate that the amount of the pension will increase through the years, and begin to move in the direction of what the white paper says, namely the day when all Canadians will be able to retire in security and with dignity.
I wish to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that that is not possible under this plan with its present figures, and that it will not be possible even 10 years from now, because in the intervening 10 year period costs will have risen and so on. However, at least it establishes the principle upon which this can be done, and we think that all of the parties in the house, whether or not they like the government, should recognize those things about the plan that are good, and that therefore we should support it and do our best to get it into effect at the earliest possible date.
Those things that are good about the plan, and which have to be said about it after the speech of the hon. member who preceded me, should not blind us to the fact that there are certain shortcomings. In the first place, we in this party deplore as strongly as we can the action of the government in reducing the maximum possible benefit under this plan from $100 a month, as was the case last July, to $75 a month as is the case
Canada Pension Plan
in the version of the bill that is now before us. We also deplore the fact that this decrease in the maximum possible benefit is accompanied by a slight increase in the maximum contribution that participants will be required to pay, from $40 up to $45 a year.
We feel that this is a case of giving in to the opponents of the plan, the insurance companies, the provinces that have objected to it and so on, and in our view we think the government is not keeping faith with the Canadian people. As has been pointed out several times, the government, and the Liberal party before it became the government, made certain proposals, all of them higher than are now before us. We know from various polls that have been taken how strong is the feeling amongst the Canadian people that we should have a federally operated government pension plan, and we suggest that to have cut this down, to have watered it down from a maximum of $100 a month to a maximum of $75 a month is not keeping faith with the Canadian people. We regret that that change was made and we hope that even yet the plan may be restored to what it was last July.
We also regret that the government has given in to the contention of the insurance companies, and some of the provinces, that the figure of last July was so high that it might incline some people to withdraw from private pension plans. Those words, by the way, are taken from the press release of the Prime Minister in January of this year. Then the Prime Minister went on to say:
To meet this concern, the federal government is prepared to propose that the earnings-related pension be reduced from 30 to 20 per cent of pensionable earnings.
This concession was confirmed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare when she said that the government had taken into consideration the view that too high a pension might lessen the incentive to people to provide their own private pension plans. We think that this is unworthy of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, unworthy of a government that prides itself on having done something in the field of social legislation. To have yielded at all is bad enough, but to admit having yielded to that kind of argument, and to do it in black and white as the Prime Minister did, to do it as the Minister of National Health and Welfare did this afternoon, we think is reprehensible.
A third comment critical in nature that I should like to make about the plan and the manner in which it is presented is this. I do not think the government should keep on tying together the two amounts, the amount that a person will draw from old age security and the amount that person will draw from

Canada Pension Plan
the Canada pension plan, and then say that such a person will get so much out of this legislation. The Minister of National Health and Welfare did that this afternoon. She gave an example of a person whose average income was $3,600 a year, and she said that at age 65, after contributing for 10 years, this person would draw a pension of $111, or that at age 70 he would draw a pension of $135.
This is true, Mr. Chairman, as to the total pension that such a person will draw under the provisions of two statutes; but in all honesty, in all fairness, I think the government, every time, should state these figures on a broken-down basis. The person who earns $3,600 a year, if he goes on pension at age 65, will draw $60 a month from the Canada pension plan and $51 a month from the old age security plan. But let it be clear that they are separate. Let it be clear that the $51 of old age security is paid for out of the 4 per cent personal income tax that all of us pay, as well as out of two other taxes, and that the $60 is what he gets from his contribution to the Canada pension plan. Let us keep this clear. Let the government be honest about this all the way.
The fourth comment I should like to make, in pointing out improvements that are needed, relates to the fact that the old age security pension will be available at ages below 70. We welcome this most strongly. We see this as part of the general idea of moving in the direction of 65 being the normal retirement age. We accept the proposition, and I am sure everyone does, that if a person chooses to take the old age security pension at age 65 at the rate of $51 a month, then that is the rate for the rest of his life. After all, it would not be fair to take that and then to try to go off the pension, and to come back later at a higher level. This is covered in the white paper.
However, Mr. Chairman, there is one proviso that I think should be entered, and it is this. After a person has taken old age security at the reduced rate I think it should be clear that if later on the level of old age security is raised from $75 to $85 or to $100- may I remind hon. members increases are envisaged in the report of the actuaries that we had last year-then such a person who has retired early and has taken his pension at a reduced rate should receive the same percentage of the increased pension that he was receiving when he took $51 out of $75.
We will be getting ourselves into many anomalies. We will be getting some situations that seem highly unjust, if we fix that pension for people at that figure, if we increase other people's pensions and then leave those who elected to take lower pension to stay there for the rest of their lives. We know it only

takes a few years-five or ten years-for economic conditions, for wages, for costs to change and for the standard of living to change to such an extent that adjustments do have to be made. I urge, therefore, that consideration be given to putting it in the bill that the reduction of old age security will not be just an absolute amount in terms of dollars, or 40 cents per month, as the white paper says, but that it will be on a percentage basis so that those who take the lower pension will get the same percentage of a higher pension rate if later on the old age security pension goes up.
The next point I should like to make has to do with the self-employed, farmers and others. I welcome very strongly the fact that this white paper, the one tabled today, says a little more on this subject than did the white paper that was tabled on July 18 of last year and put in Hansard of July 19. On that occasion, all that was said was that it would be possible for self-employed people to come into the plan on a voluntary basis. However, no details were given. This white paper, the one we received today, not only says that it is possible for people who are self-employed to come in on a voluntary basis, but it gives a few details. It indicates, for example, not only that a self-employed person will pay 2 per cent, in other words the employee's 1 per cent and the employer's 1 per cent, but it also gives a formula showing that self-employed people who go into the plan will have their contribution rate protected up to a certain point over a certain number of years. This is all to the good, Mr. Chairman.
However, we believe that more steps should be taken by the government to see to it that the plan is universal. One gets into semantics here because he hesitates to use the word "compulsory". I was interested to note that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, when it presented its brief to the government a while ago, did not shy away from the word "compulsory", but expressed the view that it should be made compulsory. Let us use a less offensive word. Let us say it should be made universal.
There should be all the inducements that could possibly be put forth. There should be a distribution of all the public relations material possible. Let the people know what it is all about, so that our farmers and selfemployed people and others will be in the plan, as well as those who are employed and whose contributions can be deducted from their wages by their employers. We think, Mr. Chairman, that, this is an exceedingly important feature of the plan. As I say, we see a slight improvement in today's white

paper over the one we had last July on this question. We think still further improvement is needed in this respect.
I should like to say a word about the plan being funded. This, of course, is the source of a good deal of argument. One can argue both ways as to whether the plan should be funded or whether it should be on a pay as you go basis. I submit this is an area in which there is a great deal of hocus-pocus practised on the people, and that in the end any pension plan is actually a pay as you go proposition. I submit that what you have in connection with this plan is a development fund attached to a pension fund. Well, if that is what we want, let it be clear that is what we are doing. We do not think it is a good enough substitute for the Canada Development Corporation. We think that this is a case in which you are taxing the people, at the same time you are asking them to contribute to their pension, to build up a fund for development purposes, whereas that kind of fund should be built up more honestly, as was provided for by the Canada Development Corporation about which we heard so much last year. However, the Minister of Finance did not even breathe a word about it in his budget speech of last night. We are pleased that this seems to have provided a basis for a better understanding between the federal government and the provinces. But we think that there should be not too much fooling of the people about this. After all, to the extent that we are building up that fund we are taxing people for purposes other than the paying of their pensions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Taxing the wrong people, too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are taxing the people who can least afford to pay the additional amount of taxation.
Now, Mr. Chairman, a point about which we feel there should be a good deal of thinking is the whole question of the way in which this plan is integrated with existing plans. The hon. member for Perth may say he made a good deal of this, and he did. I suggest to him that even on this point he should read the white paper. There are some interesting comments in the white paper on the subject of integration with other plans. I still would urge upon the government that this is an area where a great deal of thinking has got to be done, where a great deal of work has yet to be done. The minister said this afternoon that the federal government is not in a position, by law, to compel other pension plans not to be altered as a result of the introduction of the Canada pension plan. This statement is repeated in the white paper. I understand that and I agree with it.
Canada Pension Plan
However, I submit there are people who are worried. There are employees who are working for firms that have pension plans where the management is saying, "Well now, just a minute; we are not going to make any changes until we see how this new plan works." There are threats to people that existing pension benefits will be reduced because of the benefits being provided under the Canada pension plan. I agree with all that is said in the white paper about adjustments, and that there is time to make these adjustments in the ten-year period. However,
I feel the government has been negligent in not doing enough public relations work in this field. I believe there should have been more consultations with the trade union movement with organizations like the Canadian teachers federation, with provincial governments and with various bodies that have pension plans, to make sure that the adjustments will be made without any loss to the participants in those various other plans. It is still true, I agree, that most Canadian people do not have this kind of protection, and we should call upon those who are in pension plans to recognize that what we are doing here is trying to improve the position for everybody. However, I suggest there is a job to do in the field of integrating the Canada pension plan with the various existing plans.
I welcome the statement in the white paper to the effect that provincial governments will be permitted to bring their civil servants under this plan, if they wish to do so. I also welcome the statement that federal civil servants will be included in the plan, no matter where they live, no matter where they are employed in Canada. These are good announcements. We are moving in the right direction. Let us do all the things we can to see to it that the plan does provide universal coverage and that all these various angles are covered.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order; it is my understanding that hon. members have agreed that the spokesmen for the various parties would be allowed to go over the 30 minute limit.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am grateful, Mr. Chairman, but I will not take advantage of that courtesy for more than just a few minutes.
As I have been trying to point out we think this plan, in essence, is good. We have tried to point out the things about it that we regard as good. We have indicated also those various points we feel need to be gone into. We hope that the bill will get second reading soon and that it will go before a special parliamentary committee when we

Canada Pension Plan
can go into all of these various angles. I hope that as a result of that discussion we will be able to make improvements in the bill where improvements are called for, and also that we will be able to play our part, as a committee, in doing a public relations job to help the Canadian people understand the full import of this legislation.
The other comments I should like to make include, first of all, a reference to those who are already 70 years of age or over and who are receiving old age security payments of $75 a month. Let us not forget them. Let us not assume, once we get this plan in operation, that those who are now receiving $75 must get only that amount by way of a pension for the rest of their lives. It is good to know that partial pensions under the Canada pension plan will be available in January, 1966. It is good to know that by January, 1975, it will be possible, if the scheme goes through on time, for some people to draw the full benefit. And when that happens, two, or eight, or ten years from now, when some of our people are getting $80 or $90 or over $100 a month as a result of this plan, it will not be good enough to say to the people who were 70 and over in 1964: You got your $75 then and you will have to live on that for the rest of your lives. We say: Keep these people in mind, too. Let us envisage that as we improve the Canada pension plan we shall have to improve the basic federal old age security rate as well.
A few months ago, discussing ways in which we might celebrate Canada's centennial, I suggested that one way of doing so would be to raise old age security payments, getting them up to $100 a month by 1967, the year of our one hundredth birthday. I shall not go into any detail. I merely want to say that in improving the position of those who retire in two, eight, ten or 20 years from now, we should not forget those who have already retired.
The other comment I had in mind to make is this: we must also give active consideration to the position of survivors, dependants and others-greater consideration than seems to have been indicated in today's white paper. May I say that I regard this white paper as more useful in many ways than the one we had last July because it gives more information and shows a fuller appreciation of the subject. However, on the question of survivors and dependants it seems to say less than was said by the minister in her speech, or in the white paper of last year. Maybe this is because of the discussions which have taken place with the provinces in the meantime. But I urge that we should not think that we have done the job in the field of social security when we have adopted in principle a fairly 
good plan for retirement pensions. There are still these other groups to be considered- survivors, dependants and people who have been obliged to retire early on account of ill health or accident. We have come a long way from the days when we did not have any plan for meeting the social security needs of our people. We have come a long way during the political lifetime of some of us who are still in this house. But there is still a good piece to go.
As far as the Canada pension plan itself is concerned, the principle is good and it is our responsibility to the Canadian people to try to get it into effect at the earliest possible date.


Mr.   Paiierson@: We appreciate the fact that, with the exception of one extensive political diatribe the debate so far has been kept on a most objective level. I feel that when we are facing an issue of the kind we have before us tonight it is as well for us to remember that it will require all the concentration and consideration that we can bring to it, if this measure is to be acceptable and workable.
The resolution which was introduced last year preceding the introduction of the pension bill gave rise to lengthy debate. I do not think it is either necessary or desirable to enter upon an extensive debate on the resolution which is before us this evening. The main consideration should, I believe, be to get this bill before the appropriate committee at the earliest moment so that every aspect may be given careful scrutiny. My remarks will, therefore, be restricted on this occasion.
Objection has been taken to the minister's statement on the ground that it contained too many details. It was also stated that the statement made today by the hon. lady differed in many respects from the one made on a previous occasion. Perhaps I have not been long enough in politics to understand these things, but it seems strange to me that we should prod and urge ministers to make changes in proposed legislation and then, if they do make changes, beat them over the head for doing so.
As I suggested before, I believe that in the situation in which we find ourselves in this house it is well for us to pool our resources and suggestions in order that the best possible legislation may be produced for the benefit of the people of Canada. I would say there is a desire across the country for some means whereby people, when they reach the age of retirement, can be assured of an adequate income upon which to maintain themselves at a decent standard of living. Just how this wish is to be realized and what plan is to be adopted in order to accomplish

this objective is perhaps open to question. However, I do not think there is any question about the fundamental proposition that when people reach retirement age they should be able to enjoy their latter years of life without having to worry about where the next meal will come from. I believe, therefore, that the underlying principle of this measure is sound and worth while.
We have in mind the recommendations and propositions which have been received in support of such a proposal from farm organizations, labour unions and other groups which have lent their support to some form of pension plan, and I would venture the suggestion that there is fairly general feeling in favour of some type of pension plan which would bring to the people an assurance of an adequate income in their declining years. The details of such a plan are, however, the subject of extensive discussion and concern. As has been pointed out tonight, the proposal for a Canada pension plan has received a mixed reception. From some circles has come wholehearted support. In others, there has been an element of wariness; people are wondering whether the proposals are sound, or whether there might not be a better plan than has been suggested up to now.
The third position which has been taken has been one of outright opposition. We ought possibly to concede the point that there may have been some personal interests involved, but on the other hand I believe many Canadians are sincerely questioning the measure and the proposals which have been advanced. As we are aware, one province has already opted out of the plan. Quebec has decided to institute a plan of its own, and there is a serious question whether Ontario is going to go ahead. I believe the minister made a statement some time ago to the effect that if Ontario did not come in the plan would not be feasible. I think that was the gist of the statement, although I accept correction if I am wrong.
In a Canadian Press report in today's Ottawa Citizen headed "Renewing pension study", it is said:
Kenneth Bryden, New Democratic party member of the legislature for Woodbine, said Monday night that Premier Robarts is rumoured prepared to bow out of the Canada pension plan at the Quebec city federal-provincial conference March 31 unless Quebec decides to enter the plan.
So it seems as though there is still a big question whether there will be a Canada pension plan. Because if the premier made the statement to which I referred, and if Ontario did not come in, then the plan would not be feasible. And if this rumour becomes a reality and a fact, then it does not look as though we will have a plan at all. It seems a very serious situation is developing.
Canada Pension Plan
I believe the recommendation and the suggestion of the minister that this plan be submitted to a joint committee is very worth while. Before that joint committee, those with worth while suggestions to make and ideas to advance will have the opportunity of doing so. It could be that, with the scrutiny it would receive before a committee, many of the features which are causing some concern in the minds of the people will be resolved, and it will be even more acceptable than it is now.
The major considerations were underlined by the Minister of National Health and Welfare this afternoon, and I believe they are very basic. One of them was that adequate income for retirement years is desirable for the people of Canada, and I think there is no question about that. The problem is that incomes today are themselves inadequate.
A great number of families across the nation have incomes today which are inadequate to meet demands, and people cannot make ends meet. We are faced with the situation that, in an age and an economy of abundance, a great many people are not able to avail themselves of the abundance provided, and instead of enjoying the good things of life during their working years are living on the borderline of destitution. I think this is an indictment of our financial system, and the time is long past due when we should be considering a system which makes it impossible that a situation should arise where our people cannot receive incomes commensurate with the needs of the day.
People are haunted by fear and by the thought of what will happen when they can no longer engage in any kind of employment -when they are put on the shelf, as it were, as far as productive employment is concerned. Many face destitution in the days ahead. Therefore I think it is a sound consideration that some provision must be made whereby our people can have adequate incomes for their retirement years, and this income must be provided for the greatest number of people. The minister also referred, I believe, to this point. It was pointed out that there are about
1,800,000	workers at the present time who are covered by private plans, but this leaves by far the greatest percentage of the people of the country not covered in any way by pension plans. This is a point which should receive the closest study.
The portability of pensions is also very essential. It is very unfair that a worker should lose his pension benefits because for some reason or other he chooses to transfer his services to some other area or place of work. Therefore I believe the principle of portability is an absolute essential if we are

Canada Pension Plan
to place our people in a position where they are going to be treated fairly and equitably in this regard.
We have before us, Mr. Chairman, the resolution. We also have before us the white paper which was distributed today. We have listened to the statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. But I believe it is essential that we get the bill before us in order that we have the opportunity of properly judging the measure and assessing its value. Therefore we will reserve any comments until the bill is before us.


Mr. Perron:: Mr. Chairman, obviously at the resolution stage we cannot raise all the objections nor make all the suggestions which are called for in the case of such an extensive pension plan as the one which is proposed to us.
As far as the resolution before us is concerned, there was mention of a universal scheme; in other circumstances, it was suggested that it was a contributory pension plan and, finally, it can be said that, within a year, we shall probably be talking about a pension plan which would include the needy older people, in order to provide them at least with the basic necessities in an affluent country with a progressive economy and a productivity which has been rising constantly for the last 20 years.
Mr. Chairman, before raising some objections, I wish to put the record straight so that tomorrow or the day after or even later it will not be said that we are against security for older people or, if you like, that security which all Canadians are entitled to. As a matter of fact, if there are Canadians who deserve our attention, they are those who during 20, 30 and even 40 years worked here in our country to leave us the inheritance which we enjoy today in the field of productivity and which enables us to meet the needs of each and every Canadian.
Mr. Chairman, it is a fact that ever since the post-war period we have always been strong advocates of a generous pension plan for our older citizens. In fact, 20 or 25 years ago, when pensions amounted to $35 or $40 a month only, and when very few people were entitled to full benefits, we were advocating pensions of at least $60 a month at age 60. As a supporting argument, we used to point out that automation would become a problem in 10, 15 or 20 years.
It was also our contention that our abundant production should be directed primarily towards local consumption.
Mr. Chairman, the fact that we put forth arguments against the resolution now before 
us and the legislation which will follow does not mean that we are against a social security program for the aged. I rather think that it is simply a policy statement concerning this so-called universal, portable and contributory pension plan, because whatever name it is given, I am convinced that very few persons know what it is all about, even though a white paper concerning the pension plan was tabled this afternoon. I even suggest that nobody realizes fully the scope of the universal or contributory pension program which has been submitted for our consideration this afternoon. The white paper does not even mention the word "contributory".
I now turn to the press release which was sent to the ten provincial premiers by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on January 20, 1964 and which clearly stated the objectives of the pension plan to be considered by the twenty sixth parliament.
Under "coverage", dealing with the persons who can come under the plan, we read this:
It has been suggested that the plan could make it compulsory for a greater number of persons to be covered. Having examined the matter thoroughly, the federal government still believes that, at least at the beginning, the insurance should be optional for people working on their own account and a few categories of employees-
A little further on, it says:
In some countries, an almost universal insurance has been achieved by gradually extending the plan. The proposed Canada pension plan does not do away with the possibility of extending the compulsory insurance once the plan has been in force for some time.
A while ago the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) wondered whether one could describe the plan as universal or contributory, because the word "contributory" is not to be found in today's white paper. But I think the theory of this project necessarily includes the obligation. If there are old people who deserve our attention concerning these pensions, there are also young people who have to contribute to it and who also deserve our attention.
It is already recognized that a great number of people will not be able to participate in this pension plan immediately, because the existence of a private pension plan is recognized, as in the province of Quebec, where more than 30 per cent of the workers in permament employment already participate in that pension plan on a contributory and voluntary basis for the employee and the employer.
If you consider, on the other hand, that 37 per cent of the labour force in Canada do not have a taxable income under the Income Tax Act, this means that 37 per cent

of the Canadian workers who would be participating in that contributory and compulsory pension plan are not in a position to face their daily obligations because of the cost of living.
I therefore wonder whether that pension plan can be called universal or compulsory.
There is a second point I should like to make concerning the stand taken by our group on that pension plan. It is that social security should normally come under the provinces according to the B.N.A. Act. We already saw, on the occasion of the first document concerning a universal pension legislation, last July, a public protest in at least two provinces, Ontario and Quebec, which objected and advanced sound arguments. Some of those arguments concerned the fact that reserves could be cumulative or accumulated. Other arguments pointed out that it would come in conflict with other plans already established or proposed.
Quite recently, at the end of last week, the minister of family and social welfare in Quebec made it clear that social security should constantly be reviewed, that it should increasingly be directed to our future needs, but in accordance with our present requirements; he especially declared that the state of Quebec should increasingly consider withdrawing from cost-sharing social security plans.
The contributions of workers and employers will support this universal or contributory security fund. However, the province of Quebec is demanding, in fields which are completely under its jurisdiction, the right to administer, according to the needs of its people and the views of its administrators, certain plans which would meet the wishes of the province. At this point, I am only paraphrasing the statement made by the minister of the family and social welfare of the province of Quebec.
When Quebec, or any other province, refuses to participate in this way, under the rights provided by the B.N.A. Act, it creates a paradox: whether the province refuses or not, it will contribute, though its population will not benefit. This has already happened in other fields where it made a contribution without reaping any benefit which was unacceptable to the province of Quebec.
Some suggestions have been made. The attitude of Quebec representatives now seems less rigid than last July as to the necessity of dealing with the matter of portable pensions between the various provinces, so as to enable our wage earners who, until now, contributed to some retirement on pension scheme, to benefit fully from a pension scheme with other provinces. On this point, there does not seem to be much opposition.
20220-'764
Canada Pension Plan
This may be discussed and decided on during the federal-provincial conference which will take place on March 30 next. But, meanwhile, we want our position to be known.
What is the basis of the universal and contributory pension plan?
It aims at enabling those people who are not earning enough to save for their retirement to benefit from a pension when they reach that age.
Mr. Chairman, we know that 37 per cent of Canadian workers do not earn enough to pay any taxes. On the other hand, the plan does not seem to apply to wage earners with an income exceeding $4,500. I wonder whether this is not an indirect way to attack those who already do not earn enough to support their families. In short, it is another form of taxation in disguise, nothing else, in the same way as a 1 per cent tax was imposed on all Canadian workers when a $10 increase was granted to 70 year old pensioners.
If this is the contributory pension plan, our group is entirely against it.
Responsibilities should be assumed towards those who have left the people the heritage we are now enjoying in the field of productivity, and I feel that the government should seek some other formula than that of collecting contributions from those who already do not earn enough.
Various suggestions have been made. It is not that we are in favour of the pension plan advocated by Premier Jean Lesage, under which the accumulated reserves would be used for the development of the province of Quebec, but the federal scheme provides for the building up during the first ten years of a reserve which could exceed $2,500 million. It is stated that:
From 45 to 55 per cent of the plan's reserves will be invested by the Minister of Finance in the securities of provincial governments, or securities guaranteed by provincial governments-
If the reserves are used to finance the construction of bridges, schools and other projects which do not bring any return, the taxpayers will just have to pay twice. They will have to make their compulsory contributions and 10, 20 or 30 years later they will again be called upon to provide by way of taxes or loans the funds required to pay the pensions. Such is the pension plan provided by the government.
If we are, in principle, against some points of this contributory pension plan, it is not because we want to accept the plan of Mr. Lesage. We suggest that this is a way of draining the savings of the small wage earners to invest them in uneconomic projects on the part of the government.

Canada Pension Plan
Besides, this was stated clearly enough by Mr. Gerin-Lajoie, and we could read in La Presse of July 3 last:
-It Is reported that the minister of youth, Mr. Gerin-Lajoie, already plans to set up a school credit board which would feed on the pension fund of Mr. Lesage. This board would make loans or would in turn allow school boards to borrow from the fund in order to build schools with repayment conditions in keeping with their means.
If there is no opposition today on the part of the ministers of the province of Quebec, it is perhaps an intimation they may benefit, within the limits of 45 to 55 per cent, from the contributions made by the inhabitants of the province to this pension plan. But, if the question is simply a matter of dollars, for Mr. Lesage as well as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh), who is introducing the resolution, to allow Canadian citizens in the year 2015 to have bread, I wonder why this plan should provide that in 1970 heads of families with an average income of $2,000 to $3,000 deprive themselves of bread to allow Canadian citizens to have some in the year 2015.
Is this a matter of dollars? Unless it is intended to impose on us merely a problem of a plan? If it is simply a problem of a plan, at which some N.D.P. representatives in this house are adept, I may say that we are right on the subject; we shall make plans.
But if it is a need for dollars which prompts the provincial government to participate in or agree to this plan, or to initiate its own plan in order to ensure greater benefits for the taxpayers of the province of Quebec, I believe it is normal we should put forward here, as Creditistes, our own point of view in the field of pensions, particularly as concerns the plan submitted to us today.
If it is a matter of dollars, let us see what our old people need and what they shall want in future, this year and 10 or 20 years from now. Nothing but a bit of comfort, in accordance with what their country's productivity can offer them for their old age, to wit, appropriate medical care and a sound and reasonable well-being, as concerns food, clothing and housing, in keeping with the standards of living of this 20th century.
To sum up, this is what our older people will wish in the year 1970 or in the year 2000, or even in the year 2015, and nothing else.
Today, under the pretext of establishing a plan which would offer all that, the salary of the average worker, of the small industrial wage earner is again to be drained by taxes in order to establish a universal, compulsory and contributory pension scheme.
I think that the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare who gets a considerable
[Mr. Perron.!
percentage of the annual budget-more particularly when we realize that 15 per cent of the budget will be used to pay the dictators of finance instead of helping production-should try to find a formula to improve the security of those older people who built up this country and, after 25, 30 or 40 years of of hard work contributed to the economic development we know today.
How will our young people of today and tomorrow, who will reap the benefits of automation and scientific progress, while productivity is ever increasing, be made to contribute to that plan?
Statistics show that the trend is more and more to free man by the use of machines.
Therefore, if it is only a financial problem, why not seek a solution elsewhere?
In the last several months, we have been making many suggestions in order to review the monetary policy of our country, and permit the establishment of a single social security program.
To date, they seem to have understood nothing, absolutely nothing. And yet, we are not the only ones urging for a revision of our monetary policy in order to make way for the development of a social security plan.
I have here part of a speech made by Mr. Benoit Michaud, an hon. member for Madawaslca-Restigouche-a Liberal member, if you please-on June 24, 1947, in which reference was made to the increase from $25 to $30 per month in the old age pension. After pointing out that the government could not make the increase larger because the financial system did not permit it, Mr. Michaud suggested a reform of the monetary system to do away with the national debt charges which, at that time, came to $434 million.
Now, the interest on our national debt, which was less than half a billion dollars in 1947, has now gone beyond a billion dollars, according to the budget just put before us. In short, the interest on the debt has doubled since 1947.
How can you predict 50 years in advance what benefits the worker will receive, when you cannot do it for 30 or 35 years to come?
Mr. Chairman, we are being asked today to accept a principle which is illogical in its application, following which other bills bearing the same inconsistencies will be imposed upon us.
A few years ago, the unemployment insurance fund was set up to ensure the security of workers. At one time, accumulated funds totalled more than $900 million. At the time, actuaries had established the amount of the contributions to be paid by both employees and employers.

Thus was set up the unemployment insurance fund which the government has to replenish constantly, even though a decreasing number of workers are entitled to benefits. Benefit entitlement has been made so complicated, through all kinds of amendments to the act, that many of our workers can no longer draw unemployment insurance benefits, even though they contributed to the fund during 10, 15 or 20 years.
The same situation will probably occur in the case of contributory pensions, because, on the one hand, you will have administrative regulations and an all-powerful and expensive bureaucracy, and on the other, small pensions of $75, $80 or $90 a month for the wage earners.
Some provinces such as British Columbia, already find it possible to pay up to $95 a month to old age pensioners. Why this rush with this pension scheme? It is merely another intrusion in a field of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. By coming into this plan the provinces will only lose their rights.
The pension plan will thus have been reduced from 70 to 65 years in 1970. In the meantime, the provincial governments will have lost their rights progressively while the federal government will administer the payroll of the workers.
The federal government is increasingly centralizing tremendous and discretionary powers, drawing no attention to existing plans or those which are at cross purposes with the plan now in existence.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred a while ago to crown corporation employees who are now contributing to pension plans and who would, in three, four or ten years, enjoy a pension proportionate to their contributions up to $400 a month. He said that those employees are now wondering what purpose will be achieved by the new pension plan.
I repeat that in the province of Quebec 30 per cent of the workers already contribute to pension funds allowing them in many instances to get, when they retire, amounts much higher than those shown in the pension plan now before us. Why is that possible? Because instead of investing in non-profit or government controlled businesses an accrued capital of $2 billion, employers and employees jointly, or private companies managing these pension schemes, invest those funds in profitable private enterprises or they buy bonds which double the capital after 20 years.
The first contributions thus paid into the pension fund enable the pensioner to profit from amounts reaching sometimes up to 60 per cent of his salary earned annually during his years of work, while the pension plan
Canada Pension Plan
which we have before us today does not exceed 20 per cent of the earned salary during the normal lifetime of the person who will have contributed, worked and contributed again to that pension plan.
This means that the pension plans already in existence are more profitable to the worker contributing thereto.
Why should provincial governments not make as much publicity in order to direct capital investment towards private industries. This would promote expansion of private industries which need capital to develop natural resources, thereby permitting an accumulation of funds which would make it possible to give old age pensioners a better pension than is offered under the plan before us today, even though employees and employers would contribute 1 and li per cent.
Another thing, Mr. Chairman, we know the results produced by previous contributory and compulsory plans. We are turning our employers into fund collectors for the federal government and, furthermore, these collections will come out of the pay envelopes of the small wage earners; in short, beside their own contribution on a compulsory basis at the rate of 1 or 1J per cent, the employers will see the operating cost of their enterprise go up.
Nowadays, employees, secretaries, are paid to paste stamps on unemployment insurance books, some are paid to comply with income tax requirements; extra staff is hired, in private enterprise, to comply with sales tax requirements and still more people will have to be hired, which will justify, of course, private enterprise for increasing the costs of its services or the products it puts on the market.
That is the bureaucratic burden which will result from the administration of compulsory, universal and contributory pension plans set up by the government.
For all those reasons, as a member of the Ralliement Creditistes, I raise a few objections at this time. We hope to have the opportunity to explain them more fully when the bill is presented to the committee. That is why we will not delay the adoption of the resolution, but we will propose amendments and make suggestions which, I hope, will be seriously considered by the minister.


Mr. Benson:: Mr. Chairman, although the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated that I would make a statement on the financial aspects of this resolution, I am quite willing to defer this statement until second reading of the bill, if it is the desire of the committee to proceed with the question, and first reading, in order to see the bill at this time.

Canada Pension Plan


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Edgar John Benson: Since it is not the unanimous desire of the committee-


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Jay Waldo Monteith: We want to hear your words of wisdom.


Eric Alfred Winkler: We want all the information we can get.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The Tories object.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak briefly concerning some of the financial and administrative aspects of the Canada pension plan, which is the subject of the resolution now before the house. It is my intention to deal with these matters in broad outline at this stage, but I will be prepared at second reading to go into somewhat more detail when hon. members have had an opportunity to scrutinize the bill in detail.
Generally, I think that the financial aspects of the resolution can be broken down under the following headings:
1.	Benefits under the present old age security pension.
2.	Benefits under the Canada pension plan.
3.	Method of financing the Canada pension plan.
4.	The handling of reserves which will accumulate under the Canada pension plan.
First of all, I will deal with the present old age security pension of $75 per month available to everyone at the age of 70. The proposed legislation does not in any way reduce benefits available under this plan. However, it does provide that at the option of the beneficiary he or she may elect to take a pension which will provide, roughly, equivalent benefits at any time between age 65 and 70. The amount received at age 70, if the election is left until that time, will still be $75 per month. However, if one decides to take the pension before age 70, the amount received will be somewhat less because the period of expected payment will be longer. If, for example, a person takes the old age security pension at age 65, he or she will receive $51 per month during his or her remaining life. If the election is made at age 67 j, the pension for life will be $63 per month while, of course, if one waits to the age of 70 before election the pension will be $75 per month.
This old age security pension, Mr. Chairman, will continue to be financed by the old age security taxes, consisting of 3 per cent of the sales tax, 3 per cent of corporation income taxes and 4 per cent of personal income taxes, to a maximum of $120
[Mr. Benson.J
per annum. As I stated when this pension was increased $10 during the last session, this fund is now on a basis where it will be adequate to finance benefits.
Next, Mr. Chairman, I will deal with benefits under the Canada pension plan. The benefits under this plan will be available to all persons who are or become employed in participating provinces after the plan goes into effect, and to all self-employed persons in participating provinces who choose to contribute to the plan. The scale of benefits received will be related to the earnings of contributors over the period during which they contribute to the plan.
The amount of pension received under the Canada pension plan, as distinguished from the present old age security pension, will amount to 20 per cent of average monthly earnings, so that after a 10 year transition period a person whose average monthly earnings were $100 per month will receive a Canada pension plan benefit of $20 per month on retirement. Earnings of $250 per month will produce a pension of $50 per month, and so on, to a maximum Canada pension plan benefit of $75 per month for those with earnings of $375 per month or more. I should point out, Mr. Chairman, that after a five year period the pension will be somewhat higher if the average industrial wage rises above the present level.
Thus, in summary, Mr. Chairman, depending when one elects to take their old age security pension the maximum combined old age security pension and Canada pension plan pension, based on present wage levels, would be $150 per month at age 70 or $126 per month at age 65.
Before leaving the question of benefits, Mr. Chairman, I should also point out that Canada pension plan benefits, as contrasted with old age security benefits, are the same at age 65 or age 70, so in fairness a person must actually retire, in order to be eligible for their Canada pension plan benefits, between age 65 and age 70.
However, there will be an advantage to working between age 65 and 70, in that for each year worked a year of low earnings may be dropped in computing one's average earnings. In addition, retired persons will be able to have modest part-time earnings without affecting their pension. A further point of interest is that in calculating the average earnings on which benefits are based, past earnings will be adjusted based on the ratio of the average industrial wage at retirement as compared to that existing at the time the contributions were made.
The transitional period for the graduated pension will be ten years. People who retire right after the first year of the program, if

eligible, will receive one tenth of the benefit they would have received if they had contributed for ten years or more. Those who retire after having made contributions for the first two years of the program will receive one fifth of the benefit they would have received for contributions for ten years or more, and so on. People who retire after making contributions for the first ten years of the program will have their benefits calculated at 20 per cent of their average contributory earnings over that period.
As stated in the resolution before the committee, Mr. Chairman, it is also proposed that some of the contributor's benefits will be available to a surviving spouse. At age 65 a widow or a widower will be entitled to the larger part of, (a) her or his own Canada pension plan pension, or (b) 60 per cent of the combined Canada pension plan pensions of the couple, subject however to the maximum which applies at the time to the total pension which may be paid to any one person.
I should like now to deal briefly with the financing of the Canada pension plan. First of all, I should like to make it abundantly clear that this plan is to be financed out of earnings related to contributions of employees, employers and self-employed persons. The contributions will be an allowable deduction for income tax purposes. The Canada pension plan is not going to involve any charge whatsoever against the general taxation revenue of Canada. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I should go further and state that the costs of administering the plan are to be financed out of contributions and not out of general taxation revenues. In this connection, I should like to point out to the hon. member for Perth that the Prime Minister did not say the administrative costs would not be included under the Canada pension plan.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Pardon me, Mr. Chairman, he said they would at the beginning.


Edgar John Benson: If the hon. member would let me conclude my statement-


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is what I said.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That is not what you said.


Jay Waldo Monteith: This is the first interruption, so you people across there should not harass us at this stage.


Edgar John Benson: If I may continue, Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister said the costs of the administrative machinery set up before collections started will require advances from the treasury.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is what I said.
Canada Pension Plan


Edgar John Benson: That is what the Prime Minister said. These will be repaid from contributions when the plan is in operation.
Participation in the plan, Mr. Chairman, is to be compulsory for all employed persons, and the rate of contributions will be 1 per cent of wages by employer and employee to a maximum annual contribution of $90 per employee or $7.50 a month at the top earning level of $375 per month. It is proposed, based on carefully prepared actuarial reports, that these rates of contribution will continue for 15 years and that thereafter they will rise slowly to a maximum of 2 per cent per employee and employer in the year 2015.
It is the intention to have actuarial reports on the Canada pension plan prepared every five years. The rates of contributions are to be set out in the legislation, and while there will be authority to postpone an increase in contributions, this can only be done on the basis of the then current actuarial report. The self-employed person will have the right to contribute under the Canada pension plan and to receive benefits thereunder. In this case, the allowable contributions for the first 15 years will be 2 per cent of income up to $4,500 per annum before deducting personal exemptions.
A good many people who are presently participating in pension plans have asked the question, what happens to my present pension under the Canada pension plan? I should like to make it quite clear that in no case should there be a reduction in total benefits received by these people and for many total benefits will be increased.
Much has been said about the problem of integration, Mr. Chairman, but the government is planning integration of the largest pension plan in this country, namely that of federal civil servants, and has encountered no great difficulties. There will be no loss of benefits to civil servants on retirement. While we recognize that problems of integration for some existing industrial plans will be complicated, they certainly cannot be regarded as insoluble. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, many of these plans presently take into consideration the old age security pension which has increased over the years. I believe that integration with the Canada pension plan will be no more difficult in this country than it has been in other countries with contributory social insurance programs. I think that one will see a great increase in private pension plans in Canada, for the Canada pension plan will make employers and employees more pension conscious. They will look for ways of supplementing the basic pension provided from age 65 by the Canada pension plan and the old age security pension.

Canada Pension Plan
I should like now to deal very briefly with the handling of the modest reserves which actuarial reports indicate will accumulate under the Canada pension plan. I use the word "modest" intentionally and in all sincerity because although these reserves appear substantial in dollar amount, they are quite modest in terms of benefits payable under the plan. These reserves are to be held in a separate fund. It is the intention of the government to invest approximately 50 per cent of these reserves in provincial or provincially guaranteed securities based on Canada pension plan contributions from the various participating provinces, and the remaining 50 per cent is to be invested in government of Canada securities. It is proposed to require in the legislation periodic consultations between the minister of finance and the provincial treasurers in this regard.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out first, the plan is to be administered by the department of health and welfare who will be responsible for the payment of benefits, and that contributions under the plan are to be administered by the Department of National Revenue, and appropriate safeguards will be written into the legislation to assure that contributions are properly remitted.
The Canada pension plan proposed by this resolution will be of great benefit to all Canadians. I respectfully suggest that we move through the resolution stage as soon as possible so that all hon. members may have the opportunity of seeing the bill and of discussing it fully in an informed manner, both on second reading and when it is referred to the joint committee mentioned by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, I hope I will not be very long in making my remarks tonight. I am sure I will hear that hope echoed very quickly from the other side. I think it is important to take a quick look, even at the resolution stage, to make sure that we are starting correctly on this pension plan. I am sure that all members in this house have probably, during the last political campaign or two, stated they were in favour of a pension plan for all Canadians. I have no doubt that every member in the house is anxious to see some pension plan brought forward. It is certainly a political hot potato.
I do not think the political future of any member who is against a pension plan would be very secure. It is precisely this aspect of the situation that bothers me. I believe the feeling of political fear over this subject has become so intense that there is danger of our failing to be as critical as we should be, if this plan is to be all we hope it will be. Certainly, on the opposition side of the house 
it is our duty to take a critical look at this legislation to see that it does not contain the seeds of future trouble, and ensure that we get off on the right foot.
Frankly, I am bothered by several aspects of the resolution. To begin with, there is, I am sure, a desire in the committee to pass this stage without delay and I am wondering why there should be such a rush in connection with so important a measure. The sums of money involved in this scheme are large enough to stagger the imagination. It is a long term scheme affecting a great many people. It is a most complex subject. The sums of money which could be wasted if there is a mistake in the accounting or in the actuarial figures are of sufficient importance that we should be prepared to take a second look, check and recheck, to make sure where we are going. It is true the government has expressed a desire to get this through before Easter, but I am sure all of us who regarded that announcement with pleasure were not expecting to have a budget brought down before the recess. In other words, we had expected there would be a few more days in which to consider this measure at the resolution stage. I would say there are sufficient grounds for taking a further look at it because closer examination shows certain danger signals.
I notice that the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka spoke on this subject during the debate on the address. He said he was in favour of a pension plan, but he also pointed out that it was his duty to be critical. He did a good job of analysing those parts of the plan which, he thought, could lead to trouble. He pointed out where it might be strengthened and, where, in his view, danger might exist. As a result there was a great deal of talk in his constituency, a great deal of political propaganda to the effect that he was against the bill. We are all aware that the Prime Minister suggested to this house that because we were questioning some aspects of it we were against a pension plan. I believe all hon. members must be reminded that their first duty is to make sure of the precise nature of the legislation with which they are asked to deal, and not to be unduly conscious of how political opponents may try to paint them. We must make sure we are right, and if someone else misrepresents our position, we have to put up with it.
There is one intimation that the pension plan may not be exactly what Canada wants. It is a fact that the province of Quebec did not consent to participate. If Premier Lesage and his government have decided that this pension plan is not worthy of their participation, this is some indication that either they

have holes in their heads or that we had better stop and take a look at what we are doing. Of course, we cannot agree with Premier Le-sage all the time, but obviously he has taken a long and serious look at the basic principles of the pension plan proposed to this parliament and has decided that it represents a wrong approach. Having received a warning to this extent, I believe the government should pause, reconsider and make sure we are moving in the right direction. It is not merely the absence of participation by the particular province of Quebec that makes this so noteworthy. It is the fact that this is supposed to be the Canada pension plan, and we are leaving out one province. This is the aspect of the basis on which we are proceeding that gives me most trouble. I cannot convince myself that enough time and effort have been spent by the government, that there have been enough negotiations with the provinces, or sufficient consideration of this plan. I cannot believe it would not have been possible to have arrived at some plan acceptable to all the provinces, a plan which could have been a truly national plan covering all Canada.
All members of this house will recall the distinctly political way in which the minister outlined the pension plan last year. We know there has been a considerable amount of discussion since then and that there have been a number of changes. My caution about the need to go slowly in this regard is borne out by this past performance. There have been many changes. The process of consultation and reconsideration has resulted in considerable changes in the basic approach. I would very much like to see a plan which included participation by Quebec. It is not the fact that one province is left out that is so serious. We are all Canadians and we should be treated equally. It is the fact that as a result of the exclusion of one province the plan is less desirable from the point of view of all the other provinces. People do change their jobs. They are shifted from one province to another. They might even find themselves shifted into Quebec. That they should be worried about this aspect seems to me to be most regrettable.
I should like the committee to consider what is, in my view, an excellent statement appearing in the Financial Post on the front page of the March 14, 1964 issue under the heading "Need Close Look at Pension Perils". It reads in part:
Every responsible Canadian has to be concerned with the economic health and social welfare of his fellow citizens. This concern must extend far beyond next year and the next. It stretches onward to the decades when it is the children of
Canada Pension Plan
today's policymakers and voters who will be the beneficiaries or the victims of current decisions.
In the contentious Canada pension plan we have an excellent example of long term policy making problems. Basic decisions made in coming months about government pensions are decisions with which this country and its people will be stuck for generations. Once created and set in motion, a government pension program is a juggernaut that cannot be halted and over which nobody, including the government of the day, will have effective control.
Some kind of pension arrangement is sensible and desirable in our kind of society.
But there is so much election day power and magic in the very word "pension", and so very little general understanding of the mathematical and economic complexities of the subject, that Canadians may soon be swept along into a reckless decision about pensions which will be a curse to this nation for a very long time to come.
To those who make up their minds on a fast, superficial glance at the question, there is undoubted appeal in a pension scheme run by Ottawa. That would look neat and tidy.
An Ottawa plan, of course, has infinite appeal for people at Ottawa. The bestower of apparent blessings can expect enthusiastic gratitude at the polls. It would add a powerful new device to the many devices central government now has for "redistributing" the personal earnings of the individual Canadians.
However, the dream of a completely centralized national pension colossus has been ended by the Quebec decision not to go along.
Premier Robarts of Ontario still refuses to be stampeded. He takes the sensible view that the key issue is not just getting any "pension plan", but what the pension plan adopted will actually do for Canadians and for Canada.
There is more than one province left out. There are hordes of people left out who are not covered by the pension. The ordinary working man who is going to get the benefit of this pension is just as anxious to have a plan to protect his widow and young children, or protect his orphaned children if both should die. This is as much a concern for him as concern about whether he will have something to retire on at 65 or 70. This basic approach to the whole problem, whether we are just taking care of him in his old age or whether we are looking after the equally important part of this problem, should be considered at this time, when we are starting to introduce the plan. The working people in Canada are concerned that the government bring forward a plan where, if after 10 or 15 years with one employer a man is fired or has to change employment, provision is made that the benefits he has built up under his own plan will not be entirely lost.
I said I was going to keep my remarks brief, Mr. Chairman. Many criticisms can be made of the plan, and I agree with my friends that after we see the bill some may disappear and new criticisms may arise. I think the best thing which could happen to

Canada Pension Plan
this pension plan would be to make one more try to see if the province of Quebec can be persuaded to come in. I should like to see an all-Canada plan, because I am a little mystified about what will happen in two or three years if one of the other provinces decides that the plan is not working too well, and wants to start its own. Does the province of Quebec have any more right than any other province to stay out? I suggest the answer is no, and that the willingness of other provinces to go along with the plan may change if the plan does not work properly. The best way, and the only safe way, is to get the kind of plan which receives the consent of all and is entered into by the Dominion of Canada, and the governments of all the provinces.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Miss LaMarsh thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-75, to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions in Canada payable to contributors and survivors.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Could we call it eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker? The business has been outlined for us for the next few days.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before you call it eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might make a suggestion to the appropriate person. I am sure there will be a great deal of interest in today's Hansard, particularly because of the white paper contained therein, let alone the statements which have been made by spokesmen for all parties. I am sure there will be a great deal of interest in the bill, first reading of which has just been given. I wonder whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or somebody else, can advise the printing bureau that it might be a good idea to print extra copies of today's Hansard, and of the bill?


Guy Favreau: I can advise the house that we will try all we can to bring this about.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In both languages, of course.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being eleven o'clock this house stands adjourned until 2.30 tomorrow afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put.


[Stage Direction]
The purpose of the government's proposed legislation is to ensure that, as soon as is possible in a fair and practical way, all Canadians will be able to retire in security and with dignity.
The advantage of a federal plan is that it is the only type of pension plan that can be made available comprehensively to all Canadians. This was recognized in 1951 when the British North America Act was amended. The Canada pension plan will mean that a contributory program is available to Canadians to provide for their old age. However, as the provision of pensions is a field in which both provincial and federal governments have jurisdiction, the Canada pension plan will not be extended to people covered under a comparable provincial pension plan, providing a similar level of benefits on a universal basis. The province of Quebec has indicated that it intends to introduce such a plan for residents of that province.
Under the federal plan, coverage will be compulsory for, broadly, all employees in participating provinces; such exceptions as are made will be for those types of employment in which the collection of contributions is not administratively feasible. Most other people having earned incomes-broadly, the self employed and the majority of employees not covered compulsorily-will be able to belong to the plan voluntarily. If a provincial government wishes, its employees will be covered. Federal employees in a non-participating province will be covered by the Canada pension plan.
The plan is comprehensive in the sense of covering as many people as is practicable. It is not intended to provide all the retirement income which many Canadians wish to have. This is a matter of individual choice and, in the government's view, should properly be left to personal savings and to private pension plans, subject in the latter case to such degree of supervision as the provinces may think appropriate. The 1963 Ontario legislation is the first example in Canada of an attempt at close supervision of private plans.
The purpose of the Canada pension plan is to make reasonable minimum levels of income available at normal retirement ages. There will be scope for the continuation and extension of private pension plans to provide benefits over these minimum levels.
The present minimum provided in Canada is the old age security benefit of $75 a month
from age 70. Unfortunately, many people are unable to go on earning until they reach age 70.
Realistic minimum levels of pensions cannot be achieved, in a country like Canada, simply by increasing the flat rate pension. Living costs vary greatly between town and country, and between different regions of Canada. What people need, in order to make satisfactory provision for retirement, is related in part to the level of earnings to which they have been accustomed. The Canada pension plan will therefore provide new levels of pensions related to previous earnings.
Main Features
The government proposes to make these main changes in the provision of pensions:
1.	Contributors to the plan will receive a monthly pension related to the earnings on which they have contributed. The scale of pensions will rise during a ten year transitional period to a level of 20 per cent of average earnings.
2.	A flat rate old age security pension will be available at any age between 65 and 70, according to the preference of the pensioner. The amount of the pension will be graduated so that anyone with average life expectancy will receive about the same total payment, from the age he starts his pension to the time he dies, whatever starting age he chooses.
3.	The earnings-related Canada pension will also be available to contributors at any age between 65 and 70, provided they have retired from regular employment. There will be no retirement condition at age 70.
4.	Both the flat rate pension and the earnings-related pension will be available in 1966 to people who have reached age 69, in 1967 to people from age 68, in 1968 to people from age 67, in 1969 to people from age 66, and in 1970 to people from age 65.
The main features in the financing of the plan are:
5.	Since the new benefits will be related to earnings, the Canada pension plan will be financed by contributions of a percentage of earnings. The rate of the employer's contribution during the first 15 years will be 1 per cent of the earnings on which contributions are made. The rate for employees will also be 1 per cent. During this period the rate for self employed contributors will be 2 per cent.
[Stage Direction]
6.	For the first five years of the plan, contributions will be made, and benefits will be paid, on the first $4,500 of annual earnings. This level will be adjusted in 1970 and thereafter in line with increases in average earnings.
7.	Contributions will be deductible from taxable income. This is the same as for private pension plans.
8.	The Canada pension plan will be entirely self financing. The contributions are designed to cover both the cost of benefits and the cost of administration. The costs of the fiat rate pension will be met from the old age security fund.
Timing
The legislation will be designed to permit collection of contributions to begin in January 1985, so that payment of benefits can begin in January 1966. At that date also, people will become able to draw pensions, both flat rate and earnings-related, at age 69. By 1970 these pensions will be available at age 65.
Until the plan is ten years old, the rates of the new pension will build up steadily. In 1966, the earnings-related benefit at age 69 or 70 will be 2 per cent of earnings, or $7.50 a month for anyone who retires after contributing on earnings of $4,500 for a year. For anyone retiring at age 68 or older in 1967, the maximum will be $15 a month, and so on until the top rate of 20 per cent of earnings is reached after ten years. The flat rate pension will, of course, be available in addition to the Canada pension. The amounts available in total pensions will therefore rise from $75 to people already retired to $150 for contributors aged 70 with average earnings of $4500 in 1975.
Financing
Contributions under the plan will not be required before the age of 18. They will stop at whatever age, between 65 and 70, a pension benefit is taken.
For the first 15 years of the program the contribution rate will be 1 per cent of contributory earnings payable for the employee and 1 per cent of contributory earnings for the employer. During the following 35 years, these rates will rise in steps of a quarter of one per cent, to a rate of 2 per cent for the year 2015 onward. There will be provision to defer these contribution increases if they prove to be financially unnecessary.
The ratio of benefits to contributions is especially favourable for those who retire during the early years of the plan. It is therefore reasonable during this period to assess the voluntary contributor at the combined employer and employee rate. However, after the program has been in operation for a
period of time and adjustments are made in contribution rates, the rate paid by voluntary contributors will remain at the rate for the employee, plus 1 per cent. For example, when the employee's rate is 1| per cent, with an equal contribution by the employer, the rate for the self employed will be 2J per cent.
The contribution rates set out above will result in the building up of fairly substantial reserves, estimated at about $2.5 billion (before interest) during the first ten years. Periodic actuarial reports will be published on the anticipated revenues and expenditures of the fund in the future. These will be reviewed by an advisory committee in its report to the government on the operation of the plan.
From 45 per cent to 55 per cent of the plan's reserves will be invested by the Minister of Finance in the securities of provincial governments, or securities guaranteed by provincial governments, in proportion to the amount of contributions paid into the plan by residents of each province. Provincial governments will thus have an important interest in the operations of the plan, and in any proposed amendments which might affect the future size of the reserves.
There will be provisions to require a special actuarial report on the future cost of any proposals to amend the benefits or other features of the plan.
Calculation of Benefits
Pensions are to be 20 per cent of "what a man has been earning".
This obviously cannot mean what the pensioner earned in, say, the last year, or even few years, before beginning the pension. That would be very unfair to the man who suffered sickness or unemployment in the last few years before retirement. On the other hand, the pensioner cannot be allowed to pick the best year or few years of his earnings record; that would excessively favour the man whose earnings have been erratic and it would tempt voluntary contributors to contribute only in good years.
The pension benefit will therefore be based on the man's average earnings from the effective date of the plan to the time when he starts to draw his pension. These earnings cannot, however, be used without adjustment. To do so would mean that, as the general level of earnings rises over the years, there would be a widening span between earnings recorded in the early years and those shortly before retirement. The pension benefits paid would therefore be a declining proportion of "what a man has been earning" shortly before retirement.
Accordingly, for calculating pensions, earnings will be adjusted in line with changes in

the general level erf salaries and wages. The current average of salaries and wages in Canada is roughly $4,000 a year. The ceiling chosen for earnings under the Canada pension plan has been set somewhat higher than this at $4,500 for the first five years of the plan. This ceiling will afterwards be adjusted with changes in the general level of wages and salaries. The pension program will therefore permanently provide a satisfactory standard of pensions for people with earnings up to the average level.
In the calculation of a man's average contributory earnings, his wages or salary for, say, 1970 will be adjusted by the ratio between the average earnings ceilings in the three years before retirement and the ceiling for 1970. This will be done for each year for which he contributes. In this way his past earnings will be revalued to their current equivalent before his average earnings are calculated.
Under this formula, a man who in some years does not contribute to the plan will get a smaller pension than if he contributed all the time. However, it is important not to penalize people whose earnings in some years are abnormally low because of sickness and unemployment. This will be avoided, to a reasonable degree, by excluding a man's years of lowest earnings from the calculation of his average earnings. Also, for each year beyond 65 that a man continues to work, he will be able to exclude, from the calculation of his average earnings, an additional low year. This will provide an incentive to go on working after 65, for the man who is able to do so without any large reduction in pay.
The earnings-related and flat rate pensions will be paid to beneficiaries in one cheque. At existing wage levels the total pension available to a single person at age 70 will range from $75 to $150 monthly, as indicated in the following table:
Combined Pension available to Single Contributor at age 70, by Average Monthly Pensionable Earnings Average	Monthly Pension Payable
[Stage Direction]
'ensionable
[Stage Direction]
Earnings-
[Stage Direction]
Flat rate
[Stage Direction]
Combined
[Stage Direction]
Earnings
[Stage Direction]
related
[Stage Direction]
Pension
[Stage Direction]
Pension
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
Pension $
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
nil
[Stage Direction]
nil
[Stage Direction]
75
[Stage Direction]
75
[Stage Direction]
100
[Stage Direction]
20
[Stage Direction]
75
[Stage Direction]
95
[Stage Direction]
150
[Stage Direction]
30
[Stage Direction]
75
[Stage Direction]
105
[Stage Direction]
200
[Stage Direction]
40
[Stage Direction]
75
[Stage Direction]
115
[Stage Direction]
250
[Stage Direction]
50
[Stage Direction]
75
[Stage Direction]
125
[Stage Direction]
300
[Stage Direction]
60
[Stage Direction]
75
[Stage Direction]
135
[Stage Direction]
350
[Stage Direction]
70
[Stage Direction]
75
[Stage Direction]
145
[Stage Direction]
375
[Stage Direction]
75
[Stage Direction]
75
[Stage Direction]
150
[Stage Direction]
Adjustment for Age
The size of the earnings-related benefit will not be reduced for people who claim it before age 70, provided they are retired from regular employment. The pension is set at 20 per cent of average earnings, at whatever age it is claimed.
Flat rate pensions drawn before the age of 70, on the other hand, will be reduced by 40 cents for each month between the date when the pension starts and the date of the pensioner's seventieth birthday. For anyone who takes his pension at the earliest opportunity, when he reaches 65, the pension received would be $51. The reduction at ages between 65 and 70 would be proportional to this.
There will be no retirement test for the flat rate pension: a man may start drawing the appropriate rate of pension at any time between his 65th and 70th birthdays, whatever his other earnings. Once he elects to draw his pension he cannot go off pension for a while and then come back on at a higher rate.
At existing wage levels the total pension available to a single person at age 65 will range from $51 to $126 monthly, as indicated in the following table:
Total Pension available to Single Contributor at age 65, by Average Monthly Pensionable Earnings Average
Monthly	Monthly
Pensionable	Pension
Earnings
[Stage Direction]
nil
150
250
350
[Stage Direction]
71
91
111
126
Definition of Retirement
Between ages 65 and 70, the earnings-related benefit will be payable only to people who have retired from regular employment. The test of retirement will be a test of earnings from work. Earnings will consist of all wages and salaries received for services rendered in the year, plus any net earnings and minus any net loss from self employment for the same year.
Deductions will be made from the benefit of a contributor under age 70 if his annual earnings after the benefit becomes payable to him exceed $900 a year, or a proportionate amount if he retires part way through the year. When earnings exceed $900 a year, but
[Stage Direction]
not $1,500, the total benefits for that year will be reduced by one half the excess, except that no benefit will be reduced for any month for which the earnings do not exceed $75.
When earnings exceed $1,500 a year, the benefits for that year will be reduced by $300 (which is one half the difference between $1,500 and $900) plus the earnings in excess of $1,500, except again that no benefit will be reduced for any month for which earnings do not exceed $75. These $75, $900 and $1,500 limits will apply for the first five years of the program, and then will be adjusted as the earnings ceiling is adjusted, to reflect changes in the general level of earnings.
Widows and Widowers
A widow or widower will be entitled, from age 65, to the larger of (a) her or his own earnings-related pension, or (b) 60 per cent of the combined earnings-related pensions of the couple

subject, however, to the maximum which applies at the time to the total pension which may be paid to any one person.
The survivor will of course be entitled to the old age security pension at $75 a month, or at a lesser rate, depending upon the age at which the pension is claimed.
The pension available to a widow will thus be rather more than half the combined pensions of the couple.
This provision will apply equally to a widow or, if a deceased wife had earned income entitling her to a pension, to a widower.
Administration
The Department of National Health and Welfare will administer the Canada pension plan. The contributions under the plan will be collected by the Department of National Revenue. Employers will be responsible for deductions from their employees' earnings and will then remit these deductions monthly, together with their own contributions, to that department. Voluntary participants will make annual payments to the department.
The Department of National Health and Welfare will be responsible for the payment of benefits. The Department of National Revenue will forward to the Department of National Health and Welfare the record of pensionable earnings so that this information can be credited to each individual contributor's account.
The maintenance of the records and the calculation of benefits will be achieved through the use of modern data processing equipment.
The necessary provisions will be made for appeal procedures to ensure that contributors, beneficiaries and employers may have an impartial review of any disputes which may arise in relation to the program.
Authority will be provided to work out reciprocal agreements with other countries, to provide portability of pensions for people who move between countries.
Relation to Other Pension Plans
A great contribution to old age security has been made, and will continue to be made, by the considerable growth of private pension plans, which now cover more than 1,800,000 people in Canada. Not all of these plans, however, provide sizeable pensions, particularly for workers who do not join the plan early in life. Also, since vesting is rarely complete, private plans have operated as a growing restraint on the mobility of labour.
Several provinces are interested in lessening these and other problems connected with private pension plans, particularly by the establishment of rules for portability and solvency. These are, in the view of the federal government, useful steps forward.
However, such proposals for the compulsory extension of private plans do not make possible retirement at an adequate standard for people in their forties to sixties who have not been covered previously. Moreover, self employed people do not have access to such plans.
The Canada pension plan not only provides early benefits but also automatically provides complete portability of pensions for people with earnings up to an average level. It will be available comprehensively and it will quickly provide fair sized pensions to those who retire in the next decade or two. Moreover, it will provide a basic measure of "real" security, because people will be assured of pensions that are related to general earnings levels at the time they retire, not to money incomes which have become out of date.
The plan is designed to meet these needs of the Canadian people while helping to establish a pension system which, through the combination of private, provincial and federal action, will be sound and satisfactory in the long run.
The Adjustment Period
The adjustment of private pension plans to a public program with graduated benefits cannot be altogether easy. However, this does not appear to have been a deterrent to private plans in the United States. Since the American old age, survivors and disability insurance program was established there has continued to be a substantial growth in private pension plans. The number of employees in the United States covered by private pension plans, expressed as a percentage of the wage and salary workers in private industry, rose from 31 per cent in 1954 to 45 per cent in 1961.

The Canada pension plan has been designed to ease as fully as possible the adjustment of private pension plans to the developing public program. Benefits in the early years of the program are at a modest level; contribution rates for the first 15 years will be only 1 per cent, and are expected to rise gradually to 2 per cent after 50 years.
Some employers and employees will no doubt wish to revise existing pension plans by reducing contribution rates approximately in line with their contributions under the Canada pension plan. The ten year transitional period means that such adjustments can be made carefully and gradually.
Economic Progress
In the government's view, the great merit of the Canada pension plan is that it is a social security program which is realistically geared to the growth of the economy. It can help to provide a foundation for other social programs, notably for those who are disabled, for widows with dependent children, and for orphans. In itself, it quickly makes modest pensions available. These benefits will grow until, in ten years, an adequate scale of pensions is available for people of low and moderate incomes. As such incomes grow, with economic progress, the scale will rise in a way which ensures that people who make contributions now can be assured of pensions which will still provide a secure retirement in line with economic conditions at the time.
In the growth of the economy, importance is rightly placed on the role of private pension plans in providing savings to finance investment. All pension arrangements, of course, require payments out to the beneficiaries as well as savings by those who are now working. In a static economy no mature pension plan would be in itself a source of savings; the net saving through private pension plans arises from the growth of the plans as the population increases and income levels rise.
Such growth is of continued importance. The Canada pension plan will provide, on a permanent basis, the scale of pensions for low and moderate incomes which is an appropriate first charge on a society that values the security and dignity of those whose working life is past. But there will remain full scope for private saving about this minimum. The scope will be enlarged with economic progress. The individual, in association in many cases with his employer, will remain responsible for the saving which a rich and growing country needs for its further economic development, and by which more and more people can afford to provide for themselves a truly comfortable retirement.
International Comparisons
Since their inception, pension programs in many countries have changed greatly. Although a number of older systems date back to the late nineteeth century, the majority of the programs were initiated in the decades immediately preceding or following world war II.
The programs in effect in Great Britain and France were extensively revised in 1946 and 1945, respectively. Revisions occurred in the West German program in 1957 and in the Swedish program in 1959.
It is of significance that the programs in Great Britain and Sweden were both revised in 1959 for the purpose of adding graduated benefits to the existing flat rate benefits. Most pension programs now in operation relate the rates of pensions in some way to the pensioners' prior earnings.
The benefits under the Canada pension plan will inevitably be compared with those available under the old age, survivors and disability insurance program in the United States. Set out below are the rates of benefit payable to workers with no dependents but with various average monthly earnings, up to the maximum under the United States program. The minimum pension under the United States program is $40, compared with the flat rate $75 at age 70, or $51 at age 65, in Canada.
Pensions in 1975 if Earnings Levels in Canada Remain Unchanged and if the U.S.
Program is Unchanged
	Canada United States
[Stage Direction]
Average
[Stage Direction]
Benefits
[Stage Direction]
Benefits
[Stage Direction]
Benefits
[Stage Direction]
Monthly
[Stage Direction]
at
[Stage Direction]
at
[Stage Direction]
at age
[Stage Direction]
Earnings
[Stage Direction]
age 70
[Stage Direction]
age 65
[Stage Direction]
65 or 70
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
100
[Stage Direction]
95
[Stage Direction]
71
[Stage Direction]
59
[Stage Direction]
150
[Stage Direction]
105
[Stage Direction]
81
[Stage Direction]
73
[Stage Direction]
200
[Stage Direction]
115
[Stage Direction]
91
[Stage Direction]
84
[Stage Direction]
250
[Stage Direction]
125
[Stage Direction]
101
[Stage Direction]
95
[Stage Direction]
300
[Stage Direction]
135
[Stage Direction]
111
[Stage Direction]
105
[Stage Direction]
375
[Stage Direction]
150
[Stage Direction]
126
[Stage Direction]
121
[Stage Direction]
400
[Stage Direction]
150
[Stage Direction]
126
[Stage Direction]
127
[Stage Direction]
Survivors and Disabled Pensions
A full program of social insurance would provide benefits for survivors and disabled persons who have not reached an age at which benefit would normally be considered an old age pension. Doubts have been expressed whether such benefits are within federal jurisdiction under the existing provisions of the British North America Act. Certainly such programs as now exist for these people are provincially administered. This is, accordingly, a subject which requires further consultation.
[Stage Direction]
The government proposes to establish for the time being its program for retirement pensions with benefits for survivors who are also aged 65 or over. After administrative experience of the operation of the basic plan
has been gained, it will be the intention of the federal government to propose the addition of benefits for widows with dependant children, for orphans, and for disabled people.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 18, 1964