1964-11-17

STANDING ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on standing orders-Mr. Asselin (Notre Dame de Grace).


Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-139, to provide adequate national agricultural credit to the food and agriculture organization (F.A.O. and the Canada pension plan).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


James Norris Ormiston: The objectives of this bill are spelled out in considerable detail in the explanatory note, so in the interests of brevity and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from the first paragraph:
This bill provides for a United Nations cooperative credit union whereby more than 100 nations may buy the food and agricultural products of Canada on term credit: and by so distributing these products, actively contribute toward an expanding world economy, vitally strengthen Canada's position in the food market of the world, and assure a rising standard of living for Canada's farmers, fishermen and forest workers; and, in so far as revolution marches on an empty stomach, contribute to world peace.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is it the intention of the government to greatly extend and increase Canada's aid under the Colombo plan during the current fiscal year? If so, is the minister in a position to make the appropriate announcement prior to the discussion of his estimates?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: I have already made the announcement, on November 14.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister care to tell the house about any increased contribution Canada is going to make by way of foreign aid, particularly through technical assistance programs of the United Nations, as has been announced in the press? Can the minister tell the house whether any steps have been taken by the various nations toward making up for the decision of the United States not to contribute to this program, with a view to seeing to it that the program is not curtailed as a result of the United States withdrawal, temporary though it may be?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: There has been no action taken with regard to the last part of my hon. friend's question. The United States contribution represents about 40 per cent of the total program. The United States has not said it will not irrevocably meet its normal commitment. Yesterday we pledged our contribution totalling some $7,325,000 for 1965. This includes our contribution to the special fund in the amount of $5 million and our contribution to the expanded program for technical assistance which will be at the same level as in 1964, $2,325,000.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since at the moment the United States have not indicated their willingness to contribute, if the remaining nations were to double their contributions this would certainly make up the deficit, and it would not be a very large sum. Is the Canadian government giving any thought to doubling its contribution if the other nations participating are willing to do the same, so this program does not have to be drastically reduced?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not think Canada need be ashamed of the support it has given to this program. Canada, as a close and understanding friend of the United States, is aware of the contribution that country makes to the activities of the United Nations. I cannot believe that the

Inquiries of the Ministry United States will not, in the light of developing situations, continue to be one of the mainstays of the organization.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: As a supplementary question, since the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated in reply to an earlier question of mine that he made an announcement concerning the increase in aid to the Colombo plan countries last Saturday, some place or other, I wonder if the minister could make the announcement in this house as to the extent of the increase in aid?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I did make an announcement in the house on November 14-


Mr. Monteith:: We were not sitting on the 14th.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -November 14, 1963-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -when I outlined a three year program, including the provisions for 1963-64 and 1964-65. I also answered a number of questions along this line which were addressed to me by my hon. friend in the external affairs committee during this session of parliament.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Now that the minister has specified what year he was referring to, is he in a position to give us some indication of the specific amount of the increase in aid to the Colombo plan countries? Can he do that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has perhaps forgotten that on that date, November 14, 1963 I indicated that we were increasing our contribution by some $70 million in general terms. I went into considerable detail on this in the external affairs committee when my hon. friend was present, acting as a very distinguished and able vice chairman.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am sorry to belabour the point, but I have one further question. In view of the minister's circumlocution in this regard could he answer one question? Is an announcement to this effect going to be made to the United Nations within the next week?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says "to the United Nations." The announcement is not made to the United Nations. This program for the developing countries is one provided under recommendations made by the government to this parliament, and has nothing to do with the United Nations as such. My hon. friend is probably confusing 

this with the question asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam which had to do with the technical assistance program of the United Nations, and the UN special fund.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caoueiie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
During the last few hours did he receive any communication from his representative in Africa, the hon. member for Red Beer (Mr. Thompson), who went out there to see if it would not be possible to obtain the release of the Canadian hostages held at Stanleyville?
We read all kinds of reports in newspapers, but we have had no official statement from the minister.
The house would like to know if the minister's ambassador was successful in obtaining the release of the Canadian hostages held in Stanleyville.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Red Deer is dealing with a critical and very important situation. He is doing his utmost, together with representatives of other countries. Unfortunately, the situation is so serious that we have not yet received any very favourable report.
But I may assure the hon. member that our friend is doing his best, and we acknowledge his efforts with pride and gratefulness.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the coming apparent change of attitude of the United States toward China, particularly with reference to recognition of China, does the minister not think now is the time for Canada to take a lead by diplomatically recognizing China and thus put his words into action?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the validity of the premise involved in my hon. friend's question; therefore I could

not usefully answer the remaining part of the question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government prepared to recognize China?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: As I said last week, Mr. Speaker, I dealt with this matter rather fully on May 22, 1964.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since May, 1964, have the circumstances changed? In view of the fact that China now has some knowledge and information about nuclear weapons, has the attitude of the minister or the government changed or remained static since May, 1964?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, these additional factors, to which my hon. friend directs our attention, naturally are playing a part in studies that are current.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that yesterday at the conference in Geneva 17 nations submitted proposals for tariff reductions, when will the proposals that were submitted by Canada be made known to the members of this house?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minisler of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations that began on November 17 by the tabling of offer lists and exceptions lists in Geneva are being carried on in secret, and I hope that until the negotiations are concluded members of this house do not hear about them.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: How long will it be until some of the producers in this country know which products are being offered for tariff reductions?


Mitchell William Sharp: I would hesitate to give a forecast of the length of the negotiations. I think they will extend over a very considerable period, and an announcement will be made when agreement is reached.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Has the minister any reason to believe that these negotiations will succeed if there are no proposals respecting agricultural commodities, the inclusion of which is insisted upon by the United States and France?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we would not be engaging in these negotiations if we did not think they will succeed. The only decision that has been made so far is that of November 16, the suggested reductions in tariffs on industrial products should be tabled by the various participating countries. The question of the reduction on agricultural products has not yet been decided in the sense of the method for negotiation or the tabling of lists, but it is the firm view of Canada and of the United States that these negotiations should cover the full range of the articles in which we are interested.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: do not wish to press the minister to give any information which might injure the negotiations which are going on, but since the European common market countries have already made it known that they have submitted lists of items with regard to which they are not prepared to agree to reductions, and these items constitute 16 per cent of the total, can the hon. gentleman tell us whether Canada has submitted a list of items with respect to which it is not prepared to permit reductions and, if so, what percentage of the total would be involved?


Mitchell William Sharp: As most hon. members know, the form of our participation in these negotiations is different from that of the United States and Europe. We have not agreed to the general formula of a 50 per cent across the board tariff cut; Canada will be making reductions of equivalent value in terms of access to other markets. The form of our list was therefore a positive one. It was not a negative list; it was a list of reductions we are prepared to contemplate on the assumption that the other countries are making a 50 per cent across the board cut without exception. This is one of the reasons it would be most disadvantageous to our bargaining position for any of the present lists to be published; they are merely the opening of negotiations and not necessarily the lists which would be effective when we reach the end of the bargaining.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I appreciate that point, and ask the minister whether he could give the house some idea of the percentage of the total items which would be involved in the positive list which Canada has submitted in respect of which we would be prepared to consider making reductions for equivalent value.

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Sharp: No, I am not in a position to do that, because we are not proposing an across the board cut of equal amount. The list we have submitted is not in that form at all. It is a positive list of reductions we are prepared to make in return for a 50 per cent cut in other countries' tariffs. To ask what proportion is covered is to ask a question which it is impossible to answer in a comparable form.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapoinie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
In view of the position of the Minister of Justice and the rumours which were going round in Montreal over the week end, can he tell us whether he has been in touch with the election organization in his riding and his campaign manager to find out if he was among the Liberal members who allegedly received $1,000 from the S.I.U. and Hal Banks during the last election campaign?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, there is no need fpr me to make an investigation to give a negative answer.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
May I put the same question to the Minister of Industry and Minister of Defence Production? Has he been in touch with his campaign manager to find out if he received $1,000 either from the S.I.U. or Hal Banks?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will put that question on the order paper I will see that it is answered.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Now that we have been supplied with an actuarial statement regarding the Canada pension plan I wonder whether the minister would supply the members of this house with a statement


on the economic report in regard to the Canada pension plan.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend might have made that suggestion during the course of the previous debate on the bill, not at this time. There has never been any suggestion that the economic report would now be brought forward. At present we are at the second reading stage of the bill, dealing with the matter of its principle. The actuarial report was brought forward in order to assist the individuals concerned. We already have had reference to an economic report and some of its findings in the white paper which has been out for some months now. Also, a number of economists are assisting my hon. friend, some of whom are in the other place and who are often in this chamber's gallery.
It seems to me quite reasonable, Mr. Speaker, since we are dealing with a bill at hand and not general matters, and considering that this afternoon there will be an opportunity to hear the Minister of Finance on this point, that all the information necessary will be available without further discussion of the economic report.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A supplementary question to the minister. The minister herself has now suggested that such a report is in existence, and I believe her parliamentary secretary at one time stated that it was in existence and completed. Therefore, because of the broad ramifications of the matter and the broad interest as indicated by the minister, surely this is the proper stage to have this document, not later on.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I will address to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that after second reading the pension plan will be referred to a special committee, would the Prime Minister consider at the same time referring the economic report on the Canada pension plan to the economic council for their study?


Righi Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the economic implications of the plan are referred to in the white paper which my hon. friend has no doubt studied and which the committee can also study. I understand that the Minister of Finance will be making a statement later in the debate, I hope this afternoon, on the economic implications of this plan.


Michael Starr: I would again ask the Prime Minister whether he would consider referring this report to the economic council for their consideration and views.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think that course would serve any useful purpose at this stage, Mr. Speaker.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A further supplementary
question to the minister. I should like to ask her how far she anticipates proceeding with the bill as it is presently before us before prorogation.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Well, Mr. Speaker, we are of course in the hands of the house now. Presupposing-as I hope will be the fact-that approval in principle is given by this house, we will then be in the hands of the committee and it will be up to them how quickly they deal with it'. We will give them all the information they need, as we have indeed given it in this bill. There was more supplementary information given both to this house and to the public about this plan than about any other piece of legislation in history. It is only unfortunate that some of my hon. friends opposite do not read it.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance which the minister has attached to this bill, is it not all the more important that we be given a copy of the economic report? And is there any reason in the world why we, as the House of Commons, should not receive that economic report before this matter is referred to the committee?



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Postmaster General. It is prompted by the fact that an additional gasoline tax has been imposed in the province of Manitoba, thus imposing great hardship on mail contractors using trucks. Has the minister given instructions for an upward revision of these mail contracts to take care of the gasoline tax increase in the province of Manitoba?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I hardly think that the effect of the taxes of the different provinces on postal contracts is a question for the orders of the day.
Inquiries of the Ministry


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the Postmaster General is quite prepared to answer and could have answered the question. If I put it on the order paper it will bog down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest that the hon. member do put it on the order paper.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Could he tell me if his department intends to proceed this year with the deepening of both the Mille lies and Back rivers?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely there is no great urgency that would require a reply at this time on orders of the day. Would the hon. member put his question on the order paper.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that I had given notice of my question to the minister and he is willing to reply.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the fact that there is a great disparity between the welfare payments made by the various provinces and the welfare payments made by the Indian affairs branch, will the minister undertake to guarantee that the Indian affairs branch welfare payments will be raised to a level equal to those paid by the provinces, in order that by means of higher welfare payments the provincial governments will not entice native Indians to come under provincial plans when they may not desire to do so?


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

Inquiries of the Ministry CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION



REMOVAL FROM CITIZENSHIP COURTS OF PORTRAITS OF QUEEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders ol the day:
["Mr. Speaker, I shall note what the hon. member has stated. A decision as to the business of the house will be made by the usual methods, which may involve consultation with the various party house leaders. I hope to make an announcement at ten o'clock."]
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Will he now table in the house the instructions issued under his authority to the citizenship courts to remove portraits of Her Majesty the Queen, and at the same time will he give the house an explanation of his unprecedented and unwarranted action?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the right hon. Leader of the Opposition had the courage to make charges against the government about this yesterday, at a press conference, I do not feel it would be proper for me to reply in his absence, and I would very much like him to be in his seat when I do give him my answer.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in order to see whether the government's courage is on the same level as that expressed by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, would the President of the Privy Council as house leader tell us whether we can have the estimates of the Department of External Affairs on Thursday, in order to dispel the web of obfuscation so ably woven by the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to Canada's position concerning a number of aspects of international relations?


An hon. Member:: Come on. Where is the courage?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Where is the courage on Banks, too?


Hon.  G. J. Mc@: Mr. Speaker, it is usual to announce the business at the conclusion of the day's sitting, and I will be glad to announce Thursday's business tonight.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question
IMr. Speaker.]
to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the time is fast approaching when the United Nations will be meeting officially, could the minister advise the house whether he expects his estimates will be studied before that meeting, so the official delegates and parliamentary observers from Canada will learn the opinions of the house, prior to the meeting of the United Nations, on some of the important matters which undoubtedly will have to be discussed there?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to speak to the house leader about this.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as house leader. Will arrangements be made for the estimates of the Department of External Affairs to be brought before the house prior to the meeting of the United Nations, so the opinions of the house can be conveyed to the official delegates and the parliamentary observers on the important matters that are bound to come before the United Nations?


Hon.  G. J. Mc@: Mr. Speaker, I shall note what the hon. member has stated. A decision as to the business of the house will be made by the usual methods, which may involve consultation with the various party house leaders. I hope to make an announcement at ten o'clock.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Has the minister anything to report or can he say what action is being taken in relation to a serious attempt which I understand was made yesterday to damage or destroy the federal building in Flin Flon, Manitoba, by the placing of some 14 to 16 sticks of powder with fuse attached in the mail depository box?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the incident was brought to my attention within a very short time after it occurred, and it is under active investigation by the police and the other authorities.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has he or has the government given any further consideration to the suggestion I made on July 17, which he said might involve government policy, that an independent appeal board similar to the courtmartial appeal boards in the armed forces should be set up for the hearing of cases such as the one in Montreal that is under the minister's consideration at the moment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Surely this is a question for the order paper. There is no pressing urgency.


Erik Nielsen: May I respectfully submit that the urgency lies in the treatment of the human, individual and private rights of members of the R.C.M.P. I suggest that any matter involving treatment of an individual, whether he is a member of the R.C.M.P. or otherwise, is surely a matter for urgent consideration. I think the minister has given consideration to such a procedure, and I am simply asking him whether any progress has been made in setting up such a board, which I feel to be an urgent matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe we have had this subject before the chamber on several occasions in the last two weeks, so there is not that degree of urgency that the hon. member alleges. Furthermore, the minister has said that he has the matter under observation and consideration and will in due course make a statement. For all these reasons and many more may I suggest this is a question for the order paper.


Erik Nielsen: I serve notice that I wish to debate the matter at ten o'clock.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It has to do with the offer of $475 million in government bonds designed to redeem some $645 million in bonds falling due December 1 and December 15. Can the minister say whether the Bank of Canada holds any of
Inquiries of the Ministry the bonds to be redeemed and, if so, how many?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in the first place the bonds to be redeemed on the 1st and 15th of December total $465 million, not some $645 million. I will be glad to look into the matter and advise my hon. friend tomorrow.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES-PROPOSED TIE TO COST OF LIVING INDEX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister?
Since we are now considering a national pension plan related to the cost of living, would the Prime Minister tell us whether the government intends to introduce soon an amendment to the Family Allowances Act so that they might also be increased according to the cost of living index? Will such an amendment be introduced in 1964?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is a matter of financial policy which cannot be answered on orders of the day.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister now in a position to inform the house whether negotiations have been completed for the establishment of an Air Canada service from Halifax to Bermuda?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Obviously at this time of the year this is a very important and even necessary question, but it is a question for the order paper.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. This matter is of very great importance from the point of view of trade and has been under consideration for some period of time, I understand.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I will raise the matter at ten o'clock.

Inquiries of the Ministry WATER RESOURCES ELLIOT LAKE, ONT.-REPORTED RADIOACTIVE POLLUTION
On the orders of the day:


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Does he intend to make a statement on water pollution by the uranium mining interests?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have already been in communication with hon. members who asked this question yesterday to explain that while I have the information, I got the last report just before I came into the house. I should like to study it and make a statement tomorrow.



LAKE HURON-ACTION RESPECTING PREDICTED DROP IN WATER LEVEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Loney (Bruce):: My question is directed to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is the minister aware of the recent statement by the United States engineers predicting a further drop of two feet in the water level of lake Huron? If so what action, if any, is the minister's department taking?


Mr. Speaker:: If I am not mistaken this question was asked either this week or last week. While it is a very serious question, nevertheless it certainly is a question for the order paper.



FRASER RIVER-REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT ON TRIFURCATION PLAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Public Works when we can expect an announcement regarding the Fraser river trifurcation plan, which has been under study by his department for some time.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I think the appropriate time would be when the study of my estimates is resumed, which I hope will be very soon.



LABOUR CONDITIONS

[Stage Direction]
POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE-ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT FOR WORKERS On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Associate Minister of National Defence. Will the minister report to the house any progress
[Mr. Regan.)

in the alternative work program that was established to help replace men in work who were laid off at the Point Edward naval base?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there is not very much I can add to what I have already said. The Swansea was supposed to have been completed; then I understand two auxiliary vessels were to be refurbished between now and the beginning of March.


Malcolm MacInnis: The minister says he cannot add anything to what he has already said. He has already said nothing. I would like to know what are his intentions with regard to the older workers, especially those over 60 years of age, whose employment has been terminated and for whom nothing has been done.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The department has done everything it possibly can to replace the people laid off at the Point Edward naval base and other bases coming under the department. There has been a considerable amount of success in doing this, and our efforts are not completed.


Malcolm MacInnis: As a further supplementary question, the minister has indicated that there has been a considerable amount of success. Would the minister name one man or rather one position that has been filled by somebody laid off at that base?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



APPLICATION OF WINTER BONUS TO SUMMER COTTAGE CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Order. This is a question which is far too wide in scope for an hon. member to expect to receive an answer at this time.']
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour, even though he is absent.
Can the minister tell us whether it is a fact that the $500 bonus for winter housing can also be applied to summer cottages, as mentioned in some newspaper advertisements at present?
tText]


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I shall bring this question to the attention of the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence-


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Labour has just resumed his seat it would perhaps be normal to allow the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise) to ask his question anew?


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I proceed, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think it would be in order for this question to be put again.
I did not get the gist of it myself and perhaps the hon. member who was listening did not, either.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the Minister of Labour.
Could the minister tell us whether it is true that the $500 bonus granted for winter housing construction is also applicable to summer cottages, as mentioned lately in certain newspaper advertisements?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question for the order paper, surely. The hon. member for Megantic.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I proceed with my question now after all these interruptions from the floor?


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


Gérard Laprise: Those advertisements which are published in the newspapers at the present time can lead to confusion and I think it is important that we get an immediate answer in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps it is my fault, perhaps it is not. In any event, let us solve the difficulty by calling upon the hon. member for Megantic and then the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I respectfully raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was recognized and started to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. I was interrupted by a point of order raised by the hon. member for Villeneuve-I am sorry, the hon. member for Lapointe. Surely, I should have the opportunity of asking my question now.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, I have assumed full and adequate responsibility for the mistake,
Inquiries of the Ministry so I still intend to recognize the hon. member for Megantic.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since this is NATO week in Paris, and in the light of reports last night to the effect that President de Gaulle of France had taken a special stand on nuclear forces while Prime Minister Wilson was taking an opposite stand, what is Canada's position?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a question which is far too wide in scope for an hon. member to expect to receive an answer at this time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence with regard to the removal of the Irish regiment from the order of battle. What representations to retain that regiment on the order of battle have been made to the minister by members of parliament from Toronto?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: There have been a number of representations, Mr. Speaker. Practically all the Liberal members from Toronto have spoken to me about the Irish regiment, and their pride in this great regiment is understandable. I have, of course, taken their representations under advisement. I regret as much as anyone else that this great regiment, along with some others, must be placed on the supplementary order of battle.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Cam-rose):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the minister has stated that the student loans measure is being administered successfully, would he care to comment on the ramifications of the federal-provincial student loans conference which took place yesterday in the west block?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Lockhart Gordon: There has been a meeting-not the one to which my hon. friend refers- over the last two or three days, of all the provincial authorities who have been administering this bill with the federal officials. I hope to have a full report on it before the week is over, at which time I will make a full report to the house.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose in regard to the student loan fund. Can the minister say whether the confusion in the administration of this fund that has existed in southern Ontario, particularly in the city of Toronto, is the fault of the administrator, who I believe was previously his executive assistant?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I do not accept the premise to the question, and in the second place the suggestion is completely wrong. As my hon. friend should know, the administration of these loans is the responsibility of the provincial governments and-


Eric Alfred Winkler: Who is the administrator?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Conservative government in Queen's Park.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not want to mention names, except to suggest that the one my hon. friend was alluding to was not among them to the best of my knowledge.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew South):: In the
absence of the Minister of Agriculture I shall direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the very grievous and pressing drought condition that exists in the Ottawa valley, I wonder if the Department of Agriculture contemplates any emergency legislation to cover the hardship which is being suffered by the farmers of Renfrew county.


Mr. Speaker:: This is a very important question, we all admit, but it is not the type of question which should be asked, it seems to me, on orders of the day.


John James Greene: With respect, Mr. Speaker, this question is current and it is causing hardship at the moment. I give notice that I am going to debate it at ten o'clock.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Prime Minister if he would look into the situation in the Renfrew area where cattle are suffering from drought and farmers are being forced to sell them. Could he make a report today?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I looked into it and I think the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture has a statement to make on it.


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the government, of course, is always interested in the hardships imposed by virtue of drought and other conditions. On July 20 the government authorized the Minister of Agriculture to enter into agreements with the provinces whereby the federal government would share with the provinces the cost of the moving of fodder and the moving of cattle to market. On August 14 this agreement was entered into with the province of Ontario, and on October 26 with the government of Quebec.


Eric Alfred Winkler: As a
supplementary question, when the parliamentary secretary is dealing with this question later in the day would he also deal with the drought of income that farmers in eastern Canada are experiencing?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, on November 9, I directed a question to the Prime Minister respecting the disaster situation involving feeder cattle in western Canada. In view of the situation now existing in eastern Canada could the Prime Minister tell us whether the government is going to bring forward legislation to try to cope with this situation that faces the farmers of the country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, the government's legislative intentions will be made known in due course.


Edward Nasserden: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Would he bear in mind that "in due course" might be too late for those suffering this disaster?

Canada Pension Plan


Mr. Pickersgill:: That was too late even for an interjection.



CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN GERMAN TRANSPORT EXHIBITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister indicate to the house whether Canada will have an exhibit at the world transport exhibition to be held in Germany next year?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this is a question for the order paper. There is not that pressing urgency in connection with this matter.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, my reason for asking this question is that I understand the time for applications is about due to expire. The suggestion has been made that Canada would be represented at this exhibition, which encompasses all phases of transportation.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanlay Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Is he in a position to make any reply to the question I asked him yesterday regarding the dispute between Canadian Aviation Electronics in Winnipeg and the U.A.W.?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I have made some inquiries in Ottawa and elsewhere, and I am glad to report that a meeting has been arranged on Thursday next between the management and the union concerned with a view to resolving this dispute.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the fact that we are being invaded by American broadcasting, especially at night, a fact which imposes restrictions on Canadian stations, does the government intend to ask the board of broadcast governors to review some Canadian licences so that Canadian stations may have the same broadcasting power, not only during the day but also in the evening?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Sir, I would like to think about that question before answering it.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REPORTED STATEMENT BY QUEBEC PREMIER ON PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could he tell the house whether the federal government intends to accede to the request of the premier of the province of Quebec who has advocated, in Toronto, a special regime for Quebec and a larger degree of autonomy for the provinces in general?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No such request has been made.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, November 16, consideration of the motion of Miss LaMarsh for the second reading of Bill No. C-136, to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions and supplementary benefits in Canada payable to and in respect of contributors.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: There are many matters which could be discussed on the second reading of this bill, but what we are really deciding now on second reading are not questions of detail. In normal circumstances we would be deciding whether or not to accept the principle or principles of the bill.
In this particular case we are presented with an unusual situation. After second reading the measure before us is to be referred to a special committee of this house and of the Senate where the whole subject of the pension plan is to be considered not only in detail but in principle. This committee, when

Canada Pension Plan
it starts its work, will have unusually broad powers if we accept the statements of the Prime Minister in this regard, and the indications given in the correspondence which has been filed.
Earlier this year I requested certain information in motion No. 101, and this information was filed in sessional paper No. 202G of May 8, 1964. It consisted of letters and telegrams sent by the Prime Minister, as well as statements made by him, outlining the duties of the committee it was intended to set up. I should like to mention two of these documents in particular because they give a clear indication of the government's intentions with regard to the work of the committee. The first is a letter sent from Ottawa and dated March 4, 1964. It is addressed to a Mr. Higgins whose address is given. In the course of this letter the Prime Minister makes the following statement:
The committee will have full power to hear the advice of interested organizations and to make any recommendations, of principle as well as of detail, concerning a pension plan-including, indeed, the recommendation if it so wishes that the plan as proposed should be fundamentally revised.
There was a second letter, also from Ottawa, dated February 22, 1964 and sent to a Mr. Mitchell, and I should like to quote from this as well. Incidentally, both these letters are signed by the Prime Minister. It says:
The committee will have full power to hear the advice of interested organizations and to make any recommendations, of principle as well as of detail, concerning a pension plan-including, indeed, the recommendation if it so wished that the plan as proposed should be fundamentally revised.
There are a number of other letters to the same effect, but I think the idea is clearly expressed in those two quotations; that this bill, when it goes to the committee, will be examined not only in detail but fundamentally. It seems to me therefore that all we have to decide in this house at the present time is whether or not a pension plan is desirable. While we may discuss many other things on second reading, the extremely broad powers given to the committee leave us with this single question to be decided. The effective date, the amount of contributions and payments, whether this is to be a pay as you go or a funded plan, the question of who would be included or excluded, are all, I believe, still subject to revision at the hands of the special committee.
With this in mind I should like to proceed to deal with another topic, one which concerns the time element the committee will

have to face. We now have before us a bill of 125 clauses as compared to the 88 clauses of the previous bill. It is admittedly a complex measure whose effects will reach far into the future. The bill itself was only made public in its revised form a very few days ago. There are many organizations, both public and private, which wish to study the legislation in its new form and appear before the committee for the purpose of making recommendations.
I can hardly believe that the committee will be able to complete its hearings by the end of the present session or in the four or five weeks which are left ahead of us. If it tries to do so it will be doing an inefficient and incomplete job. I believe many of the organizations to which I have referred would require many weeks to examine the bill, discuss its implications and prepare briefs for presentation to the committee. It seems to me that the government has allowed itself to get into a time problem, but this should not be permitted to derogate from the importance of the bill itself. I hope, therefore, that the government does not expect the committee to rush the bill through in the course of the current session.
Arrangements will have to be made, I think, in one of two ways. Either there should be provision for the committee to carry on its work during the next session or, alternatively, the government should arrange for the bill to be renewed at the beginning of the next session. Members of the committee could proceed now to hold preliminary discussions and hear explanations by departmental officials until the end of the current session. Then by agreement the bill could be renewed at the beginning of next session when the same committee could be set up to carry on the work which had been interrupted. I do not think we should ask or expect the special committee to finish its work during the present session.
I should like now to discuss a technical problem in connection with the special committee. We have set up a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, and I think there will be no great difficulty with respect to the members of this house who have been chosen. The bill will have had its second reading in this house and will have been referred to the committee.
But I should like to ask this question. What is the position of the members of that committee who come from the Senate? They will be considering a bill which will not even have been introduced into the other place, let

alone given approval in principle. The procedure now being followed assumes that the Senate will give second reading to the bill, and I think that is assuming a great deal. What will be the position of a senator who sits on this committee and takes part in a complete revision and overhaul of the bill before us as a result of which a report is made to the House of Commons? Where will he stand when the bill comes up in the Senate? Where will the Senate itself stand if a majority of its members does not agree with the work done by the committee of which representatives from the other place formed a part? They will have considered the form, the effect and the detail of the bill before ever having discussed or passed upon the principle.
There is a more practical aspect involved. To whom will the joint committee report? I assume it will report to the House of Commons, after which I suppose the measure will be considered in committee by the whole house and read the third time. But the committee could not send its first report to the other place because, first of all, the senators do not have the bill before them and in the second place they will not be set up for the purpose of reporting. I ask, if questions are raised in the other place on second reading, does the bill go back to the joint committee again?
These are not just rhetorical questions, Mr. Speaker, or raising difficulties; I see this as a real difficulty with regard to the procedure that has been adopted. No matter how you go about it there is this assumption that the other place is going to go along with whatever the House of Commons does and whatever its committee recommends. I assume that the gentlemen in the other place will have something to say about this, but I believe it should be said here also; because there is a serious problem involved in the assumption that the Senate will be automatic in their concurrence in the principle of this bill. We certainly know there are gentlemen in the other place who have very serious doubts about the whole question of priorities, as have some hon. members in this house, and we will not have had the opportunity of testing that opinion in the other place before we go into the special committee.
There is another matter, Mr. Speaker, that has already been raised briefly. It is also a technical problem and relates to the provisions for amendment of the act. I refer to the provision that requires two thirds of the provinces having two thirds of the population
Canada Pension Plan
to be consulted and approve of any change in the bill. This bill is a simple enactment of the parliament of Canada. It requires no approval by any of the provinces because by an amendment to the British North America Act they have given this parliament power to legislate on questions of pensions, survivor benefits and disability allowances. Therefore it requires no consent for its passage; it requires no consent for its repeal.
I think it is a well understood principle that no parliament can bind a future parliament in this way. I suggest that if the government wants to make it binding on future parliaments that the provinces must be consulted and must agree to amendments to this bill, that would have to be done by way of approval of an agreement between the federal government and the provincial governments. By this means an agreement would be ratified which would become binding on future parliaments and would be effective in the event that this is a desirable provision. But as it now stands I think the inclusion of this particular provision is worthless and empty, because I see no reason why next year or in any future session of parliament this particular section of the bill could not be repealed and there would be no need to consult any of the provinces to so repeal it. I believe it is merely a unilateral declaration of intention and nothing else.
But, Mr. Speaker, going beyond the mere form of the amending principle, we have to ask whether such a restriction is desirable; that is, that the parliament of Canada would be unable, if it so desired, to amend an act of parliament which had not had the approval of another legislative body. I presume that the objective is portability; that this is written into the bill in order that there may be some evenness in pension legislation across the country so that before the federal parliament makes amending provisions the provinces shall have been consulted and shall have agreed. If that is the intention I do not believe that result is achieved, because the section only affects those provinces which will be in the plan and specifically, as I understand it now in any case, it will not include the province of Quebec. So if the desire is to deal with the question of portability, surely we cannot accomplish it by merely requiring the consent of two thirds of the provinces having two thirds of the population. Since Quebec is not in the plan it would not have to be consulted, and the whole question of portability across the country would be thrown out of gear very simply.

Canada Pension Plan
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if it is portability that is desired by this clause, it cannot be achieved in this manner. If it is a case of the contributions being agreed to by the provinces, I cannot see that having the agreement of two thirds of the provinces with two thirds of the population will achieve this result either; you are still going to have a number of the provinces which presumably do not agree but are going to be forced into this position. Therefore it is not going to be a general agreement across the country at all; it is merely going to be a majority decision. For this reason I cannot, personally, see that the effect has been legally achieved in the bill that we have before us; and second, even if it could be, I doubt whether it is a desirable provision and whether it will achieve the result that the draftsmen of the bill have suggested. I think it fails on all these grounds. While that is not a good reason for rejecting the bill, I think it is a question which deserves very serious consideration in the committee.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, there are many questions which have to be asked about the effect and detail of this bill. We do not have, for example, the economic report which has been requested concerning the effect of the bill. The fact that the minister is keeping this report for the committee strengthens my belief and contention that the committee has basic powers of amendment or rejection in principle; because if the committee is to consider the economic effect of this pension plan on the country as a whole, surely the committee is considering the principle of the bill and the question of whether a pension plan of the magnitude that is now proposed is really desirable.
I think a large number of things have been done backwards in this bill. I think the committee will have trouble with it, and that there will be technical difficulties as between the Senate and House of Commons members of the committee. I think it is not in accordance with the basic fundamentals of the scheme that the economic effect of the pension plan should be studied by the committee. Surely this should normally be done on second reading, when we are discussing the principle of the bill.
Therefore I take the view, as do I think all my colleagues, that on second reading we are falling short of what should be decided in consideration of a public bill. Rather we are deciding, as in the case of private bills which come before the house, the mere question whether or not this is a bill which ought
(Mr. Aiken.]
to be given consideration. On that ground alone there could be no objection to this course. If any limitations were imposed on the committee I think we would have the right to insist on more complete discussion on second reading; but with the complete freedom of the committee to consider the whole problem, including the economic effects of the bill, I believe that most of these questions can be left until the bill has gone to the committee.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, we have before us one of the major pieces of social legislation in Canada's history. It is a pleasure and a privilege for me, as I am sure it is for other hon. members, to be in a position to support it wholeheartedly.
The objective of the Canada pension plan can be stated quite simply. It will provide the community with a means by which the people who are working can assist, or support, those who are no longer able to do so. The Canada pension plan will assure those who are unable to work, the aged and the disabled, that they can live in decency and dignity.
A secondary result of the Canada pension plan will be the accumulation of funds for many years at least, which will be available for pressing social capital needs. Everyone recognizes the urgency of making available more technical and vocational schools, more hospitals, greater urban redevelopment schemes, expanded street and highway systems, and more university buildings. All these are the responsibility of provincial and municipal governments, and these governments will be greatly assisted by the accumulation of capital which will become available as a by-product of this social security scheme.
The Canada pension plan is a logical culmination of one of the major social trends evident in any industrialized society. This is the trend toward the maintenance of separate family units for each generation in the family. In rural societies, in more traditional societies, older people or those who for some reason or other are unable to work are cared for by the immediate family, usually in the home of that family. But as the community becomes more industrialized and the family becomes less of an economic unit, we have seen a trend away from this kind of social organization. It is true that many older people remain with their families or are assisted by them; but I think it is fair to say that most older people now come to be supported by other means. One of these is charity; another

takes the form of social aid provided by the state, including, in Canada, the old age security scheme; and still another is the provision of retirement benefits by pension or annuity plans.
But this mixed approach has not been adequate; indeed it has become increasingly unacceptable to the Canadian community. Even now only about 30 per cent of the labour force is covered by private pension plans, and some of these plans provide very small pensions indeed. Social aid is an important adjunct of these plans but the community has never really been satisfied that this is the appropriate form of assistance for people who are no longer able to work. The same is true of charitable support.
Consequently there has developed over the years a growing insistence that a comprehensive public pension plan be developed to meet the basic retirement needs of all Canadians. In 1927 the Canadian government began paying old age pensions on the basis of need, and in 1952 it established the old age security scheme for all people over 70 and began to contribute toward the support of people between the ages of 65 and 70 who were in need.
The Canada pension plan is the logical next step in the provision of a national pension plan. It will provide Canadians with an adequate retirement pension, not one which will finance a high standard of living but a reasonably adequate one. It will remain for the private pension plans to supplement the basic pensions paid through the Canada pension plan; their contribution will be to bring the standard of living of retired people up to the level they want, or have been able to provide through their other savings.
Now I shall say only a brief word about the secondary result which the Canada pension plan will achieve. Everyone recognizes the urgency of Canada's social capital needs, and I think there is a general consensus-I hope there is-that there should be a greater flow of capital in the direction of education, transportation, health and urban development. There is no suggestion that the plan should be fully funded, but in a pension plan which has reasonable contribution rates and which has a transitional period during which pension benefits are built up to their ultimate level there will be some accumulation of capital funds. These funds will be made available to the governments which are responsible for financing the various pressing social capital needs to which I have referred.
Canada Pension Plan
Hon. members on both sides of the house look forward, I am sure, to the introduction of this truly national pension plan. It will be a tribute to federal-provincial co-operation and a manifestation of national unity. In fact the plan in its present form was agreed to with the interests of national unity uppermost in mind. Canadians or their survivors in all provinces will receive exactly the same benefits on retirement or disability. They will be able to move from one province to another with complete freedom; in other words, there will be the kind of portability that my hon. friend was questioning just a few minutes ago. This in itself is an important and necessary factor in the preservation of our national unity.
There are, of course, opponents of the Canada pension plan. They have attacked it on a number of grounds. One of these is that it will discourage thrift, that everyone should provide their own pensions through their own savings. The point which these opponents miss, it seems to me, is that everyone will be doing this under the Canada pension plan in considerable measure, only they will not be doing it through private channels. Each generation while working will be contributing to the pensions of retired people, and in return the next generation will contribute to their pensions when they retire. This is simply a different method, and it seems to me a very sensible one, for an individual to provide for his retirement.
What these opponents of this plan really mean, I think, is that they would like to see these pensions provided not by governments but through privately controlled financial institutions. The truth is, however, that private pension plans cannot do what public plans can do, provide for the kind of intergeneration transfers which I have mentioned. Moreover, a large percentage of Canadians have been unable or have felt unable to provide adequately for their retirement through private plans.
But the main criticism advanced against the Canada pension plan, and the one I should like to discuss for a few minutes, is that Canada cannot afford it. I have often wondered what these critics mean when they say we cannot afford this plan. I am sure they cannot be suggesting that the younger generation should not be asked to contribute toward the retirement of older people, that the younger people cannot afford to do this, on the understanding, of course, that succeeding generations will contribute to their retirement. For it is surely possible, given the

Canada Pension Plan
standard of living that most working Canadians enjoy, for a working man to contribute for this purpose $1.80 a month for each $100 he earns over the basic $50 exemption, subject of course to the built-in maximum.
I suggest it is rather more likely that the critics do not really mean that we cannot afford the plan; rather they are predicting that its consequences would be to weaken the economy and to make all Canadians poorer.


An hon. Member:: Is there a difference?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If my hon. friend will wait a moment I will carry on and perhaps I will convince him, but I know his point of view and I am not so sure of that. For our part, we believe that Canadians can afford the plan if they want to, and we believe that the great majority of Canadians do want to. It is of course a question of personal priorities. In the opinion of members on this side of the house provision for our older generation is entitled to a high priority.
Let me describe the essence of the plan in economic terms. I think this can best be done by speaking of it as it will be when the benefits come to equal the contributions. This is the position we likely will be in some 20 years from now. The figures I will be using will refer to the estimated aggregate effect of the Canada pension plan as it would operate in nine provinces, plus the Quebec plan which will be virtually identical to the Canada plan.
When benefits come to equal contributions, income will simply be transferred from the active members of the labour force to those who are retired, as far as employee contributions are concerned. This transfer should lead to an increase in consumer demand since retired people need to spend and do spend an even larger proportion of their pensions than working people do of their wages. To the extent that this happens we will have provided the kind of floor to consumer expenditures which is desirable in a growing economy.
The consequence of higher levels of consumer expenditures is, of course, a relative reduction in personal savings. This is true to the extent that the active working people reduce their savings as a result of having made pension plan contributions. The effect of this must not be exaggerated, however. Total individual contributions in 1966 will be about one eighth of personal savings, that is, about 12J per cent. It would be surprising indeed if personal savings were to be reduced by as much as 5 per cent of what they would

have been were the Canada pension plan not in effect.
In the long run, that is, after the initial adjustments, it is highly unlikely that the rate of personal saving will be reduced at all. Certainly this has not been the case in other countries which have introduced social security schemes. In Canada the rate of personal saving has remained roughly unchanged despite the introduction of old age pensions, family allowances and other social security measures.
As for the consequences of the employer contributions, the adjustments required of the business community are not as great as some people have suggested. Business costs will, of course, increase. But the increase will not be substantial. Indeed I would guess that it will not amount to more than 1 per cent of payrolls. I point out that the contribution rate of 1.8 per cent does not apply to incomes below $600 or to those above $5,000. The effective average rate will be about 1 per cent. When you compare this one time 1 per cent increase in business payrolls-I repeat this is only a one time 1 per cent increase- with the repeated average annual increases in wages amounting to 3 or 4 per cent of payroll, which we have seen in recent years, you can only conclude that this will be a relatively minor adjustment. Moreover, increases in productivity normally enable business to absorb the higher costs without raising prices.
I freely acknowledge, however, that the pension plan contributions must in the short run be absorbed either by a reduction in profits or by price increases or by the negotiation of smaller wage increases than would otherwise have been granted. But again I must emphasize the magnitudes involved. The whole of the employers' contributions will not exceed 4 per cent of estimated profits after taxes and I simply do not believe that all of these contributions will be absorbed through reductions in profits.
Some businesses will pass on this cost. Where they did so through higher prices, total real consumption would rise at a slower rate, thus offsetting in part the increase in consumer demand brought about by higher pensions. The same effect would be felt if, instead of price increases, wage increases were restrained. But let me remind hon. members again of the magnitudes involved. The whole of employer contributions to the Canada pension plan, including the Quebec plan, will likely be only about one half of 1 per cent of the gross national product in 1966.

This leads me to say a word about our international competitive position. The government is very much aware of the role that the improvement in our international position has played in our present expansion. We have done this in part through maintaining relative price and cost stability while the price levels of our overseas competitors have been rising. In these circumstances our export and import competing industries will surely be in a position to absorb the minor increases in costs which I have just outlined.
So far I have been talking largely about the economic effects of the Canada pension plan when the benefits come to equal contributions, that is to say, the long term effect. The difference between this and the short run can be simply stated. Instead of the whole of the contributions being transferred to retired people, part of them will remain in the Canada pension fund, a large part in the early years of the plan. The economic question here is what happens to these funds.
The transfer in 1966 of some $550 million to $600 million, including Quebec, from individuals and businesses to public pension funds would, on the face of it, seem to have deflationary consequences. However, one must trace through all of the economic results in order to perceive the true effect of the transfer. For the apparent deflationary consequences will be offset by three factors: the reduction in government revenues that flows from deducting pension contributions from taxable income, the extent to which private savings have simply been transferred into public hands, and the effect that increased availability of loan capital may have on provincial and municipal capital spending. I should like to elaborate on each of these factors.
First, it must be recognized that the $550 million to $600 million that will be paid into public pension funds in 1966 is not the true measure of the extent to which private purchasing power will have been reduced. One must deduct from this figure the reduction in taxes that would otherwise have been payable by the individuals and businesses concerned. It is estimated that in 1966 individuals and businesses will reduce their tax payments to the federal and provincial governments by approximately $100 million as a result of charging their pension contributions against their taxable income.
Second, it must be recognized that a part of the public pension funds will represent simply a transfer of private savings to public savings. Put another way, we can expect that
20220-643J
Canada Pension Plan
in the short run there will be a slight reduction in the private savings in favour of the savings which will flow into public pension funds.
It is clearly impossible, as I said earlier, to estimate the magnitude of this effect on private savings, but to the extent that private savings are replaced by public savings the deflationary effect of the introduction of the public pension plans will be reduced.
The third factor to which I earlier referred is the possibility, perhaps I should say the probability, that provincial and municipal governments would increase capital spending as a result of the availability of more loan capital. The need for schools, urban development and redevelopment, highways and streets and other important categories of expenditure, is so great that this result is entirely possible. Indeed it has been represented to us, and to previous governments, that provinces and municipalities have been hampered in undertaking social capital projects by a shortage of loan capital. If in fact these governments do respond to the availability of capital in the pension funds by increasing their capital expenditures, then there will be a smaller adjustment for the economy to make than would otherwise have been anticipated.
There is another point that should be mentioned, and that is the effect the plan may have on the level of interest rates. To the extent that private savings are not reduced by the full extent of the new public savings, or to put this another way, to the extent that aggregate savings increase, one would reasonably anticipate a reduction in interest rates. This would tend to result in higher public and private investment, the magnitude of which is impossible to predict. This would be a further offset to the deflationary effect of the accumulation of the funds.
It will be apparent to hon. members from this analysis that any deflationary effect of the Canada pension plan in its present form will be far less than might appear at first glance. In contrast, the deflationary effects of a fully funded plan, as originally advocated by some people, would have been very serious indeed. If I have the time, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a further word at the conclusion of these remarks about the kind of results that might have flowed from this fully funded plan.
Inevitably there will be social and economic changes resulting from the introduction of the Canada pension plan. But these must be considered in the perspective of a rapidly expanding economy. It will be the respon-

Canada Pension Plan
sibility of government to ensure that the rate of growth of the Canadian economy is not interrupted.
I should like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that our thinking has been based on two major premises. The first is that concern for older people is a valid and a high priority. The second is that an economy which is growing rapidly, as ours is and has the capacity to do, can easily make the adjustments that are required in order to give effect to this concern. The evidence supports this view. It cannot be said that the Canada pension plan will seriously impair the capability of businesses to generate new funds for expansion, or distort the structure of costs and prices, or impair the country's international competitive standing. Nor is there any evidence that social insurance programs of this nature inevitably cause a slowdown in economic growth. We are fortunate that the Canadian economy, and the Canadian people are capable of paying adequate pensions to older people. This is a noble endeavour in which all of us should be pleased to participate.
If I have a moment or two longer, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a further word about the original proposal of a fully funded plan. A fully funded plan would, of course, be one in which the initial contribution rate would be good for all time. I have indicated why such complete funding would not be good economics in a nation-wide plan. The partially funded plan that is proposed is, I believe, quite reasonable. It has, of course, the implications which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) pointed out yesterday. Since we do not have complete funding, the time will come when the contribution rate may have to be raised. When that time will be, no one who understands the uncertainties of these matters will claim to be able to predict exactly. What we can say is that, at the contribution rate proposed, this plan will continue to generate funds-the income from contributions and interest on investments will exceed the outgo in contributions-for at least 20 years. That is true on even the most conservative of the chief actuary's estimates. All of those estimates are designed to avoid the danger of underestimating the cost of the plan. It is quite possible, even within the fairly conservative range of estimates, that the fund will go on growing into the 1990's. In other words, it will be fully a generation hence, perhaps more than that, before our successors have to decide to what extent they want to

continue partial funding of the plan. Obviously they will make that decision according to economic circumstances which none of us can now claim to predict. The one thing we can say is that, even at that point, the change in contribution rate that may be made 20, 25 or 30 years from now is not likely to be a big increase. That, again, is true even on the conservative projections of the cost. If those projections should turn out to be right, the rate might go up by a quarter or a third. That is to say, it would still be under 2\ per cent each for the employee and the employer. That would remain a modest price to pay for the benefits in security and social insurance which this plan provides.


Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleion):: I would like to ask the minister a question, though perhaps I should know the answer. I presume that the contributions by employers under this plan are proper deductions as an expense to their businesses?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: They are certainly perfectly legitimate and proper deductions for tax purposes.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am always interested in the statements and observations of my friend, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon). I always find myself in hearty agreement with all his objectives, but am always saddened by the fact that when the issue is joined the minister has an attack of caution and moves back and largely counteracts the benefits he has been foreseeing.
I felt that very much in his presentation this afternoon. He appeared to be spending a great deal of time reassuring the house that this pension plan is not going to have very much effect, is not going to disturb the economy in any way, is not going to move society in any particular earth-shaking manner, and that it will provide-I do not think even he was prepared to say comfortable pensions for the aged-reasonable pensions for the aged.
I have for long been of the opinion that any legislation that is produced that has an economic content should be considered at least high on a level of priorities with the development of a more egalitarian society. I think most of us agree with that today. At least we pay lip service to it. It seems to me this pension plan is a case in point, and that the government is missing a bet in its very careful and cautious approach to the possibilities of this plan.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I have come to the conclusion that this plan is, or should be, very

closely linked with three other pieces of projected legislation the government is presenting to parliament. It seems to me that it is, or should be, concerned with the very problems we have been wrestling with in our banking and commerce committee of late when dealing with the minister's bill with regard to insurance and trust companies.
Here we are dealing with legislation that is designed in some way to offset some of the more socially objectionable features of our present private insurance industry. We are going to great lengths and taking a great deal of time in developing very complicated formulae in order to deal with the private handling of public savings in Canada because that, after all, is what the insurance industry is all about. It is the private handling of public savings.
The bill before us now deals in a very modest way with the public handling of public savings, and I was puzzled a few minutes ago to notice that the minister made a distinction between the funds that flow into private pension plans, or the private insurance industry, and those that will flow into the pension fund authority, a distinction he described as private savings and public savings.
I would suggest this is a really bad-not merely a semantic error-serious misreading of economic facts. I suggest that actually we are dealing in both cases with public savings that in one case fall into irresponsible private hands not responsible to parliament or to the public and which, in the other case, fall into public hands which are controllable by the people's representatives and are responsible to the parliament of the country.
I feel this bill is also, or should be, connected with the legislation regarding the designated areas, this government's attempt-a very praiseworthy attempt-to try and decentralize some of the economic concentrations that have taken place in Canada; its attempt to develop the areas that have been falling behind, and to do so it has adopted legislation which encourages-using both the carrot and stick formula-private enterprise to enter into these areas of the country that have not proven profit making in the past. It has in the case of the maritimes made available a sizeable sum of money from the public treasury to stimulate private development in that area, a measure I heartily support. This also is again dealing with the question of the savings of the Canadian people, how we are going to use them and who is going to have control over their use.
Canada Pension Plan
Then there is another projected piece of legislation which, as I said earlier in the session, I almost hesitate to mention. I see the minister has guessed which one-the moribund Canadian development corporation that apparently has been put into the morgue, or somewhere, to preserve it for the time being.


Mr. Fisher:: It is left in "Troubled Canada."


Colin Cameron: Yes, that is right, it is left there. R.I.P.
I suggest that had the government presented some comprehensive legislation dealing with all of these various aspects of handling the savings of the Canadian people we might be moving more rapidly towards the development of what I have suggested earlier should be our goal in a country such as Canada, a more egalitarian society.
I have been contrasting this plan presented to us-and I must admit presented by the minister in a way which will assuage all the fears and anxieties of those who fear any incursions into the preserves of the acquisitive society of today-with some other plans, in particular the Swedish plan. One of the most striking contrasts is that in the first place the Swedes consider the principle of extracting the money from those who can best afford it is a good one to follow, and in Sweden all contributions are paid by the employers. The employers pay the employees' contributions, and in 1960 this amounted to 1.9 per cent of the earned income of an employee. This year it has risen to 4.5 per cent and it is anticipated that legislation will be introduced shortly which will finally set the limits of these contributions up to a probable limit of 10 per cent.
By the end of this year the fund in Sweden will have grown to the level of some 7,500 million krona, which is about $18 million and, if I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from a report by Mr. Ernst Michanek, who is under secretary of state for the minister for social affairs, labour and housing in Sweden. It is a report issued this year and in it Mr. Michanek says this:
The fund will continue to grow during the initial two or three decades of its operation, but the pace of this growth will gradually decline as the number of pensioners and the amounts of benefits increase.
The decision to build up a huge fund was prompted by the need for making up for the decrease in private savings and private pension funds which was an anticipated effect of the adoption of the new pension system.
The investment of this fund is, to my mind, a very interesting factor to be considered too.

Canada Pension Plan
A maximum of one half the total of premiums received by the pensions found in any calendar year will be made available for loans-amortizable in ten years-to those having paid premiums, if their premiums amount to certain minima. The remaining revenue (premiums and yield) not required for the payment of benefits will be invested in public and private bonds.
Not long ago an article appeared in the London Economist dealing with the Swedish fund in which it stated that at present, already far sooner than the Swedes expected, this fund now has in its control some 45 per cent of all the investment capital of Sweden. As a consequence, the Swedish authorities have been able to organize the economy in a much more direct way than was possible at an earlier stage. This is where the present government is exhibiting the usual Liberal party hesitancy, the usual combination of lofty aims and pedestrian methods which always results in those lofty aims not being reached; their wagons are not hitched to stars, or even to treetops and consequently they usually remain on the ground. The minister himself has observed this on a number of occasions.
I believe this plan should have had two, or perhaps three objectives. As an old man myself I can agree with the minister that I am interested in the care of the aged. But as an ancestor I am interested in the sort of Canada in which my numerous descendants will live. I would not say I am more interested, but I am at least equally interested in the latter aspect of our affairs. Here we have a golden opportunity to begin that direction of the economy to which the present government has paid lip service ever since it came into office. Members will recall the establishment of the economic council of Canada which was to play an important part in directing the economy of this country. Silence has been the only answer from that council to date; we have been told it has been too busy setting its house in order to undertake any housekeeping. Always this government has fallen short of placing in its own hands the power to take any decisive step toward the economic direction of the country. Here in this pension plan there was an opportunity to provide the government with funds which could have been channelled into the Canadian development corporation, if it is not completely dead -funds which could have been used to carry out some of the aims which the minister has attempted to achieve on three or four occasions. One of these I mentioned earlier-the attempt to deal with the problem raised by foreign ownership. Here was another opportunity missed by the minister and by this

government to take some real, decisive action in order to regain some control over our own economy. Here was an opportunity to pool the savings of the Canadian people in very large measure in public hands and, having done so, to devise a weapon by which this increasing and continuing expansion of foreign ownership might have been reversed.
There is another purpose which I think the plan should have had in mind. I have been thinking of it constantly while we have been struggling ineffectually with this ineffectual piece of legislation designed to overcome some of the dangers which arise when privately owned financial institutions control the savings of the Canadian people. It does seem to me that this pension plan should have been the first step toward a public insurance scheme for Canada which would in the end remove most of the care for this type of savings from private to public hands. But the government has been careful in this regard to assure those who have made a handsome profit out of caring for the savings of the Canadian people that they will be allowed to continue to control the vast bulk of those savings.
There is another aspect of the present plan which I find disturbing, namely the provision whereby the provinces of Canada are to have complete access to all the funds which will be accumulated. The minister has mentioned certain areas in which he thinks the savings of the Canadian people should be channelled and no one will quarrel with him about the fields of investment he mentioned. Certainly, they should be channelled into the building of schools, hospitals, and roads-I think those were the undertakings coming within the jurisdiction of provincial legislatures which he mentioned-and certainly the provinces should have access to a proportion of the funds which will be accumulated under this plan. However, I suggest that the development of our economy and the direction in which this development takes place are of equal importance. I believe we shall have to do very much more with regard to the encouragement of development in those areas of Canada which have been lagging behind the more prosperous sectors. I think anyone who has observed the direction of economic development in Canada

and it does not differ to any degree from the trend in other industrialized countries-must have been disturbed by the manner in which greater and greater concentration of industrial potential and financial strength has been flowing into a few restricted areas, leaving a large part of the country to wither, as it were, on the vine.

It is true that the government has been making some praiseworthy, even if ineffectual, attempts to cope with this situation and reverse the trend through legislation designed to benefit designated areas, and through financial aid to the Atlantic provinces. It does seem to me that here is an opportunity to do something decisive in this regard. This will not be an inexpensive project; we shall not do it on the basis of a handout of $100 million to the Atlantic provinces to last them for an indefinite period. We shall require a continuing flow of public investment into these areas. I do not think any of us have any illusions that we can coax private enterprise into unprofitable areas successfully. Some industries will come, of course, as long as there are benefits to be derived from public contributions in the form of exemption from taxation, depreciation allowances, and so on. But in the end we shall have to wrench our economy away from these areas of concentration into these poorly developed areas, and this will take a very large part of the savings of the Canadian people.
The bill before us does not propose to do anything very much in this direction. In the first place, it does not propose to take any sizeable part of the savings of the Canadian people. The minister himself has been at pains to suggest it will not do so. I maintain the plan should have aimed to do just that. It should have aimed to control the majority of the savings of the Canadian people.
Moreover, and I think this is another of the failures of this legislation, we have apparently abandoned the idea of placing the burden of this scheme on the shoulders of those who have the best ability to pay. We are limiting it to $5,000. I see no reason why income above $5,000 should not be taxed for this purpose. I see no reason why we should ask those in the lower income brackets to help finance the old age of those in their own income brackets. This is what I call sharing poverty and I thought our goal was sharing wealth, at least to some degree. Again there is a failure to move toward an egalitarian society and I am at a loss to understand why this government thinks there is anything commendable in placing the whole burden upon those who are least able to bear it while exempting those who are best able to pay.
If there is a case to be made-and I think there is; the case the minister made this afternoon-for those who are now gainfully employed contributing to the welfare of those who have passed that period of their lives
Canada Pension Plan
when they could be gainfully employed, there is an even stronger case to be made for obliging those who have benefited most from our society to contribute to the welfare of those who have benefited least. We observe this principle at least to a limited degree in our income tax legislation. There are, of course, other pieces of legislation in which it is not observed. The old age security regulations provide one example, with their limit of $60. It has always struck me as a scandalous thing that we should limit income in this way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is $120 now.


Colin Cameron: My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) assures me it is now $120. I might have known that this government would extend it to $120-a full $10 a month. I still do not understand why this government finds it necessary to be so assiduous in its care of the more fortunate members of society while insisting that the less fortunate should be left to finance each other. I believe the Salvation Army have a little saying which they like to bring out at Christmas when they are collecting money- "Its the poor wot 'elps the poor." The government thinks this is a sound principle on which to proceed. It does happen to be a fact of life that those who are less fortunate in their portion of the world's goods are usually more generous about sharing it. But I do not think this government should take advantage of this.
I think, on the other hand, the government should be prepared to place the burden where it should be placed, namely on the more fortunate members of society. I am not for a moment suggesting that those in the lower income brackets should not make their contributions; but I see no reason whatever why this government should not be prepared to build up a really effective fund of the savings of the Canadian people by imposing a large part of the burden on those in the best position to shoulder that burden and to move then toward that transformation of society in the form of an egalitarian society about which the Liberal party is so very voluble when it is not in office. The members of the Liberal party have always assured us that their party is clutching to its bosom this same principle that some of the rest of us have, but they forget about it once they get into office. They say, "We shall not upset the foundations of our acquisitive society but shall, on the contrary, reinforce it by making

Canada Pension Plan
sure that those who are not so fortunate in their lives within this acquisitive society will have enough to keep them alive". I am not satisfied with that. I am not satisfied with anything that reinforces what I consider to be a profoundly immoral and a profoundly unworkable form of society and economy. But I do not hope for anything better from the Liberal party. I was naive enough to hope that the minister might perhaps break ranks, because I know he has professed more advanced views than some of his colleagues; but this afternoon I must confess I was more impressed with his timidity and caution than with his liberalism and progressive ideas. I hope that before this bill comes out of committee some of these shortcomings may be remedied, but it is a faint hope, I suspect.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the debate, after some very fine contributions by members on both sides of the house, speeches by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh), the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson), and the speech we have just heard this afternoon by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) dealing with the economic implications of the Canada pension plan, it is not easy to say much that has not already been said. I do, however, wish to comment on a few of the general principles involved and make a few points which perhaps may add a little to the debate.
The Canada pension plan, as has been said, is truly a milestone in the development of Canada's social security programs. The Minister of Finance this afternoon reviewed the background of pensions from 1927 to the present measure, and in the debate in this house yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) indicated the development of pension in terms of general concepts which he outlined as, first the acceptance of public pensions as a public responsibility in 1927, the development of universality in 1952, and he then added the further concept of adequacy of pension plans. I would like to say a few words in the latter part of my remarks about the hon. member's discussion of adequacy and the problems which are involved in arriving at and applying this principle. In the beginning, Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear why we have to adopt the principle of a pension plan which is related to earnings. I was surprised to hear some things from certain members of the house, such as the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon), who said as reported at page 9916 of Hansard:

I suggest the self-employed and the farm people would be much better off under a modernized, up to date flat rate plan.
It is very easy to advocate this when you are not in a position to implement it. The government must bear the financial responsibility of these measures. Using a flat rate plan to achieve adequacy is, first, very very costly. No one is more aware of that, of course, than the Minister of Finance, with his strenuous efforts to improve our budgetary situation. The second reason why the flat rate benefit cannot be used for this purpose is outlined very well in the white paper which was placed before this house; it is simply that the same dollars do not mean the same things in different parts of the country. Seventy five dollars in the city of Vancouver, metropolitan Toronto or metropolitan Montreal is not the same thing as $75 in some of the Atlantic provinces or some of the smaller rural areas where the cost of living is different. The only way one can cope with the problem of different needs in different parts of the country, related to the very complex problem of what is the standard of living we are talking about, is to provide a plan which has some adjustment features in it. This plan has some of these adjustment features in it, and I think it combines them very well.
The second point I would like to make is in regard to actuarial studies. I was disturbed at the remarks of the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) when I read them in Hansard, and perhaps I have misinterpreted them. In Hansard of last night, as reported at page 10125, the hon. member is reported as having said:
I hope she-
The hon. member was referring to the Minister of National Health and Welfare:
-will tell us whether or not this report was drawn up by the chief actuary of the department of insurance alone or whether there were outside actuaries, or others, involved.
Apparently the hon. member for Perth places a great deal of importance-if I have interpreted him correctly-on whether or not outside actuaries were used in this connection. I hope I am not doing him an injustice, because I had the privilege of serving as a civil servant when he was a minister and I know that his relationship with the civil service was admirable and strictly correct. Therefore I hope this is not a reflection on the actuaries of the department of insurance.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I can assure the hon. member

now that this was not so. I meant to congratulate the minister on using the government's actuaries.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I appreciate that the hon. member has set the record straight, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is possible of being misinterpreted the way it is reported in Hansard. But even when we have dealt with the question of the actuaries' report- and in many circles a great deal of importance has been placed on the actuaries' report-I think we have to bear in mind the comments made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in her remarks of last night. An actuarial report cannot mean the same thing when dealing with public plans as it means when dealing with the private insurance industry. When an actuary makes his studies for a private insurance company he has to deal with two basic assumptions, the expectation of life-and here it is not as mathematically precise as one might expect; life expectancy is increasing, which is a very fine thing-and the second is the interest on the money invested. The actuary has to make assumptions in these respects. These are assumptions of a very broad, general nature. But within this scope the actuary can apply his technique and training in a way which leads to a fair degree of precision.
But look at the additional assumptions that have to be involved when you deal with a public plan. The minister pointed out that the basic and variable assumption is the question of the level of earnings on which the contribution is going to be raised. This first involves the question of the number of people who are going to be employed and assumptions with regard to the rate of unemployment. It involves the natural growth of the labour force; and when we start looking at the natural growth of the labour force we are dealing with things which are not predictable according to the generally accepted techniques of actuaries. We have to think of immigration to this country, which is a great deal; we have to think of birth rates, which are generally remarkably variable and are not predictable. Then we have to think of the attitudes toward employment. These attitudes are reflected in the approach to the retirement age. I am not at all sure that the desire of everyone in the future will be to retire from active employment at as early an age as possible, for reasons of self-satisfaction, pride and self-respect itself. Many people choose to be employed as long as they are physically and mentally able to be employed. It may be that with an increase in the 20220-644
Canada Pension Plan
expectancy of life we may see a different approach to the whole question of the retirement age, which will in turn affect the number of people who will be employed. Then we think of the number of married women who go back into the labour force after their children reach a certain age. All these factors will influence the number of people involved and the payrolls affected by the pension rates. They are not predictable in any conventional sense.
The minister again pointed out the problem of prediction of prices and price changes, and on top of that productivity changes. All of these are involved in projections of rates of growth of funds in future years. They are not predictable financially in any greater sense than they are predictable by an economist, a statistician, or a large number of other people trained to deal with these matters; as a result we get a wide spread at the high and low of the fund. But that is no reflection on anyone; it is merely a reflection of the great difficulty of making any estimate of the growth of the fund in which we could place the confidence we should like to place in dealing with these matters.
The third point I should like to make deals with the integration of private plans. Again I am disturbed by the remarks of the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard) as reported at page 9909 of Hansard, when he said:
Many people are wondering what is going to happen to the amounts already invested in private companies. What assurance will they have that they will not go bankrupt now that they are losing that income? None, actually. What assurance will they have that those company pension funds will not be nationalized by governments? There again, absolutely none.
I disagree, Mr. Speaker, completely with that kind of remark, which I consider to be irresponsible and the kind of thing which should not be said by people in public life. The white paper which was laid before us makes it abundantly clear at page 22 that the Canada pension plan will not take over and absorb reserves which have been built up by private pension plans.
There is a problem of integration. I thought the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) was going to deal with the problem of the integration of plans for the benefit of public servants under the Public Service Superannuation Act with the Canada pension plan, but I am informed that his parliamentary secretary may deal with it. But from looking at the existing scheme it is quite clear that this plan will permit an improvement in

Canada Pension Plan
benefits under private plans for the same level of premium, or a reduction in premium for the same level of benefit, or possibly a little of both. The Canada pension plan is a better deal, dollar for dollar, than the existing plan. I should like to say, through you, Mr. Speaker, to all public servants both in Ottawa and in Canada that the reports which have been appearing in the press to the effect that public servants will be adversely affected by the Canada pension plan are completely without foundation. This plan will permit a degree of integration to their benefit either through reduced premiums, increased benefits, or possibly both. Because the Canada pension plan is that much better value dollar for dollar.
The question of integration of existing schemes has to be worked out plan by plan. They will have to be negotiated by management and unions, and a decision must be made whether or not they simply want to add the Canada pension plan or whether or not a component will be substituted. This plan is a good plan, one which offers benefits which are very generous compared with the benefits offered by private insurance.
By the same token there is a great role for private insurance in this country, and there will continue to be so. In 1950 when a joint committee of this house and the other place met to consider the problem of the old age security plan which was eventually evolved, representations were made to the effect that this step would prove very harmful to the insurance industry. But the reverse was the case. The effect of the old age security plan which was implemented in 1952 was to make people more pension conscious than they ever were before. It increased the sale of life insurance and made more people aware of the need for planning a retirement income on an adequate scale. I am confident that this will again be the case. We have not yet approached adequacy; nor can we approach it on the scale we should like in view of the standard of living many Canadians have built up for themselves. It reminds me of the old story that a man's reach must exceed his grasp; else what is a heaven for? Obviously we must strive for a higher and higher standard of living. As we achieve more we want more, and that will always be the case.
It will be the job of the private insurance industry continuously to add extra supplements to the public plan, which is merely the floor. These supplements provided by private insurance will be in terms of individual requirements and resources and will be tailor

made. I confidently make the prediction that the effect of this plan will be to make people even more insurance conscious. It will not be harmful to the industry but will provide the base which will be much more defensible in terms of all sections of the community; and from this the private insurance industry will benefit.
The last point I want to make is in connection with adjustments to the plan. I was a little disturbed by some remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-I cannot find his exact words in Hansard at the moment-to the effect that $10 a month was old hat and that we will have to do very much better than that now. He also said that the adjustment made a year ago does not amount to anything now and that adjustments must continually be made. Let us look at the adjustments which are built into this plan. First of all there is the cost of living adjustment. It is true that this is limited to 2 per cent in any one year and it is not possible to implement it before 1968. The second adjustment is based on the earnings index. The minimum $600 and maximum $5,000 are adjustable according to the formula as earnings adjust. Earnings themselves will slide up as the general productivity of the economy advances.
I do not think that the hon. members who are complaining about the lack of flexibility in making adjustments to future pensions are so much worried about the Canada pension plan; they keep coming back to the old age security component of it. Nevertheless, I come back again to this point, that it is the responsibility of the government in power and the responsibility of this parliament to guarantee not only a basic dollar and a basic pension but also the integrity of the dollar and the integrity of the pension. That is the greatest contribution which any government could make. If pension increases are followed by massive deficits year after year at the height of the cycle as well as at the low points of the cycle, which in turn leads to inflation, then we are not serving our old age pensioners or anybody else well. Fiscal responsibility has to be the core of the guarantee of the actual worth of the pension dollar.
It is very easy to say, Mr. Speaker, that adjustments should be made to the old age security pension and that perhaps it would be possible to vote the necessary dollars and to run up further deficits. But we all know the consequences of continuous massive deficits without regard to the business cycle. When times are bad or in times of recession

there are very few in this house who would not believe it proper to run up deficits on a large scale. But I would argue that very few of us would be prepared to say that deficits should be run up on a massive scale regardless of the high point or the low point of the business cycle. That would be irresponsible and would lead to inflation.
Pension adjustments have to be related to the state of the economy and to productivity. Hon. members who argue for pension adjustments have offered no criterion for automatic productivity adjustments because such criterion is not easily found; but within the Canada pension plan I submit that there are built-in adjustments. It is true they are limited but they are better than those which have been devised so far.
Within the old age security component we have a cost of living adjustment. I for one hope the cost of living adjustment provision never has to operate, because if it does not a stable dollar will make a greater contribution than an inflated dollar, which will mean that the cost of living provision will not have to be used.
I am also confident that over a period of years there will be an orderly, responsible review in terms of the productivity of Canada's economy. This and this alone must be the final guarantee of what we can do. If we do not create conditions for growth, if we do not create conditions for a high level of employment, if we do not create conditions under which expanding incomes are possible, then the rest is not possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the fact that at least one of the changes being made in the Old Age Security Act by the terms of this bill is to come into effect on January 1, 1966, namely, the right to take a pension at an age below 70, does he not think it would also be possible to make another change and institute the cost of living bonus as at January 1, 1966?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I think this is a question which should properly be debated before the committee. I do not think an answer can be easily or satisfactorily provided in an exchange of this nature on the floor of the house. I am sure the point will be raised in the committee and that at that time a satisfactory answer will be given.
20220-644J
Canada Pension Plan


Stanley Howard Knowles: The invitation was not necessary but it is accepted.


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken before in the house on the pension plan, but it was on the earlier plans introduced and at the time I spoke I expressed a note of caution and said that I was quite unhappy about some of the deficiencies in the other plans. I am very happy this afternoon that the plan we now have before us contains provisions for dependant children, widows, disabled persons and so on.
We in the opposition have been quite conscious for some time that any time we have criticized the government it has been called obstruction. I am not sure how successful the Liberals have been in selling this idea, but this is certainly the echo we see in the newspapers every day. Therefore I think it is only fair for me to say now that if it were not for such obstruction we might have been saddled with that first plan which the minister introduced so proudly, so politically and so long ago.


Mr. Bell:: Three maple leaves, too.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: In fact, we might even have been saddled with the second plan. I am not suggesting this plan is perfect but certainly it is a great improvement. I think it is basically a very good plan and I hope we will be able to work very hard on it in the committee stage and make a few more improvements.
I thought the remarks of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) were quite valid. I am not convinced that the only thing we should talk about at this point is whether the plan is desirable because that would leave us with no debate at all, but he did mention that the committee would need a considerable amount of time. The bill is very large and complex. There are not many members of the house who are trained or equipped to deal with all aspects and phases of it, but I do think that most members are quite familiar with the effects of certain sections. They are very familiar with the needs of certain parts of the population. I am sure that all members are most interested in the bill, so the fact is that we will need to do a great amount of work on it.
I do not believe any time limit should be suggested. I would hate to think we would have to start all over again if this session should be prorogued. Therefore I hope that something will be worked out in order that the committee can look into the bill thoroughly and completely, so that its work

Canada Pension Plan
will result in solid progress which will not be lost but which will be carried forward into the next session.
I followed with considerable attention the remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron). I was particularly impressed by his remarks about the fund that would be accumulated and the use that the state could make of this money in directing the economy of the nation. I am sure most of us realize that in today's world the governments of most countries have been directing the economies of their nations more and more. Some go about it to a greater extent than others and different methods are used.
The only point on which I can agree with the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands to any extent is that I am not sure I want to see these funds in the hands of the provinces rather than in the hands of the federal government. I think we all agree it is a good thing that the provinces through this fund will have additional moneys available that can be lent to municipalities for various purposes, but I do think we are missing the boat a little by putting these funds into the hands of the provinces from which they are raised.
We have seen over the last few years that the biggest and richest provinces are not necessarily those that need the most help, and if the vast amounts accumulated in this fund go straight back to the provinces whence the money came it will do nothing to help the have-not provinces and will deprive the federal government of an opportunity to use these funds or part of them to provide extra assistance in those provinces where additional assistance is so obviously needed at the present time.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands referred to the Canada development fund as proposed by the Liberal party in the last election campaign. In fact, several members have mentioned it but the emphasis of their references has been more on its absence. I am not sure that any Liberal spokesman has explained why what was so good at election time is so repugnant now, but I suppose if we were to ask them to explain all those things that were so good at election time which they have failed to do they would hardly be talking about anything else in the house.
While I have said I have some reservation about the advisability of turning the funds over to the provinces, and while I think the federal government is missing a chance to even up the needs of the provinces, I have

never been too sold on the general idea of the federal government amassing a fund of money which it can use for investment purposes to direct or assist the economy. It has always been my belief that, rather than encouraging our people to save more money by putting it into the hands of the federal government to lend, our people should be encouraged to invest more of their money. Canadians are the most cautious investors in the world. They are also the most consistent savers. Therefore if we are to retain more of the profits of industries within this country I think the Canadian people, rather than just receiving interest on loans, should be persuaded to engage more in risk investment, that is, in the share capital of companies.
The question of the provinces building up funds and having control of them is not my only reservation with regard to the present plan. If the province of Quebec has the same plan as the federal government, frankly I am unable to understand why that province wants to operate its own plan. I am unable to understand why any other province would want to set up a plan essentially the same and to opt out of the federal plan. I have never believed in this opting out process at all. If something is good for the country, I do not think one Canadian is that much different from another and I think it should be quite possible to so arrange the plan that it will be generally suitable throughout the country, and once we have it in that form it should then be a federal scheme, not a partly federal scheme which applies to only nine provinces now, which next year may only apply to eight and the following year may only apply to half a dozen.
There is another point about which I am somewhat puzzled, although perhaps further study of the bill will clear it up. When there is this opting out principle and when the province of Quebec has its own scheme, I cannot understand how the federal pension plan can be truly portable. Certainly, if a province opts out, the only logical reason I can think of for its preferring to run its own scheme is that there is some difference in its scheme as compared with the federal plan. If they already have control of the fund and they want to opt out, there must be that difference, and that difference is a very significant one. If the difference is a significant one, then those Canadians who are going from province to province will have to accept the significant difference in their pension plan. How can we then call the plan a portable plan? If these differences are insig-

nificant or likely to be, then I am left all the more puzzled as to why any province wants to run its own plan. I would dearly love to have that explained.
I was happy to hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) say he felt the Dominion of Canada could afford this plan. I am sure there has been nothing in his budgets to date to indicate that the government has found any way to manage the financial affairs of this nation in such a way as to get rid of deficits. We are aware, of course, that while they have followed the general economic policies practised by the previous government, the full effect of those policies has meant comparatively good times. The gross national product is up. We can therefore expect a much higher return from some taxes. However, the note of optimism from the minister was almost as surprising as it was welcome. I found it a little surprising when the minister stated that the revenues from income taxes alone received by the federal government, once this plan gets into operation, will drop by about $100 million. I hope I understood him correctly. I had no idea it would be that amount. Certainly, we must all bear in mind that this is an extra cost of administration of the scheme. It is costing the federal government $100 million per year at the outset, once this plan goes into operation.
I am sure that with the rising standard of wages, when the scheme is adjusted higher, there will be a similar adjustment in the revenue loss of the federal government through income taxes. This should be calculated as a cost of administration. I am not sure if the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) added this item to administration costs when she spoke of them. I think it is well for us to take a look at it. Perhaps we can examine it more closely in the committee.
I was much impressed by the argument presented by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron). He said he thought this plan did not go far enough. He wanted it to be an all-Canada insurance plan. I am afraid that he is quite socialistic. While I was impressed with his argument, I am afraid that I cannot go as far as he did in adopting that argument. I am happy, however, that there is room for private insurance plans. I believe that individuals have a right to look after themselves if they desire to do so. The duty of the government is to help those who need help rather than force everyone to come under a scheme. There
Canada Pension Plan
are a good many people, even in the low income brackets in this country, who resent the thought they will be accepting a government handout. People look for a plan like this when they have not found it possible to get involved with an employer-employee scheme, or perhaps they have not been able to make financial arrangements to enter a private insurance scheme. The only assistance they really want is a government direction to make it possible for them, in their income group, to get into a scheme or a pension plan for which they can pay. Then, they can say, I am carrying my own load.
Sometimes in today's society we lose track of the human value and benefit there is to individuals who want to be able to say they are standing on their own two feet. This is especially important, I think, when we reflect that so many of us feel that success or adequacy can be measured by the amount of money a person can earn. Even in the lower income brackets, this feeling of adequacy is there. There is much pride in being able to take care of oneself. The extent of the assistance given in this plan, and the form of assistance, is all that is requested by some. I am quite aware of the fact that there are many in the lower income brackets who feel quite a bit different. They feel that those who are rich should pay for everything. There is a constant struggle in this house about that principle. Perhaps the hon. member for Na-naimo-Cowichan-The Islands gave us the best answer to that struggle when he said that we take cognizance of it by means of the Income Tax Act. Certainly if there is a great need to adjust the extent to which the rich shall contribute to government schemes, the Income Tax Act is the one means by which it can be done very fairly.
I hope that when this matter is referred to the committee its work will be arranged so we will not be rushed. I hope the organizations that may feel they will need considerable time to prepare properly a brief to deal with the part of the plan which most interests them will be given a sympathetic hearing, and that there will be a great deal of cooperation between the various groups so that they may present their arguments in an orderly manner. I hope the committee may know from day to day what they are likely to be considering and that they will not have to be sitting day and night, day in and day out in order to meet a deadline. I should like to refer to the flag committee for a moment in that regard. I was not a member of that committee, but I do feel it was asking a little

Canada Pension Plan
too much of the members of the committee to sit so often, day after day, and concentrate to such an extent on that subject. I could certainly understand the feeling of those who wanted to get the matter completed and relieve the pressure on us.
I submit that the same pressures are not present in connection with this matter. When the committee is studying something as complicated as this pension plan, there should be no suggestion of a deadline because that would have only harmful effect on the work that should be done. I do not want to be misinterpreted: I think we all wish to see a pension plan. However, we have had enough experience in the house to know that sometimes we jump a little too quickly, and a second thought or a little assistance from someone might be of great value. I suggest that having waited a long time for this we want to make sure it is as good as we can refine it to be in committee, rather than face the immediate necessity of amendment just as soon as it is passed.


Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note how the Canada pension plan and the formula which made it possible were established.
On the judicial and constitutional levels, this measure falls under section 92(13) of the British North America Act which gives the provinces exclusive rights over property and civil rights. As Mr. Ollivier clearly pointed out in one of his treatises, a distinction must be established between pure civil rights and social legislation. This distinction, however, was recognized in amendments to the British North America Act, the first of which was in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Act introduced in this country by a Liberal government. Needless to say that this amendment had first been approved by all the provinces just as a similar amendment and a similar agreement by all the provinces have made possible the setting up of a Canada pension plan. It shows also the priority of the provinces in that field, as their consent is required for the establishment of any social legislation, and also the right of the provinces to discuss the matter and lay down conditions.
On the Canadian political level it was necessary to prevent what some people call the "balkanization" of the country. The agreement reached ensures co-ordination between the Quebec plan and the Ottawa plan,

and the pensions will be portable for those who are moving from one province to another. The rates and benefits will be the same throughout Canada, and the danger is avoided.
From the economic standpoint the public reserves accumulated by the federal plan will be made available to the provinces, which will be able to use them for their own purposes: education, highways, the development of their natural resources and other matters of provincial jurisdiction. The source of the right being provincial, it was normal to let the receipts go to the provinces.
There will be two pension plans but their application will be co-ordinated and standardized for the benefit of the Canadian taxpayer who, after all, will pay the shot.
Such is in my opinion the result of a formula which is called co-operative federalism. That formula deserves to be looked into, since it makes possible the achievement of a very important piece of social legislation.
The result is important; it shows that the formula has the required flexibility to meet the present needs and that far from being an exception intended to isolate one or the other of the provinces in the confederative pact, the formula strengthens unity by guaranteeing to all Canadians equal benefits under the pension plan.
What does Quebec ask? The guarantee that it may freely use its constitutional rights. What does Quebec do? It co-operates; here, it reveals the details of its pension plan which, after being studied in comparison with the federal scheme, enrich both plans. Who benefits from this co-operation? The Canadian taxpayer wherever he lives.
The Quebec people are not street fighters. They are moderate, peaceful and they hate disorder. In Quebec city they did not turn their backs on the Queen, but on terrorism. If the Leader of the Opposition would only stop blaming the province of Quebec and the Quebec members of the federal cabinet and work in the general interest, he would find more co-operation not only in the province of Quebec but also among the French Canadian members of his own party and among the English Canadians who still have some objectivity.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to ask the hon. member how he can tie in his remarks about the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) with the pension plan now before us. I feel he is

completely out of order in leading the discussion onto such ground.
I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule the hon. member out of order.


Jean-Charles Cantin: If my hon. friend will just wait a moment, he will see the connection which exists between the present formula and the attitude of his leader.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The hon. member is absolutely out of order.


Jean-Charles Cantin: Quebec intends to play a constructive role in Canada. The Quebecker is jealous of his civil rights; he will retain them. He wants his language to be respected, he will defend it. He is proud of his French culture, he will spread it. He intends to take his place in the economy, he will make it grow. But he understands that he must develop and assert his personality in a climate of understanding and peace. From now on he will believe in dialogue at the conference table; he will sit there.
Even if agreement between the provinces and the federal government was not easily achieved, even if four federal-provincial conferences and numerous other consultations between the federal and provincial governments were needed to bring about the creation of a pension fund, that bill will remain in the field of federal-provincial relations a true picture of the bi-racial character of the founders of this country and of a province which is not like the others, for the well-being of a Canada which is longing for unity and which can, thanks to this fact, feel that it is different and distinct from a North American melting pot.
In the federal-provincial relations field, this bill is further evidence of the efficient and up to date formula put forward by our government: co-operative federalism.
I must commend the minister for her success. Being a woman, she knew the virtue of patience, which led her to the true understanding of the problem with which Canada was faced in the establishment of a comprehensive pension plan.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, we have before us a pension bill which is the third one introduced by the government and, in opposition to what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) said, may I point out that we on this side of the house are not neglectful of our old people. In fact we hope this bill, after being properly tailored, will fit the need.
Canada Pension Plan
As it stands I do not believe it will fit the need, and after making a few criticisms I shall try to show in a positive way what we should do about it. It is an old trick, to claim that the opposition has no consideration for old people; but if one looks at the record of social justice and at the record of performance by the previous administration it will be seen great steps were taken during the period of that administration to improve not only the conditions of old people but to solve problems of social justice in all fields.
At this stage of the bill it is necessary to talk principles, and it is difficult to do that without going over the history of some past mistakes. I for one think our present old age pension scheme is one of the best in the world. I do not think we are far behind most countries of the western world, free enterprise countries, in looking after our old people. Of course I am not satisfied to leave it there. We must not rest on our laurels. I do not think many people can live on $75 a month. But as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) has said, it is the basic thing which concerns us and I think it would be as well for us to confine the compulsory part of the plan to this very matter. It would be a strange thing indeed if in a free enterprise country such as Canada-and I hope and pray it will always remain such-we should provide any compulsory system of old age retirement benefits designed to give people what I would call a luxury standard of living. On the other hand I do not want to see any segment of our population left without provision for meeting their basic needs.
As I see this bill, it will not bring a great deal of benefit to those who do not already have a considerable measure of security. Coverage is supposed to be universal I am sure we would all like to see this brought about, but are we likely to get it under the terms of the present bill? It appears to me that after agricultural labourers, all those employed in lumbering, fishing, horticulture, and those who are handicapped or disabled for one reason or another have been excluded, a large section of our population will not be protected. My feeling is we should retain the principles of our present system of old age benefits, a system which includes everybody regardless of income or occupation.
The basic rate is, in my opinion, still not high enough. At the present time a single person cannot possibly get along on less than $100 a month and a married couple might need double that sum, or possibly $175 a month.

Canada Pension Plan
It would be easy to get into an argument about where the money is to come from. Well, it can only come from the earning power of our people, from the gross national product. I do not wish to become involved in a long discussion about whether it is better to take the money out of our left hand pocket or from our right hand pocket or whether we should take it from the employer or from the employee. It all comes from the same source, the ability of the Canadian people to create wealth. If we end up providing $300 a month, somebody will have to pay for it; if we provide such a pension for everybody beyond a certain age it means we are asking those who are presently working, the youth of the country, to pay the shot.
There are features of the bill which I like. I like the recognition that we cannot jump into this scheme right away. I like the recognition that it will take time to build up a fund capable of meeting payments of the kind proposed. But I am not in favour of a system which would place all the burden on the young people who are actually producing the wealth. We should take a good look at this plan to make sure we are not setting up a pension scheme which will be badly broken almost as soon as it comes into operation.
It has been suggested that once the fund has been built up we shall be able to lend all the money to the provinces. I am not at all sure that there will be a large enough fund even to meet its commitments, let alone have hundreds of millions left over to lend to the provinces. We all feel strongly about looking after our old people but I feel strongly, too, about looking after our young people, those who are presently wage earners. If this is to be really a national scheme I would be more in favour of the compulsory portion of the bill. In a democracy we are all in it together, I suppose; we are all paying equally according to our means. This at least is fair. But it does not seem to me that this bill will be fair. It seems to me that a great many people will have to pay very heavily for the privilege of retiring in comfort, while others will get something like a bonanza. It has been my experience that bonanzas do not come easily; somebody has to pay for them. We must make sure that in seeking to look after our old age we who are closer to retirement do not place an unnecessary burden on those who are now in the most active and productive stage of their lives.

Personally, after I was married and had the responsibility of raising a family, the security I wanted was in the years when the family was young. The whole idea of saving seems to me to be getting out of line. We are obsessed with the idea that we should all retire at the age of 70 with $300 or $400 a month. I suggest this is almost sad. If a man has lived all his working life and has never had a real opportunity to give his family and children the things he wanted to give them, there is something almost sad in retirement on a pension of $300 or $400 when it is too late.
I am against compulsion in all its aspects. I would accept compulsion only if I was sure it would lead to a better system of security than any scheme I could work out on my own. I am one who thinks it is inefficient to expect the government to do our planning and saving for us. It has been said that private industry is incapable of handling retirement funds. I think some of the plans which private industry has produced are both efficient and generous. I would much prefer to see the companies themselves putting attractive retirement plans in operation and making sure that government interference is unnecessary, rather than that they should be placed under compulsion in any way. I should like to see the government tailor this bill so as to make its provisions available to everybody and so attractive that we would all be glad to participate, even management.
I get tired of hearing the same old wail from the far left to the effect that those who can pay should pay. This assumes we can carry on this Robin Hood type of taxation forever. I suggest there are not enough rich people in Canada to pay this whole shot. Those who are very well off are already paying enormous amounts out of their hard earned incomes in support of all kinds of social legislation, and some of it is wasted. I am in favour of giving help to those who need it but I am not in favour of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Whenever our socialist friends wish to prove that socialism is a good thing they point to the example of Sweden. They tell us everything is rosy there. But no one emigrates from Canada to Sweden-the flow is all the other way. Most of us in Canada, the pioneer type, came out here because we wanted the right to enjoy the fruits of our labour. We wanted to own property. We wanted, if you like, to have the right to gamble. We gamble with our lives every day. Others gamble with their money by putting it into investments. I do not think

they should be chased down the road for ever and amen, and robbed.
This Robin Hood type of government is very appealing. It is particularly appealing when one does not have the responsibility for producing the money or even for taking it from the people who have it. Socialism will not work in Canada; but social justice does work and has worked. Our present old age pension has relieved the minds of thousands and thousands of people and given them a modicum of security which they never enjoyed before. I think we should continue our old age pension system very much as it has been in the past, with this exception-that we should raise it. Then having raised it perhaps a little more to make sure there is no distress amongst our old people, our younger people should be encouraged to save money on their own. They should be given a really comprehensive plan, and where industries are already heavily taxed in contributing these funds perhaps we could bring in a system whereby we could amalgamate all our pension plans and simplify the whole procedure.
I do not think complete control of our industry, our pensions and everything else will work as well as properly organized free enterprise. I do not think that a compulsory system of making our young people save is half as good as encouraging them to get out and earn, and then save in a sensible plan of their own choosing. At least they should have the choice of opting out. If we allow one province to opt out it means we are not enforcing our democratic will on minorities; and I for one look upon this question as dealing with a minority of one. Every individual person in Canada must, in my opinion, be allowed to retain some of his freedom of movement, and I resent being told that I have no ability to look after my own affairs, and that I must bow to a paternal form of government.


Mr. Macaluso:: Let us have a plebiscite on it.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Perhaps we should have a plebiscite on it. I can remember very well that when it came to a question of whether or not we volunteered to defend our country, we had a plebiscite; and that plebiscite was instituted by the great William Lyon Mackenzie King and his able assistant, the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill). We had a plebiscite then. I did not need a plebiscite; I was already overseas.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Hurrah.
Canada Pension Plan


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I hope that answers the question of my hon. friend in the rear row opposite.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he is in favour of a plebiscite on this Canada pension plan?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I have not mentioned a plebiscite. I think we are here to try and thrash this matter out, and I am delighted to know that it is going to a joint committee where the details of the plan will be thrashed out. I said I was going to talk principles this afternoon. I think before we can decide the details of a plan we should know where we are doing. If gentlemen opposite are willing to hand Canada over to a socialistic form of government, let them stand up and say so. Let us be fair about this. If they believe in free enterprise, like I do, let them stand up and say so, instead of heckling me; and let them do a little thinking for themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: If they have a contribution to make, I suggest they should stand up on their own feet and rely on their own words, rather than reading speeches which are written in the back rooms, which are read all the time by members opposite.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Which people have prepared.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes; and I would have someone preparing my speeches for me, if I could, instead of doing it myself and sometimes having to do it three times. We are told by ladies and gentlemen opposite that we have no feelings for our old people; at least that is the insinuation that is left in their remarks. This is a straw man that is put up on their part. We have every feeling for our old people. We are here to discuss method, and I am making the plea that we do it in such a way without interfering with the freedom of the individual, without putting an unfair burden on any one sector of the population and without leaving anybody out. What is fair for one man is fair for another; that is what I claim. It is exactly the same as the right to serve your country; what is fair for one person is fair for another, and we should not have to have a plebiscite to decide things like that.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Only the flag.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I have made myself clear on the flag question, too. I will go for any flag that tends to unite our country. I say, one flag for one country; a flag for each and every one of us.

Canada Pension Plan


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order. I would request the co-operation of the hon. member in limiting his remarks to the bill before the house.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: It was because of interjections from over there, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Even if there are interjections, I think it is the responsibility of hon. members to try to limit their remarks to the subject matter being discussed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg) is absolutely correct in this regard, and Your Honour was correct in bringing him to order. But the fact is that there was an interjection about the flag debate which, left without being answered, would look as though the hon. member accepted what was said by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh), who is very good at making interjections; in fact, I have always marvelled that she has so many up her sleeve at all times. I would say the hon. member was merely answering the interjection made at that time.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I will relate my remarks to the bill before us, and I would ask the co-operation of people opposite in relating their questions to the bill, if they wish to ask any. This is supposed to be a universal bill; one for all Canadians. My criticism of it is very plain, namely that it leaves out a vast number of Canadians who I think should benefit under the bill-those who need it the most. I do not know what is going to happen to those people who have not been mentioned in the bill and are considered as having automatically opted out due to the industry in which they happen to be engaged. Apparently they are not going to be able to have the full benefit of the bill.
What about the self-employed people of Canada, of whom there are still a great number and of whom, I might repeat, I hope there will always be a great number? I refer to those people who own their own small farms or their own small businesses. What kind of a deal does this bill as presented give to these people? I am not a Philadelphia lawyer, but as I read the bill, it offers them a chance to benefit under the bill at double the cost of other people; and incidentally, in a great many cases it means they will start at the age of 18, perhaps, and pay for 30 or 40 years at a double rate. This does not seem equitable to me. I think this is something we should look at, not only in this house but in com-

mittee. Let us make it a universal bill and have it apply equally to every citizen of Canada. If there is a compulsive part in it- and I think there are times when you must have compulsion-let us have the compulsion equally distributed amongst everybody.
With regard to portability, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the bill at least purports to say that this plan will be completely portable and you will be able to receive your pension if you move from one job to another in no matter what part of Canada. I think this is fair to everybody and I do not know why anybody would want to opt out. Nobody wants to opt out if it is perfectly fair to everybody. What is the benefit in having a special scheme for one province or another? Why not act like a nation for the people in this great Canada, all under one flag, all with equal rights, and with the priming pumps in every province making sure we get a full flow of water. Why allow a particular section to opt out? If you must be compulsive, be compulsive and put us all over the same block.
It is not good enough to say, "Let us make it universal; let us make it portable''. It has to be practical. How are we going to pay for it? I suggest we should take a good look at this aspect of the question, because this afternoon the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) said he is not at all sure that ten years from now we are going to be able to afford this plan. I am not at all sure we are able to afford it now.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not have a copy of the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) with me, but I was in the house during the whole of the time he made his speech and I heard him say he believes the country can afford it, will be able to afford it and wants to afford it. I think the statement my hon. friend has just made is certainly incorrect.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether we have to wait for a ruling or whether this is even a point of order. The hon. lady is excellent at raising points of order.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) left no doubt in our minds that he was not 100 per cent convinced that this plan would work or whether we could even finance it today. He hopes, as indeed we all hope, that it will not be a burden around our necks. But what of the young businessmen who are just starting up? They also hope that this added expense will not be a rope around their necks.

What is going to happen to the tew independent housebuilding contractors that are left in Canada? Will they be able to survive? Some 225 of them went broke this year alone, a year when everybody else is getting along well and able to afford all the new fringes. Why did these men go broke? They went broke, of course, because their overhead was greater than their income. Even the Minister of Finance would know that.
If the opposition are expected to accept this third scheme holus-bolus, why should we imagine that it is any better than the first two? Certainly until the matter is thrashed out in committee-and believe me we are going to look at every angle of it and see whether there is anything wrong with it-we will not accept it. I know we are only a minority and that the government can impose its will in many ways, as we have found out; but we are not going to be party to a bill of which we do not approve until we have had a good look at it. If in the end, after all the argument has been made, we do think that there is something to be gained here by the people of Canada as individuals as well as collectively, then we will vote for this measure. So let hon. members opposite not bother to put up any straw men or to put words in our mouths by saying we are criticizing this or that, until they hear what the critics say. Why should the Minister of Finance put words in our mouths? This debate is still young and I think that even some of the points I have made have some validity. The plan is not universal. We are not all sure it is really portable. And what is the good of a universal plan or a portable plan if you cannot afford it, Mr. Speaker? That is the practical consideration here.
As far as equity is concerned we do want it to be equitable in addition to universal, portable and practical. It is very practical to tax the so-called rich. It is very practical for a labouring man to put his employer to the wall-until he loses his job, at which time he is not in the category of a man who is even able to contribute, even to the extent of $1.80 a month, toward his pension. He would find himself unemployed, and one of the reasons for this would be because we are breaking the individual, little firms in Canada.
Are we heading, Mr. Speaker, toward the socialist state? Are we going down the road to socialism, the road of no return? This is the stage of the bill at which we should consider this point, before we start something which will affect us all, our children and our
Canada Pension Plan
grandchildren. If socialism is the answer, all right; then hon. members opposite will be strengthened mightily by the hon. gentlemen on my left who have supported the government the last 18 months without any qualms. As far as I can see the government is on the road to socialism, and not a very economic socialism at that.


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


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: When I am through, if you do not mind.
High sounding phrases are no answer to this problem. I think the government should be only too delighted to let us, with our experience, put forward our criticisms and try and come up with a bill which really will work. There are certainly many people in the country today who are not happy about it. I am not talking here about insurance companies who may have an axe to grind. They may want to run the scheme by so-called private enterprise. But I am worried about compelling people to go into a scheme they do not want and cannot afford, for the reason they have already committed themselves to private schemes of their own. I want them to have the opportunity as individuals to opt out of this plan, the same way as larger groups. If whole provinces can opt out, then why not the individual if we really believe in democracy?
I object to the Minister of Finance or anybody else telling me what is good for me when I can see that I cannot afford to pay any more for my old age security than I am paying already. I have looked after my old age security as well as I can since I started working. I have always contributed part of my salary toward my retirement. If I am expected to put by even a small amount like $1.80 a month into this fund, I want to be convinced that this is right and now is the time to find this out before it is too late.
Other countries have enacted similar schemes to this and have put their heads into the noose of socialism many times. Socialism is not new, it has existed since the beginning of time. And sometimes disastrous results have ensued. As countries get on their feet and reach a position similar to ours in Canada, one of the most favoured nations on earth, they do not have to resort to socialism in order to get along, any more than we do. Instead of priming pumps why not dig a few decent wells? You cannot get any more out of a hole than you pour into it. Just pumping water is no good; let us dig some more wells
10186	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion and get our working people both young and old into a frame of mind where they are glad to work. I am all in favour of fair wages but I want to be able to choose my own job. With socialism in the country you have no choice. You are graded from birth, like an egg. And who is going to do the grading?- eggheads with pink banners.


An hon. Member:: Not red?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: No, not red. They are not communists. They only use force when it is necessary; I admire them for that. They are patient, gentle people; but behind the offer of free this and free that there is always the mailed fist. We in North America, both in the United States and Canada, have developed a standard of living second to none as a result of free enterprise and individual effort. It is to create this atmosphere of getting every person in Canada willing to work on his own two feet, to contribute to our mutual defence and security for which we strive. We do not need socialism for that; what we need is character.
I am surprised at the sneers from the Liberal benches, because at one time this objective was supposed to be the soul of Liberalism. Where has it gone? There has been a complete abdication of the position of the Liberal party in the world. The name "Liberal" is now beginning to mean nothing at all, and more people who want socialism are beginning to look to the socialists for leadership.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty pursuant to provisional standing order 39A to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this evening are as follows: The hon. member for Skeena; Indian affairs, request for equalization of welfare payments; the hon. member for Yukon; R.C.M.P., inquiry as to establishment of appeal board; the hon. member for Renfrew South; agriculture, Ottawa valley, emergency legislation respecting drought conditions.
It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Miss LaMarsh for the second reading of Bill No. C-136, to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions and supplementary benefits in Canada payable to and in respect of contributors.
Mr. Joseph P. O'Keefe (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of attention, though possibly with less interest, to the speakers from the official opposition on this bill, but to me at least their arguments were not particularly persuasive. Before I proceed further I should like to assure the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg) that this speech is my own and was not written by any of the backroom boys. It is my own opinion. It is as I feel.
As a Canadian and as a Newfoundlander I am happy to support this legislation. As a member of parliament I am as proud to be a member of the party which has presented it as I will be of the government which makes it law. Representing a district in one of the larger provinces of this country, New-foundland-Labrador, one of the richer provinces in everything but money, I can easily see the effect which this complex bill will have on the people I have the honour to represent, many of whom now suffer from substandard incomes. This situation is changing, but not quickly enough for those of us who are in a hurry.
I am not an economist, Mr. Speaker. Yet I have had the basic test applied to me, the test of meeting a weekly payroll, and that for a good many years. This is a test which I suggest might be applied to some of our theoretical economists. The reason I support the bill is that I believe it will provide for a nation-wide system of social insurance for every Canadian no matter where he may live, whatever his circumstances may be, whatever moves he may make, and whatever economic changes may occur.
Before coming to Ottawa I lived very near a home for the aged and infirm which is operated by the Sisters of Mercy. It is a model for all homes of its type. We have many others, of course, in St. John's. There is a home which is very well operated by the Salvation Army and also one operated by the

United Church. There are others as well and they are all excellently run, but because I lived near this home I had occasion to visit there often. While this home was run perfectly, while the guests had every attention and care, I found that so many of them were unhappy. I sensed that basically there was a sense of loneliness, of uselessness, but above all a sense of insecurity. They simply did not have enough money.
I remember one old gentleman saying to me: "You know, the tragedy of old age is not that one is old but that one is young". I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you and all other members of the house know many people with young minds imprisoned in aging bodies. Some of us have some security. There are others, far too many, who have none. There are many who listen, wait, eat, sleep and dream. Time is relentlessly pursuing these people. In a few years someone younger will take their jobs or possibly a machine will replace them. What will retirement mean to them? This legislation means, I suggest, security. It also means dignity and decency for the elderly, the old, the people who have borne the burden of the heat of the day. They are people who deserve our respect and who need our help. That is why I welcome and support Bill No. C-136.
This government has been called many things. It has been called indecisive, ineffective. This can be and should be refuted. The government has tackled courageously many difficult problems. It has solved many and others are in process of solution. I should like to commend warmly our planners, our government and in particular the minister for what I like to think of as their future-mind-edness, their concern for the future of all of us who will one day be old.
The minister and others have explained in detail the background of the bill. May I now for a moment or two attempt to answer some of the questions that I feel Canadians are asking. I know my own constituents are asking these questions: How much will I pay? What will the benefits be? Will there be other benefits? Yes, there will be other benefits. As to the question, how much will I pay, the answer is that the contribution rates will be designed so that the average rate is 1J per cent for both employer and employee at the average level of earnings. In view of the fact that no contribution is made on the first $600 per annum of earnings, this will mean that the contribution rate on earnings from $600 to $5,000 per year will be approximately 1.8 per cent for employer and
Canada Pension Plan
employee. The contribution rate for selfemployed persons will be double that because they must pay both the employer and employee contributions.
The proposed contributory plan will become effective as soon as the constitutional amendment concerning survivor and disability benefits is passed and this legislation is passed by parliament. This will take some time but I am quite sure it will be in effect not later than January 1, 1966. The benefits will amount to approximately 25 per cent of the average adjusted wage. The term "adjusted wage" is used because in calculating the benefits, the wages on which contributions were actually paid will be adjusted upwards as the level of wages rises in the country. Benefits will also be adjusted upwards because of the fact some persons may have had some years of very low income during their period of contribution. In calculating the average wage on which benefits are based, one year of low income may be dropped for every ten years of contribution.
Perhaps at this point I might give some indication of the scale of benefits which will be received under the Canada pension plan. For purposes of comparison, I will use the example of a man or woman whose average salary is $300 per month. His or her retirement pension, payable at the beginning of the third year, will be $15 per month; at the sixth year, $37.50 per month, and at the eleventh year, $75 per month. This is, of course, in addition to the present old age pension of $75, or a total of $150, if there is no further increase made in the present $75 pension.
Now, a great deal has been said about the effect of this plan on other pension plans now in existence. Questions have been raised as to whether this plan would attempt to control the benefits of private plans. Well, the Canada pension plan leaves it entirely to the operators of the private plans to determine whether, and if so to what extent, private plans will be modified. Of course there are many employers who have not yet introduced plans of their own. It is the hope of this government that the Canada pension plan, by providing a basic pension, will also provide encouragement for others to augment it by a supplementary pension plan.
In the case of existing plans, particularly where these plans are not overly generous or the employer may have been considering an improvement in any case, many employers may simply leave them unchanged. This Canada pension plan would, in these cases, simply be added on and so provide a much

Canada Pension Plan
better total pension. Other employers, who know that people are far more important than profits, with adequate pension plans may wish to have the same over-all benefit levels as before, and adjust the contributions to the level required to produce these benefits. In any event, because deductions will not be made from salaries under $600 or over $5,000, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) estimates the plan will cost only 1 per cent of the cost of the payroll. This 1 per cent is also tax deductible.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this Canada pension plan is good, sound, beneficial legislation. As I said before, it is an example of the future-mindedness of our minister and of the government. I warmly support it and urge the earliest possible enactment of it.
The late President Kennedy, soon after assuming office, called a conference on aging. In view of the fact that the aged now form, and will continue to form, an increasingly large part of our population as health standards improve, I suggest some thought should be given to this problem. It is a fact that people over 65 are increasing at a rate of a little over twice that of the national average. I know, of course, the government is keenly aware of this problem, and for this I am happy. I am happy to notice, too, and commend the good work now being done by the Senate committee here on the same subject.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that it is this government's hope that as each of us reaches the time of slowing down it can be done in health, dignity, serenity and security, with the satisfaction of being needed and wanted, of still being a part of our vital society. In a month, a year or perhaps longer, every Canadian will have to leave his job and give it up to someone younger than he is or to an electronic machine. He will then begin his period of retirement. Is he or she sufficiently protected? I am concerned about the 30 per cent approximately of our people who already have protection, but I am far more concerned about the vast majority who have not. Are the children protected? The legislation I support today, Mr. Speaker, is the beginning of this security, the beginning of dignity for the aged in Canada. I support it wholeheartedly.


Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: I welcome the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of saying a few words on the Canada pension plan, just as four days ago I had the pleasure of welcoming the hon. lady minister to Baffin

island where she had taken the time to come to open a new hospital for the Eskimo people. I think I should tell the house that the hon. lady did herself proud on the island. After all, she was before an audience of some 300 Eskimo people who can constitute a unique sort of truth squad, not truth in the sense of whether the words correspond with the facts, but truth in the sense of whether you are sincere or not. I can tell the house that she was well received, because they knew she was busy, they knew she had many other things including this pension plan to prepare for the house. I will welcome her back into the Northwest Territories any time she wants to come, with the exception perhaps of during the next general election campaign.
I wanted to make a few remarks on the Canada pension plan tonight, remarks that put forward essentially my own ideas gathered from ten years of welfare administration prior to entering this house, based on training in the field of welfare and more recently, in the last few years, based on reading, and the first two versions of the Canada pension plan, as well as assorted other opinions I have been able to gather. I shall put forward my own ideas in this case and shall do so as a person representing nearly all the Eskimo people in this country, and many of our Indian people who, after all, have a lot to gain from any system of expanded social security.
I open my remarks by saying that I strongly believe Bill No. C-136 should have been referred to a parliamentary committee prior to second reading. I know this can be done and no doubt hon. members who are as new as I am, who have never been here before the twenty sixth parliament, can think of an instance in which it has been done. I think of this instance particularly because it concerned a bill that would have had the effect of dividing the Northwest Territories into two separate territories. After much discussion in this house and much uncertainty, it was decided by unanimous agreement of the house that the best course of action would be to refer the matter to a parliamentary committee prior to second reading. This did not have the effect of killing the bill, for the very good reason it was a controversial matter upon which many persons in this country wanted to make representations. It was decided to refer it to a committee prior to second reading so that the government would not feel that any substantial changes in that particular legislation would involve any backing down or

votes of non-confidence. I am sorry this course was not adopted in connection with this legislation, but I assume the government has no intention at this stage of changing its course and referring it to a committee before second reading.
After listening to the debate I also resent the approach of some of the speakers, notably those on the government side, which suggests that any members who object to any phase of the pension plan are trying to deprive the lame, the halt, the blind, the widowed and the orphaned from receiving a decent standard of living. This attempt to label anyone who has any criticism to make, be it constructive or not, as some sort of callous monster of the extreme right, places us in an unfortunate position if we honestly try to put forward our objections.
However, I have a proposal to put forward which I think could have been considered by the hon. lady, though she never asked me for advice and I am not surprised about that. I wish to advance a suggestion merely to show there are other possibilities of accomplishing the same sort of things that are involved in Bill C-136.
It seems to me there are five or six principles that any expansion of social security must meet. These are practical principles, assuming we all agree that Canadians want to retire in dignity and decency. The first of these is that a plan must be readily understandable by those who are to receive benefit from it, by those who are to pay for it, and by all Canadians who at one point or another are going to be called on to vote for the government that brings in this plan. There must be a clear understanding of what they are voting for and against.
The second practical principle of any social security scheme is that it must be the best way not only of meeting existing needs but of filling in gaps in the social security program. I recall at the time of my graduation from the British Columbia school of social work that the guest speaker was the then deputy minister of welfare, Dr. Davidson, and he described Canada's social security system as a Joseph's coat of many colours. He was followed on the podium by Dr. R. E. Davis of the Canadian welfare council, a man involved in the day to day administration of welfare, and he said that rather than a Joseph's coat of many colours it might be likened to a good old Canadian patchwork quilt. I mention this because there are many different ways of looking at this and of meeting all the needs. I suggest the Canada pension plan is only one
Canada Pension Plan
of the possibilities and not necessarily the best.
The third practical principle in welfare administration is that the administrative costs of any program must be kept to an absolute minimum so that the bulk of the funds collected go to the people they are designed to help, and so that they are not collected by the government to maintain a huge army of employees taking in each other's paper work.
The fourth practical principle of a federal program is that it must be the same for all Canadians. It must have complete portability no matter where you go and it must be under the control of the same authority. As a Canadian I am not prepared, having gone to another province, to reapply for benefit and to be placed under the control of the provincial authority, and it does not matter which of the ten provinces is concerned.
As a fifth practical principle it must be able to stand the scrutiny of those of us here and now who want to look at it, and it must stand the test of time.
The sixth practical principle in social security is that whatever scheme is introduced must cause a minimum of disruption in the private and public sectors of the economy. I want to state in a paragraph an alternative that I have in mind.
I believe that we would have accomplished suitable care of the elderly by raising old age security payments to $100 a month immediately, by lowering the eligibility to 65 years immediately, by pegging payments to the cost of living, by keeping it a totally federal program with no possibility of opting out, and by financing it through the required increase in the three taxes that now finance it, sales tax, corporation tax and income tax.
In order to meet the needs of another large group who would not be covered by this scheme-because after all I am only talking about those over age 65-in keeping with the request voiced by one province and which had general support, I would suggest that the federal government convene a meeting to look at the whole area of services to the disabled, the blind, and the mother's allowance programs now in effect through the provincial authorities. It should allow these programs to remain under provincial control, with whatever necessary federal guidance and help that would be required by the provinces.
The advantage of my suggestion is that everyone in Canada can understand what $100 a month is. It would be available to everyone, and when I mention pegging it to the cost of living I suggest that the cost of living for

Canada Pension Plan
1965 be equal to 100 points and, not as presently calculated, to 100 points in 1949. Mr. Speaker, if you follow what I am saying you will see that what I am suggesting is that we guarantee to every old person over 65 years $100 a month in purchasing power, no matter what happens to the cost of living from now on.
If my plan were adopted it would not be necessary to increase old age security immediately prior to an election. Everyone would understand the benefit would be $100 a month and the cheques payable would be pegged to the cost of living as of today, not as of 1949. This would have the advantage of payments beginning on a universal basis at the age which is now generally accepted for compulsory retirement. At present there is a gap. In many instances people are compulsorily laid off at age 65 and cannot acquire old age security until they are 70.
I want to read one subclause from the bill, and by no means is it the most complex.


Maurice John Moreau: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: No. The hon. member can make his speech when I am finished.


Maurice John Moreau: Thank you.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Clause 22(3), relating to contributions to be made by employers and employees, reads as follows:
Where an employer has been informed in writing on behalf of the minister pursuant to an inquiry, other than an application for determination of a question under section 28, that he is not required to make a deduction from the remuneration of an employee under this act and it is subsequently determined or decided under section 28 or 29 that such a deduction should have been made, except where the employer was so informed on the basis of information furnished by him to the minister that was incorrect in a material particular the employer is not liable for failing to make the deduction or for any amount that should have been deducted before the determination or decision is communicated to him, but is thereupon liable, without interest or penalties under this act, to pay the contribution required to be made by him with respect to the employee from whose remuneration the deduction should have been made, and upon payment by the employer of any amount as or on account of the contribution so required to be made by him the employee shall be deemed to have notified the minister as required by paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 14 of the employer's failure to deduct that amount from the remuneration of the employee.
Now what in God's name does that mean? I have taken this clause apart phrase by phrase and it is simply not understandable. I suggest that the first requirement of any adequate security program must be that it

can be understood by those who receive benefits, by those who are to pay for them and by the voters at large.
Now I want to get on to my next point. It is that the administrative costs of any plan should be kept to a minimum. Let us look at the plan before us in terms of what it will cost to administer. What would it cost us to number Canadians and keep track of them throughout their working lives? What would it cost us to transfer files from one area to another as people move from one area to another, or to other countries, to work? What will it cost us to determine whether a man is disabled under the terms of this act? This has proved a major source of difficulty and expense already in connection with the Disabled Persons Act. What about the cost of appeals made before the quasi-judicial bodies which will have to be set up to determine blindness, disability, and so on? What about the procedure involved in transferring from the federal program to the provincial program when a province has decided to opt out? Who will transfer these files? What vast army of bureaucrats will be necessary to carry out this work even assuming its members do not engage in empire building and spend all their time watching each other? What army of officials will be needed in every province of this country to keep track of all these things? Compare this with the program I have put forward under which we need keep track of no Canadian until he reaches the age of 65 and establishes his eligibility.
I have said that a program of social security if it is to be effective must be the same for all Canadians. At this point only a single province has decided that it will not implement this plan but that it will implement its own. As a Canadian prepared to pay federal taxes and prepared to be a Canadian, I object to having to place myself or my parents or my children in the future under the control of the provincial authority of any other province of this country. I object to this most strongly when we are using federal funds.
I have said that a social security system must stand scrutiny now and that it must stand the test of time. According to the minister's own paper we do not know what is going to happen in a few years; we cannot carry the projection beyond a few years. By pegging the pension at $100 a month based on the cost of living in 1965 equalling 100, the old people will know what they are going to get. At present many of them think they will be reaping good benefits if this measure

goes through, although in fact if in 1967 the cost of living goes up by 1 per cent a person now in receipt of old age security benefit will end up in receipt of the grand total of 72 cents a month added to his existing pension, enough to handle the correspondence between himself and the local office of the Canada pension plan to find out why he is not getting more.
I have also said that a good social security system must cause the least possible disruption to the private sectors of the economy. Under my plan everyone reaching the age of 65 would be entitled to $100 from the state, and no more. Those who are able to look after themselves and who are fortunate enough to be able to arrange for their own insurance would have that in addition. There would be no need to disrupt a single existing pension plan. The pension or benefit from state sources would amount to $100 and I do not think the state has a responsibility to guarantee any person more than $100 from public funds. Under the proposed Canada pension plan no one knows for certain what the future will bring. We have been given brave assurances by the minister that somehow or other, through some strange Liberal magic, integration of the Canada pension plan with private plans will occur.
I have tried in the brief 15 minutes I have taken to outline one possible alternative to the Canada pension plan, one which would not require a pound and a half of printing to describe it, one which would be understood by every Canadian. It would be understood by every Canadian voter when the time comes to have another go at the polls. This is important because there will be no element of fooling; the people would know. I put forward this suggestion not because I expect the government to accept it but merely because I want to point out as a person trained in the field of welfare and as one with a good deal of experience in administering provincial plans that there are other ways of achieving the benefits which the minister and all of us in this house wish to achieve for Canadians. It is regrettable that the government should refuse to allow this to go before a committee before second reading, where this kind of thing could have been studied and documented. I repeat my request now. If the minister would agree to it, it would at least establish that at least the government is not afraid of taking this particular 125-clause bill to a committee-is not afraid to let it stand the test of close scrutiny.
Canada Pension Plan


Maurice John Moreau: Would the hon. member permit a question? I was wondering if the hon. member for Yukon could tell us what his instant pension mix would cost and what changes in the taxation formula it would require.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I am certain the hon. member for Yukon could; but I am the hon. member for the Northwest Territories and I should like to try it. I was suggesting that we could calculate the cost rather finely and that we would finance it out of stated tax increases in the three fields from which we are now financing old age security benefits. I have no access to the kind of advice the minister has available to her, so it is not possible for me to give the figure, but I suggest that in no circumstances would my proposal cost more than it would cost to maintain an army of bureaucrats to keep track of every Canadian, to number them and follow them from job to job, in and out of employment, overseas and back, as we will have to do under this scheme. I submit that the total cost would be less than it is going to cost us anyway, and under my proposal we would know where we are going.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that any member seeking to intervene in a debate at this stage, if there is to be any point at all in the remarks he is to make, should attempt to deal with some of the issues that have developed during the course of the debate. I must say I am rather glad that I did not secure the floor until I had the opportunity of listening to the speech which has just been made by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume), because I believe that he did make an honest attempt to put forward a straightforward presentation of his views; he did attempt to outline his own criteria as to what was required in the matter of a pension plan for Canada and for Canadians.
I would like to say at once that as I listened to him outline the points of his criteria, in my assessment the plan as we have it proposed in the bill that is before us pretty well meets all the criteria which he outlined. This is my assessment of the plan in its outlines as I have been able to understand it up to this point. I do share with him the regret that I am sure a great many Canadians feel, namely that it is not going to be completely integrated in its administration. While one can express regret that it is not possible to have a plan which is administered uniformly from one coast of Canada to the other, nevertheless the

Canada Pension Plan
plan as it is proposed, and with the understanding that we have of action that is to be taken by the one province which indicates that it does not want to share in it completely, has the criterion of universality which the hon. member outlined. I think all of us must agree that this is a step forward.
I said, Mr. Speaker, that I was glad I had not been called upon to speak until I had listened to the hon. member's speech, because I must say that up until he spoke I had a feeling that it was very difficult to grapple with any issues that had developed in the debate. I had listened to some of the speeches made by his colleagues in that part of the house, and up until his speech I was reminded of a refrain from an old song which, if I have it correctly in my mind is, "She wouldn't say yes, and she wouldn't say no".


Mr. Skoreyko:: Judy.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: This, quite frankly, was the way I felt about the speeches from the Conservative quarter of the house to which I had been listening. I had not heard anybody stand up and say, "I am against this plan". This would have given us a clearcut issue to fight on, as far as I am concerned. Possibly the closest we came to that this afternoon was in the speech made by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg). As far as I could judge, the gist of his speech seemed to be that we socialists were leading the government around by the nose and persuading them to embark upon a very dangerous course which would probably bring about some form of totalitarianism in Canada. I did not feel that was really a very constructive assessment of the Canada pension plan.
The hon. member for Northwest Territories did make a fairly definite proposal which he felt would be better than the one proposed in this pension plan. Let me say at once, Mr. Speaker, that I would be quite happy to support the proposal he advanced, namely that the present old age security be increased to a level of $100 a month and that it be made available at the age of 65. However, where I part company with him is in his assessment that this would be what he termed an adequate basic provision for old age security in this country. As far as I am concerned, I would say let us have his proposal and the one the government is making as well; then we would be approaching a plan which could be considered, to use the words of the minister, reasonably and modestly adequate as far as retirement for the elder citizens of our country is concerned.


An hon. Member:: We will be getting $100.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: We certainly will not be getting $100 under the plan the minister has been proposing. But her colleague the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) at least held out a few teasers to us when he spoke last night, in that he said if we lived long enough and were able to draw the pension long enough, we might possibly see something like that happen.
Before I came down to the chamber, Mr. Speaker, I was wondering just what are the issues with which one can grapple in dealing with the principle of this bill. I found that I really had to go outside this house to find anybody who was prepared to stand up and say he was opposed to the Canada pension plan. I recalled what I had read somewhat earlier in an address which was given in the city of Winnipeg by a Mr. Kilgour, entitled, "Let's raise a storm". This he delivered in the city of Winnipeg on September 9, 1963. I was rather interested in the concluding paragraph of his speech as it was reproduced, because he said:
We have three short weeks in which we either can or cannot succeed in having parliament stop, look and listen before this die is cast.
As I have said, this speech was delivered on September 9, 1963, and certainly Mr. Kilgour was a little out in his estimate of the speed and haste with which the government was going to proceed with this plan. Members will realize that he was obviously dealing with a proposal that differed in some respects from the one which we now have before us, nevertheless a proposal which in its main essentials was similar to the one contained in the present bill. Mr. Kilgour had this to say as part of his remarks. He was talking about the proposal of the province of Quebec to introduce a plan which had a greater funding element in it than was being proposed at the federal level, or indeed than is proposed in the bill that is before us. He said:
This is a completely new role of government, certainly in North America.
Of course, he may be right in that connection as far as North America is concerned, but in the wider application I think Mr. Kilgour was somewhat off the mark:
Whether the public can wisely turn over its life savings to the investment wisdom and political pressures of an elected government is a question which should have the deepest and most thoughtful appraisal-but this is not the time.
That is a pretty good Liberal phrase, of course, even though Mr. Kilgour was rather

vigorously attacking certain of the proposals and was indeed rather vigorously attacking the minister herself in this speech. He went on to say:
The fact remains that we appear to have pressed the panic button on pensions. We are doing this at a time when unemployment insurance is thoroughly insolvent, and there are wide expectations by many people that medicare is just around the comer. Our social priorities or capacity to pay unlimited taxes are not even under debate.
Then he goes on to make this suggestion later in his speech:
Let's raise a storm. Let's make it a good one-the strongest most lightning-packed, angry wind that has blown around parliament hill for a long, long time. It could sober this country as it sorely needs.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if we had people getting up in this house and making speeches with the vigour and directness of that made by Mr. Kilgour we would really have something we could get our teeth into.
I think this is one of the elements which has been lacking in this debate. I would have been quite interested and intrigued if somebody-I could only envisage its being somebody over in the quarter of the house which comprises the official opposition-had been prepared to get up on his hind legs and say that this whole pension idea as far as any public application is concerned is for the birds, and parliament should not even be looking at it. But the strongest suggestion which we have had came from the hon. member for Northwest Territories, who suggested that this bill should not be proceeded with past second reading but that it should be referred to a committee prior to second reading; and he was regretting that this had not been done.
I would suggest to him and his colleagues that that is a motion which is perfectly in order. If that is the way he and his colleagues feel about this bill why do they not make that motion and test the house on it? I made a motion like that on the 12-mile fishing zone bill not too many weeks ago. It did not pass the house and I really did not expect it to when I moved it, but at least I tried to say that I thought the bill was so inadequate it should not pass the house in its present form. If that is the way any hon. member of this house feels about this bill I wish he would get up and make that motion so that we would find out exactly who feels what about this pension plan, and then we could get on with it.
Canada Pension Plan
I suppose the main function of a member of the opposition is to consider and assess the proposal which we have before us.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do you think anybody thoroughly understands it, other than those who worked on it? Let us be fair.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) asks me whether anyone understands it thoroughly. I do not profess to understand it thoroughly in every detail. I do not profess to understand every phrase in the clause which the hon. member for Northwest Territories read. But I will say this, that I do understand it well enough to know whether I am for it or whether I am against it. It is true that there are a lot of complicated clauses in the bill, but the principles of the bill are very simple. I suggest that anyone who wants to sit down and take the time to read it and who has had at least a grade eight education can understand what it is about. I have talked to people in my constituency, not about the details of this plan but about some of the details of an earlier version of the plan, and I found that the average person I talked to had no difficulty in understanding what it was about. Most people in my constituency have some idea what is meant by universal portable pension plans. Most people understand something of what is involved in making contributions over the period of one's working years into a pension plan.
I know one is not supposed to impute motives in this house, but having listened to some of the speeches I have heard in this house I find it difficult to believe that some people, like the former minister of national health and welfare, are being anything but deliberately obtuse as far as their alleged difficulty in comprehending the terms of this plan is concerned. I certainly reserve my right as a member of this house to assess and examine the representations which will be made with regard to this plan, either in connection with some of its broader terms or its details, in its committee stage of consideration. I certainly agree with some of the things said earlier in the debate by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) in connection with some of the terms and some of the inadequacies of the plan. But, Mr. Speaker, I just cannot believe that my colleagues in this house in the Conservative party are quite as stupid as they are trying to make out they are.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

Canada Pension Plan


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I started to say a little earlier I think one's principal function as an opposition member is to try and assess the proposal as it is put forward by the government, and to assess what has been said by the various ministers who have spoken in the debate.
In this connection I had the feeling when listening to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) this afternoon that one of the things he was trying to do was to soothe the fears of people like Mr. Kilgour. My colleague for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands dealt with some of the remarks of the Minister of Finance, I felt much more in sorrow than in anger. But as far as I could understand it, the gist of what the Minister of Finance was trying to say this afternoon was: Well now, you fellows-people like Mr. Kilgour, who freely admits he is somewhat interested in the plan and was quite forthright about admitting that he had an interest in it as president of a private life insurance company- this thing really does not amount to very much; it is only a minor factor in the economy of the country and nothing for you to worry about. Which, of course, is and has been for a long time rather typical of the attitude taken in Canada by Liberal governments. Their general attitude seems to me: Well now, we must be very careful not to do anything to rock the boat. I think the Liberals must have a congenital weakness which makes them liable to seasickness; they are always so afraid of rocking the boat.
I thought the Minister of Finance gave us this afternoon a perfect example of just how touchy he is as far as the dangers of rocking boats are concerned. I suppose I could suggest that there are such things as seasickness pills; and if the Minister of National Health and Welfare could provide as part of the health services for the country some seasickness pills for the members of the government and the members of her own party who are so afraid of rocking boats perhaps she might be able to bring forward a better and more adequate proposal than she has put forward in this bill.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that those who are so concerned or inclined to be concerned about group security plans provided under the aegis of public authority are really people who refuse to recognize or to realize just how radically the structure of our society has changed and how, as one of the consequences of that change, the older generation have tended to be pushed into a sort of side line position in our economy.

I think that the fact of this change was perhaps illustrated by some of the considerations we had in mind when we recently dealt with the redistribution bill. During the discussion it became quite clear, as it has through many other avenues of knowledge, that the structure and economic status of Canadian society has radically changed because of the movement from rural areas into urban areas, and the question of adequate security for old age is part and parcel of that development.
In a simple rural society largely established on an agricultural base the question of security for the aged tended to take care of itself as a result of the rather simple and basic fact that by and large the ownership of the means of production rested in the hands of the older people. In other words, father owned the farm and, while the sons might work it, as long as father was alive he had a proper right, title and interest in the products of the farm. On the other hand, let me take an example that pertains to the area of the country from which I come with regard to the society in which we live today. In the society of today the father no longer owns the pulp mill or the paper mill, and once his active working years are over he has no automatic right, title or interest in the continued production of that pulp or paper mill or in any of the other complex industrial institutions which operate in our society today and which represent our main economic base.
I think it is out of that change in the structure of our society that the need for public pension plans arises which will ensure that the older generation will continue to enjoy some of the fruits of current production. In my view it is in that context that this kind of plan has to be assessed, and it is in the context of the productivity of the industrial machine that the adequacies or inadequacies of proposed levels of pension plans must be considered.
There has been a good deal of talk recently about priorities. Some of it has arisen out of the fairly recent statement by the premier of the province of Manitoba on this subject. A recent newsletter of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce quotes from the statement of Premier Duff Roblin and then proceeds to make certain assertions which they suggest arise out of the premier's statement. They completely overlook the fact that the premier's statement dealt with the matter of a co-operative effort on the part of the provincial and federal governments to assess their sources of revenue and to work out

some co-ordinated plan for the manner in which expenditures are to be made. The chamber of commerce goes far beyond the context of Premier Roblin's remarks. In their newsletter they say:
The newly elected board of directors of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce urges federal and provincial governments to co-operate in establishing priorities in respect to government expenditures.
They go on to say:
It is clear that the tasks which the nation undertakes in the fields of education, old age security, health and other programs affecting the public sector of the economy must be considered and dealt with on a priority basis.
I do not claim to be an economist, Mr. Speaker, but I have enough knowledge of the proper use of economic terms to realize that this statement emanating from the board of directors of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is utter and complete nonsense. They talk about programs affecting the public sector of the economy as if the public sector of the economy comprised such things as education, health and old age security. To me this is a complete misuse of that term, because as far as I am concerned the public sector of the economy refers to such activities as public enterprises, publicly owned railways or the Polymer Corporation or Air Canada, which are part of the economic life of Canada. To suggest that matters such as education, old age security and health are matters of concern only to the public sector of the economy does not make economic sense to me.
In my view nothing is more important to the private sector of the economy than that we have educated and healthy citizens. In my view nothing is more important to the private sector of the economy than that all Canadian citizens have the kind of incomes which will enable them to purchase the products that our industrial economy is capable of producing.
I have referred to this statement in order to suggest that we in parliament as well as people throughout the country are in danger of putting such questions as old age security, education and health services and the matter of whether or not we can afford them in a completely false perspective. So many people tend to look upon these things as something to be put to one side as luxuries. To me this is a completely false assessment of priorities. The only sound basis of assessing these things is within the total public and private sectors of our
Canada Pension Plan
economy and their potential productive capacity.
Viewed in those terms, Mr. Speaker, and thinking of a proper sense of priorities as to the things which are really necessary I would say, as I said earlier, that it would not be too much so far as the field of old age security is concerned if we were to put together the proposal advanced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) and the proposal which the hon. member for Northwest Territories made in reference to the increase in old age security. I would suggest that is the least we can do that would be adequate.
I attempted to point this up in a question I addressed to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) when he concluded his remarks last night. I asked him if he would indicate to the house the position of people who are now of retirement age or who will be at the time the proposed pension plan comes into effect. To me this is something that should not go unnoted in the house, because what it means is that we are taking steps now to ensure that some of us who are of age now to benefit from the plan when we reach retirement age will receive the proposed pension. But apparently the government is content to let those who are now of retirement age fall by the wayside, to simply let them go on living in many cases on the verge of want and starvation.
The Indian society of an earlier day on the west coast of Canada at least had a simple and effective means of dealing with the problem of old age. When the people in some of these societies got to the point where they were no longer productive and could not fend for themselves, they had the very happy custom of taking them down to the rocks at the seashore at low tide. They simply left them there until the tide came in to the top of the beach. So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, this is what we are doing under this plan as it stands. We are simply saying to the people who are now at retirement age, so far as this parliament is concerned we are quite prepared to leave you on the beach at low tide and let you be submerged. If I have one basic criticism of the proposal of the government, it is this niggardliness. I do not believe the Canadian people really want parliament to be this niggardly with these people who are being completely left out except for this very minor modification of old age security being tied to the cost of living.

Canada Pension Plan
I suggest that this nation, on any proper assessment of its economic capacity, on any proper assessment of priorities, should say that it is prepared, as part of this plan, to close that gap either by increasing the present old age pension to an adequate level or by the abbreviation of this transitional period in the Canada pension plan. Through this parliament the people of Canada should pick up the tab for the people now of retirement age or the people now on retirement. So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, this is the only valid, fundamental criticism of the proposal that we have before us. Certainly I hope that before this plan becomes law or even before the bill passes second reading, we will have an indication that there will be general support in this house for something being done about this aspect of the proposal.


Mr. Jean Chretien (St. Maurice-Lafleche):: I want to reply to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), Mr. Speaker. He said we were afraid to say where we stand on this pension. I will say that I am for the bill, all the members on this side are for the bill and I believe the same is true of members on the other side of the house.

Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to commend the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) and the government for their persistency in preparing this bill.
We have heard several hon. members mention that the government presented two, three or four versions of this bill. I wish to commend the government for this attitude which illustrates its broadmindedness.
Had the federal government not taken this action in 1963, there would be no pension plan covering all Canadians, and there would not be any either in the province of Quebec for several years.
It may be said that the federal government had to back-track and to compromise with the government of the province of Quebec but what counts, in the final analysis, is that with this piece of legislation we have reached our goal: a comprehensive pension plan will be established across Canada, from Vancouver to St. John, Newfoundland, a plan which will follow every worker in Canada whenever he transfers to another province to earn his living.
This excellent piece of legislation is vitally important to the mobility of the Canadian labour force because we have often seen people residing, for instance, in eastern

Quebec, go and work for a few months or a few years in New Brunswick; we have often seen people in western Quebec finding employment in northeastern Ontario.
So, this plan which was worked out in cooperation with the provinces, gives Canada a very important security measure and I think this is an important date in the history of social security in this country.
In the last 12 years, we had not had many new measures in the field of social security. In 1952, a general old age pension plan for Canada was inaugurated but between 1952 and 1964, except for the hospital insurance plan, Canada did not do much with regard to social security.
Today, with this pension plan which covers all Canadians, I think that we are taking a great step forward.
It was not an easy task to prepare and draft that bill on account of the many constitutional objections it gave rise to. But because the governments carried out coolheaded discussions a solution was found. Section 94A of the constitution, following the 1951 amendment, allowed the federal government to legislate with regard to pensions. However, that gave prior rights to the provinces if they decided to take the initiative in that field.
When the present government announced its intention to establish a national pension plan, the province of Quebec said that it intended to set up its own plan and, in conformity with the rights it has under the constitution, it evidently was entitled to do so.
In my opinion, from a confrontation of the Quebec and federal plans there resulted appreciable benefits for both. This confrontation greatly improved the federal as well as the provincial plan.
I am not mentioning the pension plan put forward by the province of Ontario, because it was a security plan for insurance companies rather than for workers.


David Réal Caouette: Oh, oh. Will the hon. member allow me a question?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If you do not mind, after I have concluded my speech, I will be glad to answer you.


David Réal Caouette: My question is quite pertinent and should be asked right away, because it refers to what you have just said.
When the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche mentions that the pension plan is such that it could replace some other social legislation, does he mean that old age pensions, for instance, would be replaced by the

retirement pension plan proposed by the present government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In reply to the hon. member for Villeneuve, I must say I mentioned no such thing. On the contrary, the pension plan now before us will supplement the old age security which now exists. I did not suggest that the pension plan now before us would replace anything. This is a new measure which will be additional to old age security.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the confrontation of those two plans resulted in the improvement of both, the federal one and the provincial one.
Among the social security improvements to be found in the federal plan, there is a capitalization which will be most useful to the federal government as well as to those provinces wishing to use the amounts made available to them for investment purposes, as mentioned in the bill, especially with regard to the investment programs of each of the provinces.
The second improvement brought to the federal plan since its first draft is that it is now compulsory for everybody. All citizens have been put on an equal footing. In my view, it is very important to compel every one to take part in this pension plan, because if they had been free to do so, some individuals would not have taken advantage of this pension plan, and upon reaching the pensionable age, they would have been second class citizens deprived of the protection which every citizen must receive in a relatively modern society.
Another advantage which was brought about by the confrontation of both plans was the extension of this plan to invalids, widows, orphans and also the granting of death benefits. In my opinion, the fact that both plans were compared at a certain time allowed the central government to obtain authorization from the provincial governments to amend the constitution so that the benefits of this pension plan could be extended to those persons who, during their working life, for instance, may become destitute because they were not included in this pension plan.
Then, thanks to this pension plan, these people will receive benefits, even when a member of the family leaves them for a better world.
This is very important for the security of our fellow citizens in general. In my opinion, this improvement was essential. And even if
Canada Pension Plan
this were the only result of the confrontation of the two plans, this event was worth while.
As far as improvements to the Quebec plan are concerned, I could mention the following: first of all, a reduced rate of contribution from 4 per cent in the original Quebec plan to 3.6 per cent.
Another improvement is the reduction of the number of years prior to the date of coming into force of the plan. Under Quebec's original scheme, the act would not have applied to citizens for 20 years. Because it was possible to combine both schemes, the citizens of my province will benefit from that great social security legislation ten years hence. That is a tremendous improvement.
Another advantage I mentioned earlier is the portability of the pension, which means that throughout the country the worker is sure that wherever he goes his pension will go with him. In my opinion, the Quebec worker would not have enjoyed that advantage under his own plan if there had not been an agreement with the federal government. That additional improvement must be greatly appreciated in the province of Quebec.
Both plans also contain a very important principle I want to point out.
This is the first piece of social security legislation which recognizes the very important principle that benefits will increase when the cost of living increases. I think that is a new principle which is being accepted and that in the future it should gain a wider acceptance than in the past because we notice, unfortunately, that social security legislation enacted several years ago has not taken into account the rise in the cost of living, which has considerably reduced its usefulness.
In closing, I think that the federal pension plan now under consideration holds many advantages for the citizens. I am happy to see the bill referred to a committee at this stage so that all its provisions may be studied.
For instance, some complain because the contributions will have to be paid on incomes ranging from $600 to $5,000. It would perhaps be advisable to examine more closely the possibility of increasing it up to $7,000 or $8,000 in order perhaps to reduce the minimum rate, because some labourers who have very low earnings will find it too difficult to contribute to a certain part of the social security provided in the pension plan.
It is true that the minister has amended the plan two or three times and I again

Canada Pension Plan
congratulate her. It is an excellent thing to reach an agreement after some negotiations and nobody must be blamed for reaching a compromise; indeed it has often been said that an arrangement is concluded by two intelligent persons.
We should not withdraw into rigid positions. I want to compliment both governments that looked calmly into the situation and found through constructive negotiations a common ground for the utmost benefit of all Canadian citizens. This constitutional crisis has been settled to the advantage of all Canadians.
Quebec needed funds for its economic development and it got them. The Ottawa government wanted a comprehensive pension plan for all Canadians and we have it. May this example be followed in the future. We should not be ashamed to make a compromise like this one, because we will have in the near future, included in our pension plan, an eminently social measure that the people of my province as well as those from all Canada must welcome wholeheartedly.


Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Compion-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks on Bill No. C-136. This bill will put Canadians at the mercy of a government or an institution. It will put them in a strait-jacket and encroach upon their freedom as individuals, either directly or indirectly.
Man, by his very nature, was created free to organize his life according to his aspirations provided they do not harm society. But now the state wants to force Canadian citizens to set aside part of their production and amass something from which they will benefit 52 years hence, that is the period which will elapse between 18 and 70 years of age. And this law is compulsory, if you please, as if it were feared that the earth would quit producing and bearing fruit.
Through this plan, money will pile up, but what exactly will it be used for? Will it not be, for that matter, money which has been taken forcibly? Canadians will be bled white economically, the very minimum requirements for a decent living will be taken away from them, to be used to improve their standard of living 50 years from now.
Mr. Speaker, when I see how little attention the government ministers pay to what we say, I often feel like taking a drastic decision: that of never opening my mouth again in parliament and taking every other available means to fulfil my duties as a member of parliament, as a representative of the

Canadian people and as the member for my district.
However, Mr. Speaker, if hon. members on the treasury benches have ears, but do not hear, and eyes, but fail to see the people's plight, I should, nevertheless, try and raise my voice to a still louder pitch to throw more light upon the matter whenever I get an opportunity.
As far as this Bill No. C-136 is concerned, Mr. Speaker, this considerable effort made by the government further to mislead a suffering and disheartened people, I shall rise once again in the desert of this House of Commons, and this Canadian parliament, which I had thought were more favourably disposed towards the Canadian people.
This famous Canada pension plan bill, in spite of its bombastic title, offers the Canadian people but another opportunity to see their daily bread curtailed, rationed, dried out and shrunk to a mere abstraction, a mere memory or hope; a war-time memory when money was plentiful while blood was flowing in remote parts. Five years of war brought prosperity to the Canadian people and healed the scars of that decade of depression between 1930 and 1940; but, from 1945 to 1965, after 20 years of peace, our whole hard working, peaceful and generous people have gone back to the days of depression, unemployment and destitution.
And to answer the peaceful demands of the people, all the government has to offer is Bill No. C-136. That is all our wise economists, accountants, scientists, experts, engineers and administrators have managed to offer us, the representatives of the people. And you would like us to express satisfaction at such a hazy, cumbersome and devious project as this Canadian pension plan. You are surprised that we do not think of congratulating you for that ridiculous discovery.
Fortunately, ridicule does not kill.
So you do not understand yet that the people no longer want compulsory savings deducted from their salary cheque which is already too small and inadequate for the daily needs of the dedicated worker and his family.
You have not understood as yet that our very presence in this house, we members of the Social Credit, members of the splinter parties, is a popular challenge to your bad political administration; it is a refusal to cooperate in your system which protects the wealth and capital of large institutions and lets a whole people starve or die of misery and poverty while producing plenty? Will such

conditions go on forever? Have not the people reached as yet the end of their hardship and misery? They will have to accept one more deduction from their daily earnings, so that the governments may pile up billions of dollars from the pittance of the people who lack the necessities of life.
What else can we do? Have we not tried everything to open your eyes? Have we not offered various plans which could at least get your attention and your appreciation? But no, our only appreciation is your mockery, when it is not your contempt. Never mind. We are forging ahead just the same. A day will come, which is not far, I hope, when common sense and the natural intelligence of the people will upset once and for all not only the whole system of those bad pieces of legislation intended to pile up capital to the detriment of the human being, but also those schemes, those hindrances which further reduce the freedom of individuals, and especially of the Canadian citizens.
Just imagine a young man 18 years old, earning his first dollars and going into the world full of hopes, not yet entitled to vote, who sees that a deduction is made from his small salary so that he may get a pension when he reaches 70 years of age. Fifty two years later. Old age is not his main worry. He is forced to make a sacrifice today in order to reap crumbs at the end of his career when he reaches 70.
I suppose that your pension plan, as it stands and as it will be applied, will raise further the cost of production and reduce the purchasing power of the people.
What was already wrong is now still worse. Consumers' revenues will decrease and the cost of production will increase all for the purpose of increasing government capital when the government has the power to create capital through the Bank of Canada.
But no, the government prefers to further reduce the purchasing power of the Canadian people. It is more in line with the absurdity of our present system. This absurdity must always be preserved since it is serving the purpose of a few.
Out of an annual production of $46 billion, we allow a few Canadians to pile up profits and capital amounting to $14 billion after paying taxes and making a good living, but we do not want the small earner to enjoy even the bare necessities of life. It would be too dangerous if the people had security. This surplus must be taken away from them even before they have a chance to look at it. It is taken from them even 20220-645
Canada Pension Plan
before they cash their pay cheques. They are being deprived of it without ascertaining whether or not they need it for their own children, to buy them shoes. But that does not enter into the picture at all. We must at all costs increase the capital of our poor governments who entrust others with the power to create money, capital, under any possible debt forms.
Imagine, besides, that this Canadian pension plan, which deprives the poor in Canada of their daily bread, will serve to increase the pension of the wealthy, who have already all the necessary reserves to ensure their old age. It is not without any reason that we find in the gospel: "Who hath not from him shall be taken and whosoever hath to him shall be given."
The writers of those days already saw what was going to happen in Canada in 1964 at the federal government level under the leadership of Christian ministers, defenders of the faith in Christ.
Now, imagine, Mr. Speaker, that in this Canada pension plan no thought is even given to all our Canadian citizens. Our citizens will not all be entered on this pension list. A great number of them will still lack the essentials of life and will not benefit from this pension plan. What will you do then with those citizens who have none the less to defend themselves against the mishaps of destiny, this famous bill of rights guaranteeing to each individual in Canada his right to life, freedom, security of the person? Go and see, I invent nothing. Look up the Canadian Bill of Rights, which was passed unanimously by the 265 members, without any exception, of the parliament of Canada, where it is declared that each citizen is entitled to life, to the necessities of life, but where care is taken not to say that each citizen is entitled to the amount of money necessary to his life, his freedom, his subsistence.
And yet, what can we do without money? Would the ministers themselves have been able to get elected without the fabulous sums that elections cost? Where does this money come from? But to secure a strict minimum for Canadian citizens, it is impossible to guarantee each Canadian citizen the minimum amount required.
If we have the right to live, if the pension payable under the Canada pension plan is a strict minimum, even inadequate for a decent living, why are we required to pay more money for what is already a recognized right in our legislation? Why make anyone pay for

Canada Pension Plan
something which is already recognized as a right of each individual in Canada?
Is a dog obliged to pay to have the right to live?
Mr. Speaker, only man, that proud and superior animal, is subjected to that vile and degrading slavery. Only man, among all God's creatures, is obliged at 18 to start saving for the time when he is 70, if he lives that long. Only man is thus obliged to provide against God's kindness.
That is to explain, Mr. Speaker, why science is only the third of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit or the Holy Ghost, as you wish. It is just as good if not better than party spirit.
God's wisdom, or God in His wisdom, has given the earth the power to produce all that is required for the nourishment of all its inhabitants, yearly and for every year.
Our monetary, economic and political systems should abide by this will of God that is so well expressed in nature. I was going to say in the Bible, but nature is, still more than the Bible, the word of God. Nature is rather the act of God, than the word.
When in your Canada pension plan you are asking, you are requiring an 18 year old boy, who is not yet entitled to vote to start paying taxes out of a meagre salary, so as to save money in order to get the benefit of it in 52 years, when he is 70 years old perhaps, if he is still living at that time, in the year 2016, you are guilty of a sacrilege, a sacrilege against God, against his Bible, against his gospel, against your oath of allegiance.
When a young man has not enough money to live decently at the present time, to marry, to carry on his studies, if he so wishes, you force him to put aside certain sums which will serve to pile up billions of dollars- according to the Minister of National Health and Welfare $8 billion will be accumulated in ten years-I submit that this is disgraceful. In fact, I believe that as Canadians, as representatives of the people, if we cannot find a more logical formula which would be more acceptable to the people, it would be preferable for us to resign and go back home, because not one of us deserves to represent the people.
Those were the remarks I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak in support of second reading of this bill to create a Canada pension plan. I suppose it is under-
[Mr. Latulippe.l
standable that I do have a certain pride in the fact that whatever the interests of the other parties might have been, this Liberal government has been the first to actually present to parliament legislation to create a comprehensive, portable pension plan for Canadians. While this legislation may represent the end result of a series of conferences and discussions with provincial governments and others, this should not be a reason for concern or criticism if it has led to a better plan than would have been the case without those conferences and discussions. I think this is what has happened. The turmoil, the ill will that followed the introduction by the former New Democratic party government of Saskatchewan of its medicare program shows what can happen when far reaching measures of social welfare are introduced without first having adequate consultation and discussion involving all groups concerned.
It is important that any such measure be the subject of the fullest and widest consultation and discussion so that it will work relatively smoothly from the very beginning and provide the benefits intended. This smooth operation has characterized the introduction of every social welfare measure created by previous Liberal governments. Old age security, unemployment insurance, family allowance all worked properly from the beginning without breakdowns due to conflicts, disputes or constitutional arguments; and I am sure that as a result of the consultations and discussions which preceded this piece of legislation, it will work equally well.
The introduction of this legislation with the approval of the provinces, who would otherwise have had the constitutional power to block it, demonstrates the true effectiveness of this government not only in maintaining but also in strengthening national unity. It has been a vindication of its concept of co-operative federalism, involving as it does consultation with other levels of government in matters of common concern in order to create programs in the national interest. Without this concept of co-operative federalism there could not have been a national pension plan at this time and national unity would have been the weaker. In getting the agreement of all provinces to this legislation and introducing it into parliament at this time, this government has done more in a solid and meaningful way for the cause of national unity present and future than any number of dramatic opposition speeches, no matter how

colourful and flowery and no matter how often they contain the word "Canada".


Erik Nielsen: Read on.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, this legislation is creating a standard of retirement benefit, of survivor and disability benefits for all people in this country no matter where they live. It has made it easier for people to take advantage of opportunity no matter where it may exist within our boundaries. With this bill this government has woven strands essential to the strengthening of the national fabric-


Mr. Grafftey:: Stephen Leacock.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -and has created another
powerful reason for all of us to continue living together as Canadians. The definite need for this plan at this time is surely demonstrated by the fact that almost 75 per cent of our total labour force has no coverage at all under private pension plans, and many of those who do belong to such plans do not have anything that could be called adequate coverage. The existence of 4,600,000 workers without coverage and the nature of the coverage of the many who are in private plans show to what extent private insurance companies have not-


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, I would ask for the author of the document from which the hon. member is quoting.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Tom Kent wrote that.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am pleased to inform this house, Mr. Speaker, that I happen to be the author and I have to take responsibility for what is in it, for better or for worse.


An hon. Member:: It sure is for worse.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It is not as bad as some of the things those on the opposite side of the house have said. Perhaps I may continue, Mr. Speaker. Private insurance companies have not used the opportunity that is theirs to fill this definite social need-an opportunity which some of these companies at least have now been asking governments to leave entirely to them alone.
Questions have inevitably been raised as to whether or not we can afford this type of social security, this type of social security system embodied in the Canada pension plan. But those asking these questions overlook the ability to support this type of plan existing in our buoyant economy and the ability that will come through increasing productiv-20220-645J
Canada Pension Plan
ity and the continuing growth of this economy. Canada certainly spends less of its gross national product, according to the recent white paper on this subject, on its old age security program and on programs of supplementary aid for the elderly than other English speaking countries. In the 1962-63 fiscal year Canada spent only 2 per cent of its gross national product for that purpose, while Australia spent 2.3 per cent, the United States 2.7 per cent, and 3.4 per cent was spent by the United Kingdom. It is expected that when this Canada pension plan is operated fully our country's spending on the aged will increase to only 2.3 per cent.
There have also been criticisms of the plan because it has been suggested that full benefits would be available to some, even though they have contributed for only ten years and their contributions would not equal the benefits they would be obtaining. But this would be true only in so far as it applies to those reaching pensionable age at the end of the initial ten year transition period; it would not be true in so far as any other ten year period of contribution under this plan is concerned.
After all, Mr. Speaker, one of the main reasons for creating a national contributory pension scheme at this time is to make sure that reasonable retirement benefits are available to those in their 40's or 50's who are nearing retirement age, most of whom belong to no private pension plan at all or have no adequate coverage under any private plan. There would be not much point in creating such a plan now if these important groups of people were to be overlooked. But this is exactly the same thing that has been done by many private pension plans when they have been set up by employers which give credit to their employees for years of service rendered before the new plan goes into effect. This means that employees who have worked for the maximum period required by the plan are entitled to full benefits when they retire, even though they have not contributed over the entire period before the plan went into effect. And the right to enrol in such private plans is frequently restricted to employees of 55 years of age or less who can be expected to work at least another ten years before retirement. If they complete these ten years of service they would then receive the full pension benefits.
This is exactly what happens under the Canada pension plan. People who can serve another ten years of pensionable employment from the date the plan comes into

Canada Pension Plan
operation will be able to get full benefits when they retire, even though the benefits they are to receive would be far in excess of their contributions. Therefore the Canada pension plan, in the same way as private plans, recognizes the past service of employees, the contribution they have made to their country, and permits them to receive full benefits. This certainly cannot be considered an unfair burden on our younger people who will be contributing to the plan for a long period. After all, they have benefited from the efforts of those who are now reaching retirement age. In any event, it would not be correct to say that the difference between the amounts contributed by those who do receive full benefit at the end of the transition period and the amounts of these pensions would be paid solely by the younger people. This difference would undoubtedly be made up, at least in part, by contributions from employers.
However, the argument has still been made that in creating the Canada pension plan we will be placing future generations in a situation where they have an overly onerous burden placed upon their shoulders, forcing them to pay the costs of the benefits which we may be establishing today. But this plan's approach is basically the same as that of our existing old age security system under which those now working pay for the old age pension of those who are retired; and the same can be said to apply with respect to our other existing social welfare benefits- that those not getting them help pay for those who are, to the benefit of the entire population. If the contributions of those who come after will pay for the pensions of those already retired, they in turn will be in the same situation.
The minister in her speech on second reading pointed out the unlikelihood of an increase in contribution rates for a generation; but if after 20 years some increase does become necessary surely it will be no different from increasing taxes, as we have done from time to time, to bring about needed increases in existing old age security pensions. I am sure that, as is the case today, members of future generations will be more concerned with the percentage of their income which they pay to the plan and the benefits they receive from it than the possibility that they are also helping to pay for benefits for others.
This Canada pension plan finally before us has also been subject to criticism because it provides for the building up of a sizeable fund in its initial stages which will be

available to the provinces in proportion to the contributions from them. It seems curious to me that some of this criticism has appeared to come from some of the very same people who criticized the complete pay as you go basis of the first version of this plan on the ground that it was not actuarially sound. While in this house we cannot attribute motives to speakers within its walls I do not suppose that there is anything to prevent us from doing so with regard to those who criticize in this way legislation of this type. In any event, there has been a lot of discussion lately about priorities of government expenditure, what should come first, whether it should be pensions or education or medical care. But this question cannot be answered by fixing on only one of these needs to the complete exception of all the others. The sick, the aged, the young are all part of our society, as they always will be. None of them can be ignored completely while another group is being looked after.
Therefore, the priorities can only be priorities of emphasis and of degree. You cannot decide that for the next ten years, for example, you will spend money only on schools and nothing on pensions. Some way must be found to meet these needs to one extent or another. The building up of a fund from the contributions made during the initial years of the Canada pension plan provides a way, at least a partial way, of dealing with this question of priorities for the next several decades, of harmonizing seemingly conflicting needs of different segments of our population, all of which have a right to be taken care of to some degree at the same time.
I wonder if I might call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Read another couple of pages.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I see there are still a few minutes so I will continue with my remarks.
There has been a tremendous demand for schools arising out of our rapidly expanding population and its need to adapt to changing technology. This same population has created a similar demand for hospital facilities and these are considered amongst the most pressing needs for social capital. However these fields fall under the responsibility of the provinces and are likely to do so certainly for the immediate future. To meet these demands for social capital today the provinces must have the necessary finances. The Canada pension plan provides a way for them to

obtain these finances and at the same time enables Canadians to begin providing for themselves a reasonable, basic standard of income for their retirement years.
Some concern has been expressed over the implication of making available these sizeable investment funds to governments, and at having them left in the hands of politicians. While I am not suggesting that all politicians are above reproach, at the same time I cannot accept the argument that all elected representatives in Canada today, aided by their civil service advisers, are generally speaking any less responsible or sound in their judgments than business executives, among whom have been found some who have made decisions which led not only to loss of money on the part of their firms but to actual bankruptcy.
I now see, Mr. Speaker, that the clock has at last caught up with me, so I suppose I can legitimately call it ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the house leader, if this debate is concluded tomorrow and if there is any time left, whether we will go on with the smaller items he mentioned yesterday. Then may I ask a second question. Which estimates may we expect to take up in the house on Thursday and Friday?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we propose continuing with the present debate on the second reading of the Canada pension plan. If it is finished before the end of the day we will take up the three bills I mentioned last night, as set out at page 10151 of Hansard. On Thursday it is my understanding that the chairman of the special committee on the Canadian flag proposes to move concurrence in the report of the flag committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the importance of the business that has been mentioned but I was wondering whether the house leader has given consideration to the fact that perhaps a few more days uninterrupted on the main estimates would ease him quite a bit in the onerous duties he is performing in this house. Because I am sure he would not want to ask for interim supply again, having received nine twelfths of the fiscal year already.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman would care to be very specific and tell us just how many days is "a few" in that context and how many estimates would
Business of the House be through at the end of that period, I would certainly give the matter very urgent consideration.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Let us start with justice.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the house leader has asked me a question. My survey of the situation leads me to say that I think the main estimates, if discussion is continued without interruption, can be completed by the 30th of November.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that if we can get these estimates before the house I think we can dispose of them all by the end of the month and the government would then have control of the house. As long as they have to come back for interim supply they have not got control of the house and I think it is in the interests of parliament-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. My understanding is that it is irregular to have a debate on the announcement of government business. It is the duty of the government house leader to announce the business. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wants to ask a question-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, I should like to ask a question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the discussion that has taken place, will the government house leader consider calling a meeting of the party representatives to discuss the program for the immediate future?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, before the leader of the house answers the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I must say that, in my opinion, we have had enough meetings of the party leaders and that we must accept the house leader's suggestion to the effect that on Thursday we take up at last, consideration of the report of the special committee which had the responsibility of choosing a distinctive Canadian flag model.
We are anxious to settle this issue in order that we can consider after that all the programs which our friends the Conservatives might want to suggest to the government.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: May I ask the house leader a question? When the motion is moved for concurrence in the report of the flag committee, will any special provision be made for the question period on the days when that motion is being discussed?
10204	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


George James McIlraith: There has been no request for any such special condition to be made applicable. The motion for concurrence is a routine proceeding and would take precedence over all other business. I will look into the possibility of doing something about this matter. If it became apparent that there was some need for a question period perhaps we could use the hour from 10 to 10.30 for that purpose.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does this mean that the government intends to proceed with the discussion of the flag committee's report and continue with it until it is completed? Does this mean that the labour standards act will not be dealt with until after that report has been approved?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, we are getting into a debate-


An hon. Member:: Let us have an answer.


George James McIlraith: -but may I say I did not put any such negative proposition at all. I was asked, very properly, by the house leader of the official opposition to announce the business. I announced it for the next three days, as I thought was proper, and it must be evident to all hon. members, of course, that we can only discuss one item of business at a time in the house although sometimes I wonder if that is what we actually do.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, today I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if he would allay the fears of many native Indian people across the country by announcing the government's policy with respect to the amounts of welfare benefit payments to these people in order that the Indian people of Canada will not be enticed into the field of provincial jurisdiction by higher welfare payments when they may not want to participate in the provincial plan.
On November 2, the minister answered a number of questions posed by myself and other members of the house about the procedure to be followed after the dominion-provincial conference on Indian affairs was held. The minister stated, as reported on page 9652 of Hansard:


Firstly, in every province of Canada, there shall be held a conference to which all Indians will be invited so they can express their wishes and their suggestions on the very principle of extending provincial services to the Indians in every province.
The first thing these native people would like to know, Mr. Speaker, is who is going to arrange for this conference? How are the native people going to get there? Who is going to pay the costs of the conference, the costs of transportation and the like, of the native people to attend this particular conference? They would like to know that. However, that is incidental to the main point.
I continue to quote from the minister's statement:
After this consultation and provided the Indians agree that such provincial services would be desirable, there shall be a second method consultation; the bands will be consulted. Every band in Canada or in every province will be consulted-
Then he went on to say that every band in Canada or in every province would be consulted, that is the councils of those bands would be consulted, in order to ascertain if they wished to take advantage of a program to be established in a province, and every band which did not wish to take advantage of provincial services would be free to reject such services. Under those circumstances, the federal services would remain in force.
We do know that there are native Indian people in different parts of Canada who strenuously object to having jurisdiction over their affairs dealt with in any way by provincial governments. There are Indian people in other parts of Canada who believe it would be desirable to have jurisdiction over their affairs dealt with in the same way as everybody else, and that there be equality of application of the law. This situation is likely to develop. A native Indian or a group of native Indians may not want, for the sake of argument, to have jurisdiction over welfare services dealt with by the provincial government. It may well be that the provincial government is paying welfare payments greatly in excess of the niggardly amounts paid by the Indian affairs branch. What they would like to know is if the government will declare that welfare payments payable to native Indian people will be on a par with those made by the various provinces so that this monetary enticement will not be held out to them by the provinces in order to entice the Indian people to come under provincial jurisdiction. This is a serious matter.
Recently, for instance, in British Columbia one of the Indian superintendents, speaking

at a conference of the Nishga tribal council on January 1, said the Indian affairs branch would make welfare payments on the same basis as those payments are made by the provincial authorities. This is a welcome announcement. It should have been made many years ago. We would like to know if this is the policy of the government in all of these provinces. Will they treat the Indian people on a basis of equality in so far as the various services are concerned which might be provided by the provinces, and which they might accept at this conference which is about to be arranged? They want to know where they stand. They do not want to be bought off or have it look as if they are being bought into provincial jurisdiction. If this were to be the case, it would be a most disgraceful state of affairs, to have a province offer money to the native people to get them to come under their jurisdiction and relinquish what they feel in their hearts are their rights under the crown, and under the jurisdiction of the government of Canada.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, when speaking on his estimates on August 14 the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration made the following statement, as recorded at page 6864 of Hansard for that date:
Concern has been expressed about the apparent disparities between the amount of public assistance provided to Indians as compared to that received by other residents of the various provinces. On the surface there appear to be such disparities. However, they are more apparent than real. Indian assistance rates cover food only. Fuel, shelter, clothing and other forms of assistance are provided to Indians as extra items on the basis of need. On the other hand, provincial scales, though varying greatly from province to province, generally include a lump sum payment for food, shelter, clothing, fuel and other needs.
From the minister's statement it can readily be seen that the difference between the welfare rates used by the Indian affairs branch and the rates used by the provinces are more apparent than real. The Indian affairs branch rates cover food only, with clothing and other necessities provided separately, as required, while provincial rates cover all items including food.
However, I want to assure the hon. member that the department has decided to adjust its welfare rates to conform with those of the provinces concerned, and this will be done as quickly as possible or as soon as the details can be worked out. Indians will not be brought under the jurisdiction of the provinces without their own consent.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I think that, Mr. Speaker, answers the questions asked by the hon. member for Skeena and I am sure that so far as this government is concerned he need not fear about the treatment of Indians. In other words, they will be treated fairly.


Frank Howard: In other words, there is no difference but you are going to adjust it anyway.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-INQUIRY AS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF APPEAL BOARD

Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, on July 27 I asked the Minister of Justice, who I am disappointed not to see in his seat tonight particularly because of the gravity with which I view the situation, to provide an answer to this question. On that date I suggested that the minister give consideration to setting up an appeal board procedure similar to that which is used in the armed forces court martial appeal board, so that there could be impartial and rapid disposal of charges which have been brought against members of the R.C.M.P. under rules which at best can be described as rather archaic.
The minister said he would consider the matter as one for government policy. I presume the parliamentary secretary will be answering for him tonight and I wish to suggest it is a matter of great urgency, as pointed out by the recent developments in Montreal with respect to two highly placed officers, one the commanding officer of the whole subdivision, who have been dealt with by a trial procedure and convicted.
An appeal was brought before three other officers, as is the procedure under the act. The appeal was dismissed and a recommendation was made by the commissioner of the mounted police, which the minister has not yet dealt with, notwithstanding the fact that it was made shortly before Labour day. For two and a half months these officers and their families have been kept in suspense waiting upon the minister's decision. The minister has to decide, of course, whether or not to recommend to his cabinet colleagues that the recommendation of the commissioner be carried out. I put it to the parliamentary secretary that this procedure is archaic. It is time it was changed. Justice delayed is justice denied and no further delay can be justified in this particular case.
It has not been my intention to jeopardize the individuals concerned or the good reputation which the R.C.M.P. enjoys not only in
10206	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion this country but throughout the world. But national press stories, particularly one which appeared on November 13 in the Toronto Star, have now publicized details of the case and it is time the minister or someone in authority spoke up. Any further delay would amount to a complete neglect of the responsibility which the minister has for making a decision. Since the recommendation was made, two and a half months have gone by and the individual officers concerned should not, in my opinion, be held any longer in suspense with regard to the unfortunate developments which have placed them in the position in which they now find themselves and their families. An impartial appeal procedure similar to that available to the armed forces would do away with this kind of injustice.
My purpose in raising this matter on July 17 continues to be my purpose. As matters have developed there appears to be a need for the minister to say something which will restore morale which has deteriorated seriously within the force. I see the parliamentary secretary laughing at that, but I am serious when I say to him that the morale of the force has been jeopardized by this delay. The minister has a responsibility to restore it. It does not take two and a half months for all the surrounding circumstances to be investigated so that the minister can reach a decision. I know I shall probably be told that all the surrounding circumstances are being investigated and that when this investigation has been completed an announcement will be made. But even if only two months had elapsed there would have been ample time for the minister to have acted responsibly.
The delay is having a serious effect also on the confidence placed by the minister in the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. who made the recommendation based on the advice of four senior officers of the force. Either the minister has confidence in the commissioner or he has not. It is time this house and the public knew. It would also be good for the morale of individuals in the force if they, too, knew how the minister stands in this regard.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: It seems to me there are two things to be said with respect to the hon. member's observations tonight. The first is that it is a sad and grave misfortune both for the individuals involved in this particular situation and for the proud service to which they belong that these incidents should have arisen. I know all right thinking people would agree that the fact these circumstances have come to pass should
[Mr. Nielsen.)

not be the basis for any type of unfair yellow journalism or for any type of political exaggeration.
It comes as a surprise to me that the hon. member should have described the rules as archaic and the procedure as being out of date, because he should know that the statute which governs this situation was enacted by parliament in 1959, at a time when the hon. member was a member of this house and a supporter of the government of the day and if, indeed, the rules are as fraught with injustice as he maintains, it is extraordinary he should have sat through that debate so supinely and done nothing to assert what seems to him now to be a basic principle. If this was not evident to the hon. member in 1959 it should certainly have been evident to him and to the government he supported in 1961.
I would refer the house to the case of re Walsh and Jordan, reported in volume 31 Dominion Law Reports, second series, 1962, at page 88, a justice of the Ontario high court held that the Canadian Bill of Rights had no application to the procedure which was involved in that case, which also related to disciplinary action against an officer of the R.C.M.P. It was held that this much-vaunted statute was here again just a dead letter and had no application. If indeed the government which the hon. gentleman supported felt at that time that there was a question of justice involved here, one would have expected they would have taken some action on it. However, I think a further important characteristic here is that you are involved in the cases of two men with, respectively, 34 years and 15 years service in this force. I do not think any member present who stops to reflect on these matters would want any kind of drumhead justice-would want them to lose, for example, the pension rights which they have accrued-without a full consideration of their cases.



AGRICULTURE-OTTAWA VALLEY-EMERGENCY LEGISLATION RESPECTING DROUGHT CONDITIONS

John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, today I asked a question of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) and, in his absence, the parliamentary secretary with regard to the very serious situation of drought which exists in eastern Ontario generally and in Renfrew county in particular. Yesterday the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) asked a question with regard to a similar situation which apparently exists

in Pontiac, in the province of Quebec. At that time the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), who replied to the question, felt that some action should be taken in this regard by the province of Quebec.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that this matter is of some national moment as well as of great importance to the farmers of Renfrew county, by reason of the statement of the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smallwood), who indicated that the forcible sale of cattle by farmers of eastern Ontario, and in particular Renfrew county where the drought is most severe, might result in affecting cattle prices across the nation as a whole. I think, therefore, the problem is one which affects not only the particular area of drought, which is largely in Renfrew and Lanark counties, but possibly the national economy in so far as it pertains to the sale and price of cattle across the country. I would point out that I appreciate there is a constitutional difficulty in these matters; that unfortunately national legislation pertaining to crises in various provinces where, through no fault of their own the farmers of this country are very hard hit by drought or other disasters of this nature which stem from an act of God, is possibly lacking in this parliament by reason of the fact that to date no national policy has been evolved with the co-operation of the provinces.
However, Mr. Speaker, I do submit that in a situation such as this, which affects not only the economic well-being of these farmers but even involves the possibility of the wells being dry and the water tables being extremely low, and which might affect the question of health and welfare in these areas, surely when a crisis of this kind occurs some action can be taken under the federal powers to remedy it. This is a very serious situation which exists in the counties of Renfrew and Lanark by reason of the very serious drought existing at the present time and the very bad conditions with regard to the wells and water tables. I would point out that the entire season has been dry to the extent that the hay crop has been short, so that at the present time feed is extremely short. Accordingly these farmers have to sell cattle at below their market value almost on a forced sale basis. Not only will this create very serious economic difficulties for them but it will possibly depress the market generally.
I would also point out the serious emergency situation existing not only with respect to cattle but with regard to the tobacco growers of the area. Theirs is very nearly a 20220-646
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion total loss this year by reason of the drought, and I suggest that some action should be taken by the department not only to remedy the situation regarding the shortage of hay, but to enable these unfortunate tobacco farmers to recover from the blow they have suffered. I may say that tobacco farming in this area is in its infancy. I think it is well known that this area is not a rich economic area. It is an economic area where any industry, such as tobacco farming, which is beginning to show some signs of good prospects, should be encouraged. Total loss in one of the early years could prove fatal to this burgeoning industry.
The Minister of Agriculture has displayed, I think, a dynamism and capacity for action. I think he has come to be known as the farmers' C. D. Howe, and it is to be hoped that in a situation such as this some action will be forthcoming along the lines we have become accustomed to from the dynamic Minister of Agriculture who is in office at the present time.


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for Renfrew South for bringing this important matter to the attention of all hon. members. I wish to offer him my congratulations for his very deep concern for the farmers of his constituency. This provides me with an opportunity to restate the policy of the government and also to relate some first hand experiences which I had with you, Mr. Speaker, in the county of Stormont, where I had the opportunity of viewing some of the serious conditions existing in your county, which I know are typical of the problem areas of eastern Canada.
The policy of the government, as was the policy of previous governments, has been that the federal government should not interfere unless requested to do so by the province concerned. A province would not normally ask for federal assistance unless it felt that any loss occasioned was beyond their financial capacity to absorb. But the federal government has recognized that many of these problem areas do present a serious drain on the finances of the provinces and therefore the government has been only too willing to enter into consultations with the provinces and to reach agreement on a policy whereby federal assistance can be made available, provided the province concerned initiates the request. The policy is simply that the federal government and the province concerned
10208	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion would enter into an agreement whereby they would pay collectively 75 per cent of the cost of transportation of fodder into these areas up to a maximum of $10 per ton. In addition, the federal government would assist the provinces in paying the transportation of livestock back to the market. This, of course, clearly places a responsibility for initiating any measure of assistance in drought stricken areas on the province.
I think there is also one other responsibility here and I make this statement entirely on my own. I believe that where there is dire need, and hardship has occurred, it is the responsibility of the municipality to take some action and to give some leadership in assessing the over-all needs of the municipality. It should also give some leadership

in seeing to it that the policies of the province and of the federal government are clearly understood and used by the farmers in the area.
The hon. member of Renfrew South has referred to tobacco. I think he is probably aware, as are other hon. members, that this government has instituted a policy of crop reinsurance whereby the principle of crop insurance has been broadened. This would offer some degree of protection for specialized crops in specific areas such as he has mentioned. This could also apply to other crops in a similar way. In concluding I wish to thank the hon. member again for bringing this matter to the attention of the house.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.33 p.m.

Wednesday, November 18, 1964