1965-03-12

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
queen's PRINTER AND CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY OTTAWA, 1965
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 12, 1965


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the house that effective April 1 the Department of Veterans Affairs prosthetic services will be made available to all Canadians under the Department of National Health and Welfare.
This service consists of a main factory and central stores depot at Sunnybrook hospital in Toronto and a chain of prosthetic centres spread across Canada which provide disabled veterans with artificial limbs, braces, orthopaedic boots and other appliances they may require. This will not change; disabled veterans will continue to receive their prosthetic devices and the servicing and fitting required at the same places. This service will inevitably improve under the new arrangement because of the stimulus to research and development and the challenge and skills that new and different cases will provide.
The implications of the change have been discussed with officers of the War Amputations of Canada who have been kept fully informed and are in complete accord with this plan. Employees of the prosthetic service will continue as federal civil servants, either with the Department of Veterans Affairs or with the Department of National Health and Welfare.



PROCEDURE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg Norih Centre) moved:: That the sixteenth report of the special committee on procedure and organization presented to the house on March 10, 1965, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, is the Secretary
of State for External Affairs in a position to give any additional information regarding the situation in South Viet Nam and particularly whether Canada has asked the United States and other countries to join in the reconvening of the Geneva powers and such additional powers as may be deemed necessary at this time? Although the minister has dealt with this matter on one or two previous occasions, I ask the minister this question because of the ever increasing feeling that we in this country are in a position of potential leadership and could do much to bring about this conference.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I can well understand my right hon. friend's concern about this matter. Canada, along with other countries including Great Britain, has taken certain initiatives in this matter. Canada is now awaiting a reaction to suggestions that have been made to certain countries as to the conditions which they regard as essential before there can be an agreement for the holding of a conference.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say whether the Canadian government is in accord with the expressed view of the British government in connection with the general situation, particularly that if the Geneva accord were lived up to by North Viet Nam none of the potential perils would now be present?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: I can certainly agree that if North Viet Nam had lived up to the provisions of the 1954 accord-and I might add if in the present circumstances all parties concerned had lived up to the 1954 accord-there would be no need to hold a conference. There are provisions in the accords and in the modifications of that accord in 1962 sufficient to provide for stability and peace in the area.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the minister one further question. What nations are included within the purview of "all countries", in view of the fact that the wrongdoer is North Viet Nam?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to leave my response as it stands.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Eurnaby-Coquiiiam):: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if it is not true also that the truce commission's report of June, 1982, of which Canada was a signatory along with India, cited South Viet Nam as also having violated the accord by virtue of having 5,000 military advisers in their territory from the United States and refusing to co-operate with the truce commission in assessing the amount of military assistance they were receiving from the United States? In view of the fact that military advisers have now reached the figure of some 24,000 or 25,000, plus the landing of marines, would the minister not consider that the United States and South Viet Nam have equally violated the Geneva accord?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: The majority report of the commission in 1962, made up of India and Canada, did draw conclusions that applied both to North and South Viet Nam. Of that there is no question. I am glad my hon. friend has mentioned this, because it shows the objective position that Canadian spokesmen in 1962, as in 1965, have taken. Canada has not hesitated to join with one of its colleagues on the commission in speaking out on matters which it felt were warranted by the terms of the accord. This also motivated Canada in the presentation of our recent minority statement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The objectivity of our representatives on the truce commission seems to have changed somewhat with the change of government, may I say, since 1962. May I ask the minister whether Canada has made any representations to the United States suggesting that a discontinuance of the bombing of a country with which they are not at war might be a successful prelude to the bringing about of a conference and a negotiated settlement?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I would not want the first observation of my hon. friend to stand unchallenged. The former government acted on this matter with the same diligence and responsibility that this government is endeavouring to show. The 1962 report was not dictated by the government of the day any more than the minority report in 1965 was dictated by this government.
With regard to the particular suggestion, I can only say that the Canadian government continues to pursue, with the United States and with other countries, negotiations in respect of this matter. I should like my hon. friend to realize that-I say this not critically-there are implied in his question

suggestions that the United States is unaware of its heavy responsibilities in this matter. Though the United States is coming in for much criticism, I would ask my hon. friend and the house to bear in mind that in this matter the United States is trying to resist a form of pressure from the north in which is involved a precedent that might well affect not only other countries in Asia but the free world generally.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the minister also
acknowledge that it is setting quite a precedent when a major power can bomb a smaller power with impunity? If this precedent is allowed to stand, then the whole fabric of the rule of law will completely disappear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is nothing Canada would be more pleased to see than an end to this fighting in Viet Nam, but it takes two to bring about a truce, and it takes two to set up conditions that will guarantee permanent peace in the area.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Could the minister tell us if the federal government paid any amount of money to the province of Quebec under the student loans plan, under the section which provides for such payments to provinces which do not participate in the student loans plan?


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I will be glad to look into this, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the rising cost of living, and in view of the recently proposed increase in the price of steel in Canada, which will increase the cost of living to every household in Canada, will the government consider removing the tariff on steel and tin plate in order to bring down the cost of living?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the government has been giving consideration to the tariff schedules not only in this area but all across the board in connection with the Kennedy round, and more particularly in connection with the next budget. Apart from that I do not think I can answer this question in specific terms.



FORT CHURCHILL, MAN.-GRANTS IN LIEU OF TAXES ON HARBOURS BOARD ESTABLISHMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to say whether negotiations are under way between officials of the federal government and the province of Manitoba concerning grants in lieu of taxes in relation to national harbours board establishments in Fort Churchill?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: The question of grants in lieu of taxes or of taxation under the ordinary provisions applying to government departments is under very active review at the present time. Indeed, one increase was made in these payments quite recently. The matter is being worked out with a view, ultimately, to putting the harbours board on the same basis as government departments.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and ask whether his department or the Canadian government received a request from the United Nations high commissioner for refugees to accept 200 white Russian refugees from China now stranded in Hong Kong.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I shall have to take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: The press has it that Canada has refused to accept them. If so, I hope the minister will give us an explanation.



ALBERTA-REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING FREIGHT RATE INCREASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, and maybe it might also be answered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Have the government, or the ministers in question, received a brief from the coal operators of Alberta and the united mine workers of Alberta, 1,200 of them, in reference to the increased freight rate on coal from Alberta and B.C. to the port of Vancouver, from $5.13 a ton to $7.45 a ton, which will affect our Japanese market so far as anthracite coal is concerned and our domestic market so far as subbituminous coal is concerned?


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minisier of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to my hon. friend's question is yes; I received a delegation from the western coal operators, and the matter is being given consideration.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the hon. gentleman's department received any notification from the Japanese purchasers of hard coal from the Crowsnest Pass and Can-more areas of Alberta and British Columbia with reference to cancellation of their contracts in view of the fact that there will be an increase in the tonnage cost to the Japanese?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Not to my knowledge, but I will be glad to inquire.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow up the question I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the minister of mines and the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received any brief with reference to the increase in freight rates under the new railway legislation, which would increase freight rates on coal from British Columbia and Alberta to the port of Vancouver to be shipped to the Japanese by $2 to $3 per ton?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that not only have I received representations on the matter, but I understand that the freight rate increase is not to be proceeded with at the present time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is that government policy, or the railway's policy, that the freight rate increase will not be proceeded with under the proposed bill which is before the house?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am just giving some information which was passed



REQUEST FOR INCREASED SALARIES FOR PROTECTIVE STAFF

[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry on to me, for which I take no responsibility other than merely passing it on, because I do think it is of great interest to these people. 1 understand the coal operators made certain representations to the Canadian Pacific Railway to the effect that this increase of 25 cents a ton in freight rates would jeopardize their Japanese contracts, and they asked for six months' delay in order to make certain proposals to the railway for improving the whole situation and the turn around at Vancouver. The Canadian Pacific Railway has acceded to this request and has decided not to put the increase into operation for another six months.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I thank the minister very much.



NOVA SCOTIA-SUBVENTIONS ON COAL SOLD TO ONTARIO HYDRO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, may I reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, as recorded at page 12025 of Hansard for last Friday in which he asked whether there were any extensions of coal assistance with respect to eastern Canada.
Subvention assistance on Canadian coal under regulations prescribed by the governor in council was authorized by this house for a period of five years in supplementary estimates B passed on November 27, 1964. The regulations applicable have no expiry date and will continue, as in the past, to provide assistance on the movement of Nova Scotia coal to consumers in the competitive area, including the Ontario hydro commission.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I have given him notice. It deals with the position of veterans who were prisoners of war of the Japanese in Hong Kong. Would the minister advise us whether the survey undertaken on behalf of those veterans, which was expected to be completed by the end of February, is yet available?
Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans
Affairs): I will have to inquire. Perhaps I could report to the hon. member on Monday.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the President of the Privy Council. Can the hon. gentleman inform the house when the government intends to raise the salaries of members of the protective staff of this house so they may receive salaries at least equal to those received by the secretaries?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Privy Council):: The question may be one for Your Honour to deal with, but perhaps I could answer it in my capacity as a member of the internal economy commission.
The cyclical pay review of the civil service group "D" is now being worked on. The report from the pay research bureau of the civil service commission affecting that group should be received by the treasury board about April 1. This would mean, after all the necessary steps have been taken under the Civil Service Act by way of interviews with the appropriate associations and so on, that a decision concerning pay changes affecting civil servants in group "D" would be announced by about July 1. The usual practice is that the protective staff and certain other groups in the House of Commons would be dealt with immediately afterward in relation to that group "D" examination. I might add that any pay increases in group "D" would be retroactive to October 1, 1964.



LETTER RESPECTING ALLEGED FRAUDULENT VOTING IN B.C.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the President of the Privy Council.
Is the minister aware that one Mr. Brown, a resident of British Columbia, sent a letter to the chairman of the committee on privileges and elections, pointing out that certain irregularities would have occurred during the last electoral campaign in the riding of Burnaby-Coquitlam; if so, does he intend to refer this letter to the judge of the commission which is investigating this matter?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I know nothing about this matter, but I will look into it at once.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The procedure would be to place that question on the order paper.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him whether he is ready to make a statement as to the means he intends to take to improve the employment position in Quebec, where 100,000 people are now out of work.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: I stated on an earlier occasion that it would be possible at a later date in connection with the speech from the throne, and later the budget, to indicate what further steps will be taken to deal with the unemployment situation in the country generally and in Quebec, where despite the figure mentioned by the hon. member the situation has considerably improved.


Georges-J. Valade: The minister has told us he intends to take some measures to deal with this situation. I wonder whether he intends to recommend the abolition of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials as a means of alleviating unemployment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That, of course, is a question which might be directed to the Minister of Finance.



REPORTED DIFFERENCES RESPECTING MANPOWER POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['At this stage of the proceedings the Chair intends to take the matter under advisement and make a ruling as soon as possible.']
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the great differences of opinion between the minister and the officials of his department and Dr. Deutsch and the economic council with respect to the manpower policies and needs of Canada, is the minister considering discussions between his department and the economic council with the hope that one acceptable manpower policy could be evolved?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the responsibility for evolving a manpower policy is the responsibility of the government, and in particular of the Department of Labour.
Inquiries of the Ministry REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF WINTER WORKS PROGRAM
On the orders of the day:


Mr. G. D. Clancy (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Labour. Because of the unpredictable and unforeseen severity of the winter on the prairies, has he considered extending the winter works program for 30 days?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I agree that in certain parts of the prairies there have been unforeseen weather conditions. The matter is under review, and it will be possible later in the month to determine whether an extension is necessary. I am sure my hon. friend appreciates that if an extension were granted at the moment it might have the effect of slackening the activity which is essential for the remainder of the month of March. The matter is under review, and a decision will be made later.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: A supplementary question. Will the minister give me the assurance that all municipalities which undertook this type of work will be given consideration?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Municipalities will be given every possible consideration in the way I have indicated.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister.


Mr. Winkler:: Who is that today?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to ask whether the Acting Prime Minister, on behalf of this parliament and the people of Canada, would convey to the President of the United States a tribute to the memory of the late Reverend James Reeb, who died as a martyr in the cause of human rights and freedom.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to convey the suggestion of the hon. member to the Prime Minister. I am sure I would be echoing the views of every member of the house in expressing the sorrow we must all feel over this regrettable death.

Inquiries of the Ministry CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a question. I wonder what steps the minister is taking to investigate the circumstances under which Senator Gelinas was supplied confidential information from the files of the department by Raymond Denis in the Stonehill case, as reported in the press.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept any such premise as that included in the question and so cannot answer it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In my opinion that question, as phrased, is completely out of order. It is an assertion, an allegation.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask a further question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is the minister aware that Raymond Denis has given testimony under oath to the effect that information from the files of his department was made available to Senator Gelinas-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order. Surely questions about proceedings before a royal commission which is sitting at this time should not be put until that commission has made its report.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair agrees with the last statement made by the minister.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the Minister of Transport, the circumstances in relation to this evidence involve a matter which is in no way sub judice. The royal commission is investigating an entirely different matter, having been set up for an entirely different purpose. During the course of its inquiry sworn testimony has been given which appears to indicate a violation of the Official Secrets Act. I think we are entitled to ask the minister to take notice of this and to have an investigation made and report back to the house.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, further to this question I would point out to the minister and to the house that I have already put on the order paper

question No. 2,899 referring to another matter with regard to which testimony was given before the Dorion commission. I submit that certainly not everything about which information becomes available and which has nothing to do with the main problem into which the commission is inquiring cannot be discussed until the report is received.


Reid Scott: I should like to give notice to discuss this at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, since the commissioner, Judge Dorion, is not called upon to decide this specific point, it seems to me that this question should be allowed and that an answer should be given.
In my opinion this problem does not concern the Dorion commission, because it is only an incident disclosed during the investigation. Since the matter depends much more on the minister's rather than on the investigators' judgment, I feel that the minister should answer this question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this is a very important point of order, I think I should mention that there is a rule of this house that any hon. member who chooses to make an assertion and then base a question on it has to take the responsibility in the house for the accuracy of the assertion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I am sure Your Honour will want to make a ruling, because this question has not been settled satisfactorily as yet. I believe Your Honour will want to take under advisement the question as to whether evidence given before the Dorion commission which is not related to the terms of reference under which that commission is operating can be the subject of questions asked in this house. The particular question raised by the hon. member for Danforth related to the Stonehill case, and nowhere under the terms of reference is Mr. Justice Dorion authorized to investigate the Stone-hill case, unless the government decides to extend those terms of reference. Therefore I ask Your Honour if he will take under consideration whether questions regarding the Stonehill case are now to be declared sub judice, and not capable of being asked in this house. It seems to me that this is a rather important matter which ought to be clarified.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I may be permitted to say a word or two in this regard. I agree completely with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that the Stonehill case is not before the commission and that questions relating to the Stone-hill case should not be ruled out of order on that account. The point I made, however, was that the question asked by the hon. member for Danforth was based on an assertion made by a witness appearing before that commission-I have never seen the assertion made elsewhere-and it is a rule of this house that every member who chooses to ask a question must take personal responsibility for any assertions he chooses to make in the question, and not be allowed to carry on fishing expeditions, unless we are to allow McCarthyite questions to smear people without any basis in fact.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I listened politely to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and I hope I will be listened to in an equally polite manner, because this is a very important point. I think it would be perfectly proper for the hon. member for Danforth to ask his question in an entirely different form without making any assertions. If the hon. member wanted to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether anything had been communicated to a certain person, that question would be in order. However, to make assertions for which one is not willing to accept responsibility, particularly when the assertions are made in relation to a man whose credibility is under investigation by a commission, does seem to me, sir, to be an abuse of the rules.
I agree with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that it would be very desirable for Your Honour to take this important point under advisement.


Mr. Speaker:: The matter is a very important one in principle. It is far too important to give a snap decision in this house, so, although I cannot say I will do so with the greatest of pleasure, certainly with the greatest of interest I will take it under consideration.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to Your Honour that when you are taking this matter under consideration, having regard to the statement just made by the Minister of Transport, perhaps one should remember that almost every day in this house members predicate ques-20220-778J
Inquiries of the Ministry tions on statements which appear in the press, and it would be a very brave man indeed who would assume responsibility for all the statements which appear in the press. Furthermore, may I point out that the hon. member for Danforth simply asked a question about a communication, and it seems to me he is entitled to a reply as to whether or not this communication took place.


Mr. Speaker:: At this stage of the proceedings the Chair intends to take the matter under advisement and make a ruling as soon as possible.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Could he advise the house at what stage the negotiations are between Canada and the United States with regard to the bilateral air agreement between the two countries; and could he advise whether these talks have completely stalled, as has been reported from time to time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think they are completely stalled, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to consider very carefully any answer I give to that question.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Rock (Jacques Cartier-La-salle):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the minister in charge of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Have there been any negotiations or talks between the principals or representatives of Lasalle Heights Incorporated and officers of C.M.H.C. at Montreal concerning the possibility of an extra loan in order to change the fuel system at Lasalle Heights buildings from natural gas to electricity and/or other fuel?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that this is a question for the order paper.


Raymond Rock: Mr. Speaker, with respect, if you knew the concern of the more than 450 people living there-


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Raymond Rock: I have no shares in natural gas; let me finish.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There was a disastrous explosion at this site and perhaps the hon. member is right in asking for a reply this morning, if the reply is prepared and the minister is ready to give it, and if it would ease the situation and concern in Montreal.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to fully answer the question. I received notice of it, for which I thank the hon. member, after the opening of the house. I know there have been some discussions between the people concerned and central mortgage and housing, but whether they have covered this particular aspect of the matter I am not sure. I will look into it and give the hon. member an answer as soon as possible.


Raymond Rock: With regard to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I should like to state-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Raymond Rock: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With due respect to my hon. friend, colleague and neighbour-political neighbour at least-I think we should proceed. The hon. member for Winnipeg South.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Margaret Konantz (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Could he tell me whether the Canadian National Railways are considering reducing the freight rates from Churchill?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Following certain representations which were made, the freight rate on inbound freight from Churchill has been restored to the same basis it formerly was with rates from Montreal.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY NOVA SCOTIA-STATEMENTS IN HOUSE BY MEMBER FOR HALIFAX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Min-

ister of Labour in his capacity as the cabinet representative from Nova Scotia. Will the Minister of Labour look at the assertions and allegations made in this house yesterday and make the appropriate apology to Premier Stanfield of Nova Scotia; and I refer to the assertions and allegations made by the childish representative from Halifax.
Mr. Speaker, you have just made a ruling in respect of the question asked by the hon. member for Danforth regarding allegations and assertions. I have now posed a direct question to the minister representing Nova Scotia in the federal cabinet, as to whether he intends to allow these assertions and allegations against Premier Stanfield of Nova Scotia to stand as they were left yesterday, in view of your ruling that we are not permitted to do this sort of thing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: The difference, Mr. Speaker, is that the question today was posed by an opposition member, whereas yesterday the assertions were made-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Malcolm MacInnis: -by a government supporter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I can understand the interest shown by the hon. member, but in my opinion his last declaration, while interesting, is not necessarily in order.


Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member referred to me, I only want to make it clear on this point of order-


An hon. Member:: You are out of order.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -that he is incorrect in suggesting that I made any such assertions. Anyone who takes the time to read Hansard as it records what was said last night will see that I dealt in a very responsible manner, if I say so myself, with sworn testimony given before the public accounts committee of the legislature of the province of Nova Scotia, which is of great importance to this parliament inasmuch as it dealt with a shared cost program in respect of which the federal government will pay 90 per cent. I was very careful in my remarks to say it was quite

possible that Premier Stanfield did not know that this was taking place, but I think he will find out now if that is the case.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on that question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think we need waste any more time. Representatives from both sides of the house have had their day in court, and I am sure the newspapers have all the information they need. I recognize the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I remind you, sir, and the entire house that when I referred to the childish member for Halifax there were two choices, but the hon. member has identified himself. Therefore I point out in respect of the assertions and allegations which are reported in Hansard, made directly against Premier Stanfield-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This matter was
determined two minutes ago, and I now recognize the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale.



SALES OF WHEAT AND FLOUR TO BULGARIA AND RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldf-Melforf-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce in relation to a question I directed to him a day or two ago in reference to a visit to Russia by Canadian wheat board representatives. I understand they have now left Russia, and I am wondering whether the minister can make any announcement regarding the subject of the question I directed to him on a previous occasion.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian
wheat board, following a visit of representatives of that board to Moscow, has announced a sale to the Soviet union of 50,000 long tons of flour, and at the same time a sale to Bulgaria of 50,000 long tons of wheat. The two separate sales involve a total of approximately 4,300,000 bushels of wheat.
The sale of flour is for cash, and it provides for the shipments of the flour to Cuba from St. Lawrence ports during the period from May through to July, 1965.
The sale to Bulgaria is for shipment from St. Lawrence ports during May, 1965. This completes the second year of a three year
Inquiries of the Ministry agreement signed in October, 1963. The sale to Bulgaria is on a credit basis, as authorized by the government of Canada under the provisions of the Export Credits Insurance Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona asked me to obtain the answer to a question as soon as possible. He is not in his seat, but I think I perhaps should give the answer so he will have the information. He inquired about the cost of the Northern Transportation Company's new supply vessel, the Broderick. I am pleased to inform the house that the contract price for the Broderick was $1,062,377.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kenf. Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Have any representations been made to him for financial assistance, or is his department considering any such assistance, in connection with the flood damage that occurred recently in Kent county, Ontario?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: No, Mr. Speaker, no representations have been made to the department and, of course, we cannot consider them until they are made. The initiative is that of the province.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has his attention been drawn to the announcement that the Canadian Pacific Railway has cancelled all meal service west of Sudbury Ontario, on trains 6 and 8, the Dominion? Has the minister made any inquiries of the Canadian Pacific Railway with regard to

Canada Pension Plan
whether this is a preliminary step toward further curtailment of their passenger service?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, my attention was drawn to this report by a colleague of the hon. gentlemen, and 1 have also seen it myself. I did have inquiries made as to whether it was correct, and I was told it was correct. I was given a reason which I pass on to the house for what hon. members may think it is worth. That reason was that the facilities for providing food on the trains were being discontinued because of lack of patronage.
As I have explained to the house before, there is no responsibility on the part of the government as such with respect to the Canadian Pacific Railway. But if you will permit me, sir, because I know there is widespread interest in this matter, I would say that at the request of several hon. members I did arrange to have the chairman of the board of transport commissioners appear before the railway committee to explain exactly what was the board's authority with respect to this matter. I hope the proceedings of the committee will be printed quite soon at least in one language so that all hon. members will have a succinct statement of what the board's responsibilities are.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, because this matter is of great interest to the people of Canada. Could the minister arrange to have the president of the C.P.R. appear before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines to inform the committee of their company's policy?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not happen to be a member of that committee and there are a lot of very articulate members of the house who are. I suggest that the matter should be taken up in the committee with the chairman of the committee.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 11, consideration in committee 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-Miss LaMarsh-Mr. Lamou-reux in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order. When the committee rose yesterday clause 91 of the bill was being considered.
On clause 91-Regulations.


Mr. More:: Mr. Chairman, in the light of the proceedings last night and some of the questions that were asked I still think, in spite of what was said, that some things are not completely understood. I want to pose a question to the ministers concerned that I hope will clear up this situation at least from the point of view of information.
I should like to put it this way. It seems to me that the integration of plans is the stumbling block in this connection, and I wonder whether the word "integration" is in fact the correct word to use. I can accept the word "decking" as suitable, but "integration" seems to me to give a false impression.
This is the point I should like to clarify. The bill is a compulsory one. Even though people may have a pension plan in which they have an interest either as employees or employers or as self employed persons, the bill compels them to pay 1.8 per cent or 3.6 per cent, as the case may be, of their earnings into the Canada pension plan. It is not a matter of integration but rather a matter of adjustment of the plan they now have with the government compulsory plan. There is in fact no integration of plans at all. If the payments that people are now making into their own plans are maximum payments, their only alternative is to adjust the payments they are making into the plan they now have so they can make the payments they are compelled to make to the government plan.
I had a letter just this morning from the operator of a small family business. His concern is that we are allowing parliament to impose a burden on him that he does not want to accept because to the maximum extent of his ability he has entered into a plan for his purposes to which he has been making payments. As I understand the situation, this fact does not matter. As a self employed small businessman he will be compelled to make additional payments to the government plan totalling 3.6 per cent of his earnings, and if he finds this is too big a burden his only alternative is to make an adjustment in the plan he now has.


Miss LaMarsh:: What my hon. friend has said is true to some extent. There may be decking where people keep both plans or there may be integration, which is what the federal government is doing with respect to

the civil service superannuation program and the Canada pension plan, or there may be adjustment. Any one of these three approaches may be taken depending upon the people who are involved.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: When the minister refers to integration, that only applies to government plans, does it not? Private plans cannot integrate; they must adjust?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, that is not correct. There are a number of private schemes that have already integrated payments that are made under the old age security system. It is possible, in fact it is probable, that in many cases there will be eventual integration. Integration will not mean that there will be one cheque from one place, because obviously if you have a partly private plan and a partly federal government plan, the person will be given a cheque from the private plan as well as the government plan. The way in which the adjustment will be made will be to integrate for benefits which will come from having both plans.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: The other point I wish to raise concerns the actuarial soundness of the plan. Last night the minister said, with some heat, that the plan is actuarially sound. This may well be true. The point that has been raised is that the plan is actuarially sound to meet the commitments it makes, but it is not actuarially sound on the basis of the payments it makes to some of the people concerned. The question has been raised that we have a type of plan now that just gives benefits for payments, whereas this government plan does give exceptional benefits to one large group. This is the windfall to which reference has been made. How will you answer the problem of the enormous benefits received by one group when you try to adjust the two plans?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is generally understood by people that actuarially sound means the arithmetic is correct, that there is enough money arising from contributions to pay the benefits. The committee, of course, has seen the actuarial reports which demonstrate this fact. However, the view my hon. friend advances that a person does not get a dollar for dollar return is quite true. This has never been hidden, because this is a social insurance scheme and like such schemes everywhere else in the world it involves, and must involve, an element of cross subsidy.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to ask one
question of the minister, and I trust she is
Canada Pension Plan
in a better humour than she was last evening, since she has had a good sleep. I should like to follow up the point I was pursuing last evening. I refer the minister to the brief from the international railway brotherhoods, which is addressed to the Prime Minister and the members of the cabinet. I should like to read particularly from page 12.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I should like to interrupt the hon. member for a moment; would he kindly resume his seat. I just want to bring to the attention of the hon. member the fact that the remarks he is going to make now should relate to the regulations covered by the clause we have before us. I have the impression that during the course of the discussion last night on a number of occasions we did go beyond the limits of clause 91. I am not trying to prejudge the question the hon. member is going to put, but it appeared to be of a general nature. I hope it is not, and I trust it will be within the confines of clause 91.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not want to delay the committee by getting into a discussion with the Chair, because I would be the first one to want to carry out the terms of reference laid down by the Chair. As I understand this clause, certain regulations will be made in reference to certain pensions that may or may not fit into the scheme, and that is why I should like to get the attitude of the government in this regard. I think this is the time to do it. It might be left to clause 1, but I will not take too much time and I think it is relevant.
I see the minister has the same document in her hand now as I have. I should like to quote paragraph 13:
For the Canada pension plan to have the same relative effect on Canadian railway workers as on other Canadian workers, the plan must be supplemental to the existing railway pension plans, and this is what is desired by the workers we represent.
We are disturbed at the attitude of the government of washing its hands of responsibility in the matter of private pension plans, and on behalf of the workers we represent we earnestly request this committee to recommend that a provision be added to the Canada pension plan act which would prevent the integration of pension plans on railways under the jurisdiction of the federal government with the Canada pension plan without the approval of the employees participating in such plans.
We submit that the government will incur responsibility for protecting the rights of employees presently participating in pension plans when its plan becomes operative because it will be introducing a compulsory pension plan into arrangements which have been reasonably satisfactory to the employees but over which those

Canada Pension Plan
employees have little or no control in so far as revisions to the pension plans are concerned.
I ask the minister, what was the answer given by the government to the railway brotherhoods in reference to this matter, and particularly in reference to their complaint? Will there be less integration, or what promise was made to these people?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I was not present yesterday morning when these individuals met with some members of the cabinet. However, I am informed that no promises were made. These identical questions were raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre at about a quarter to six yesterday evening and were answered at considerable length by me at eight o'clock. I am sure my hon. friend will have all the information he seeks by referring to yesterday's Hansard-


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 110-Canada pension plan account established.
Mr. Benson:: I have a consequential amendment to clause 110 resulting from the amendment which was just passed to clause 91. It is simply a renumbering of the references to clause 91. I move, therefor:
That subsection (2) of section 110 be amended by striking out line 1 on page 72 and substituting the following:
"paragraph (j) of subsection (1) of section 91".
That subsection (3) of section 110 be amended by striking out line 17 on page 72 and substituting the following:
"paragraph (j) of subsection (1) of section 91".


Stanley Howard Knowles: This, of course, is an amendment to clause 110 as already amended?


Edgar John Benson: Yes.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause as amended carry?


Mr. Aiken:: I should like to refer to the provisions of clause 110, subclause 2. I should like to ask the minister why these funds are to be paid into the consolidated revenue fund. I understand that a special account has been set up. It has been understood that the Canada pension plan would be completely independent of the general revenue of Canada, and that there would be no intermingling of the money with the consolidated revenue fund. I see there is a Canada pension plan account and therefore the funds are to be kept separate in

that fashion, but is there any reason beyond straight convenience why these pension plan contributions should go into the consolidated revenue fund?


Edgar John Benson: I think I can answer this quite briefly. The reason for doing this is that by putting contributions into the consolidated revenue fund it brings them under all the controls and audit of the federal government, whereas if they were put into a separate fund, and treated as moneys separate from the ordinary money of the government, we would have to go through the setting up of an audit detail, a separate body for handling the funds, and there would be the question of who would have control over them and who would be able to sign cheques. All the matters set out in the Financial Administration Act would, in effect, have to be brought into this legislation.
With respect to the naming of the account, the Canada pension plan account is really a ledger account. It is an account kept in the books, to which the money is credited, and when moneys are taken out of the consolidated revenue fund for investment they are charged to the Canada pension plan investment fund and remain as an asset of the Canada pension plan.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I certainly understand that. I know that the consolidated revenue fund is mainly a bookkeeping entry. Not very much cash passes into it or out of it. What prompted my question was the rather casual statement the minister made yesterday that a person can pay his income tax and his payments to the Canada pension plan with the same cheque. Was that a slip of the tongue, or a fact?


Edgar John Benson: No, this is a fact. When we receive funds in the Department of National Revenue we have to allocate them to various purposes. For example, when people pay their federal and provincial income tax in the one cheque, the money is allocated as between federal income tax and provincial income tax and is credited to these accounts. This will simply be another step in that process. Suppose you owed a balance of $150 income tax and $50 for Canada pension plan contributions. For the convenience of taxpayers it would be better to send in one cheque payable to the receiver general. We will immediately split it through the accounting processes of the department, and credit $50 to the Canada pension plan account and $150 to personal income tax revenue.


Mr. Challerlon:: Clause 110(4) says:
No payment shall be made out of the consolidated revenue fund under this section in excess of the amount of the balance to the credit of the Canada pension plan account.
I realize that under clause 110(2)(c) interest on securities purchased by the minister will be credited to this account, but what of the position of the securities themselves?


Edgar John Benson: The securities which are purchased by the Minister of Finance will be held by him as securities of a province. The securities, when they are purchased, will consist of a payment out of the consolidated revenue fund, which will go in cash to the provinces. The payment out will be charged against the Canada pension plan investment fund and an asset will be set up with respect to the securities received from the provinces. The securities will be interest bearing, and any interest received will go into the Canada pension plan account, while the funds received when the securities are ultimately redeemed are credited to the Canada pension plan investment fund.


George Louis Chatterton: Subclause 4 says no payment shall be made "in excess of the amount of the balance." Therefore the value of the securities themselves does not form part of that balance.


Edgar John Benson: It would form part of the balance because in effect you have a credit account and a liability account. To offset those there are two things; cash in bank, which would be in a general consolidated revenue account, and the other would be securities, so that when securities are purchased the Canada pension plan account is not decreased. The cash account is decreased. It is a change of one asset to another, so the amount standing in the Canada pension plan account will include the amount of securities held at cost by the Minister of Finance.


George Louis Chatterton: My question is not answered, because subclause 4 says no payment shall be made "in excess of the amount of the balance to the credit of the Canada pension plan account." Let us say that all the cash the minister has received has been paid out. There are still securities held by the Minister of Finance. Would you have to redeem those securities before you could make any further payments?


Edgar John Benson: There is another step we are missing. All receipts from Canada pension plan contributions will be credited to the Canada pension plan account. All payments out
Canada Pension Plan
will be a charge to the Canada pension plan account. This will reduce the bank balance, but when securities are purchased they simply take the place of cash. If the cash runs out the minister has the right to call the securities.
First of all, he is required to hold in reserve enough for three months' payments and administrative costs. Second, he is required to review this fund from time to time and assure it is going to be solvent, that there is going to be enough cash to make the payments out and, if not, he can give notice to a province and start drawing in the securities.


George Louis Chatterton: The estimates show that somewhere in the 1980's the outflow will be greater than the inflow. By that time you would have to increase the contributions or else redeem some of the securities. Is that correct?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, that is correct.


George Louis Chatterton: In other words, under this bill you can make no payment out of the balance to the credit of the Canada pension plan account if there is no balance. If you have redeemed all your securities and you still have no money available, then the only course is to ask parliament at that stage to increase the contribution rate. But clause 115, which we have dealt with, says in effect that no substantial change can be made to this plan unless two thirds of the included provinces, having in the aggregate not less than two thirds of the population of the included provinces, have signified their consent.
Can the minister describe what would happen if you arrived at the position where you had exhausted this fund and had no alternative but to increase the contribution rate and, for some peculiar reason, you could not get two thirds of the provinces representing two thirds of the population to agree to such a change?


Edgar John Benson: To me it seems inconceivable that the provinces would not agree to a change in rates before the time mentioned by my hon. friend, in that I think the provinces would be interested in seeing a reasonable amount of reserve maintained in the Canada pension plan account. It is inconceivable that at a time when it became necessary to raise contribution rates a province would say "You cannot raise contribution rates. You have got to stop paying pensions in this province because you have no money left." I do not believe this could ever happen, but if it did
122S0

Canada Pension Plan
then the federal government would be faced with the question of what it would do. It would have to move in conjunction with the provinces to get unanimous consent to increase the rates. The only other alternative would be to transfer it in some way into general taxation, and that is not contemplated by this clause; therefore the clause would have to be revised.


George Louis Chatterton: I understand the minister thinks it inconceivable that it could happen, but in the history of Canada some very queer things have happened. In fact one of the provinces wanted to print its own money. So you can never tell what may happen in the future. All kinds of parties have arisen recently, crazy, upsidedown parties which no one would ever have thought of 20 years ago. One province recently indicated that by a certain amendment to a piece of legislation it would be able to hold a club over the head of the government of Canada.
This particular provision, it seems to me, would provide some province in the future with a useful club; it is the government of Canada which will be on the spot, because it is responsible for paying out the pensions. It would be wise, it seems to me, for the government to have prevented such a possibility arising. The minister said it would be inconceivable that it should occur, but he did not say it was impossible. Does he not agree that it would have been prudent to make provision in clause 115 that this arrangement involving two thirds should not apply in the circumstances I have described?


Edgar John Benson: That clause was included, as the hon. member knows, because the provinces wished to have something to say before the government of Canada could materially change the contribution rates or the benefits under the plan. I think that is a logical attitude to take.
The hon. member suggests we might reach a stage where the fund was exhausted yet the provinces would not agree to our increasing the rates. This would, of course, present a situation of great difficulty. But I maintain it is inconceivable that the provinces would agree to this happening, or want it to happen. As a matter of fact, long before such a point, as soon as their investments began to be drawn upon they would probably encourage the federal government to increase its rates.
As I say, I cannot conceive of any responsible provincial government behaving in the way the hon. member has suggested, a

way which would leave them open to the accusation that they were depriving their people of pension rights.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I think the minister might have used the word "realistic" instead of "responsible" in that particular context. But the hon. gentleman has drawn attention to a dilemma which arises with regard to this particular question. In the event that the cash requirements of the fund might exceed the amounts held, there is no provision for an advance to be made from the government of Canada to the consolidated revenue fund in order to tide over a temporary deficit. I would have thought such a provision would be necessary as a safety valve. I am sure the hon. gentleman realizes that payments out of the fund represent something as inexorable as the waves of an ocean; there is nothing a responsible minister can do to stop them.
In this clause everything is referred to as a contribution going to the consolidated revenue fund. There is no provision for a charge against the consolidated revenue fund as such as far as the pension plan is concerned. The Minister of National Revenue has been at pains to say these are contributions to a self sustaining fund. Yet there have been rulings that alterations proposed to the plan should not affect taxation. With the greatest of respect I do not see how one penny charged under the Canada pension plan can in any way affect ways and means. I have been astonished at some of the observations in this regard and by some of the resulting rulings.
The dilemma to which I referred arises right at this point. Either these payments are contributions or they are taxes affecting ways and means. They cannot be both. I want to make sure that the minister leaves us in no doubt as to the position he takes. Are these contributions or are they taxes? He cannot have it both ways. If they are to be deemed taxes-and a lot of people maintain this is the correct view-then the government accepts the contention that contributions under the plan are a form of taxation. On the other hand they may be deemed contributions to a contributory pension plan, in which case any talk about taxes, any talk of ways and means so as to place limitations on these amounts, is illogical and inaccurate.


Edgar John Benson: I do not wish to engage in polemics with the hon. gentleman. One hon. member got up in this chamber and said he called the contributions taxes. I said earlier in this debate that if he wanted to call them

taxes he could do so. They are contributions which must be made, compulsory contributions under the conditions which will be laid down in this bill.
Perhaps I can deal with one or two other questions which the hon. member raised. One of them concerns contributions or loans to the Canada pension plan account from the consolidated revenue fund. The reason provision was not made for this was that on the basis of the forecasts we have covering the next 20 years it was not felt to be necessary. In addition, it was felt that should the Canadian government at some date in the future wish to lend money to the Canada pension fund it could do so on the basis of an amendment to the present legislation, and this could be effected without the necessity of consulting the provinces. However, I do not think that it would be a good idea, basically, because it might encourage some parliament to postpone calling for a necessary increase in the rates by lending funds to the plan.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I wish to return briefly to my question concerning the nature of the contributions. In fact all contributions must be paid to the consolidated revenue fund. However, every penny is earmarked for the Canada pension fund, and not one penny would be available for the general purpose of government. There is no commingling with general government revenues. This is important to establish; there should be no commingling. These funds are definitely earmarked. Otherwise, if there is commingling, I suggest there might be the opportunity of considering that they be acknowledged as part of the general revenues of the government. This is why I am, perhaps, being very insistent on this point, so there is a clear legal definition and earmarking of funds.


Edgar John Benson: There is not an earmarking of funds, dollars as such. The money comes in, is deposited in the consolidated revenue fund and it is credited to the Canada pension plan account. The cash is not segregated at all- I did discuss this a few minutes ago-but is credited in the records of the government to the Canada pension plan account. That is, all moneys coming in are credited. Moneys paid out are paid out of the general cash funds of the government, the single consolidated revenue account, which is the bank account of the government, but they are charged against the Canada pension plan account. So the cash is not segregated.
As I explained earlier, one of the reasons for not segregating the cash as such is that
Canada Pension Plan
when it goes into the consolidated revenue fund it becomes subject to all the controls and audits under the Financial Administration Act without our having to write an equivalent provision into this bill. I might indicate that this is exactly the same as with-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Old age security.


Edgar John Benson: Yes, old age security.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But old age security does not come under ways and means. The levy that is made in respect of old age security is not part of the ways and means.


Edgar John Benson: Yes, I am informed that it is.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: All right. Then is it the intention, therefore, that the contributions under the Canada pension plan shall be part of the ways and means?


Edgar John Benson: If by this my hon. friend means will it be reported as part of government revenue in the annual budget of the government, for example, this will not be the case. My hon. friend is trying to get around to an argument-perhaps I should not be imputing motives to him-in connection with a ruling which was made the other night. In this connection I would simply state that whether or not this is a tax or affects ways and means, it is a money bill. If the hon. member would refer to citation 243 of Beau-chesne's fourth he will see the implications of its being a money bill as related to the ruling made the other night. But in no case am I, as a layman, going to argue with my hon. friend, or with you, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the rulings you have already made.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am sorry the minister has tried to impute motives here, because there certainly were none. I wanted clarification because there is confusion. The minister has been at pains all along, as have other government officials, to state that these are contributions; yet they are treated as taxes under ways and means. I want it clearly understood. Are they contributions, and as such, contributions and not taxes?


Edgar John Benson: I would simply say they are contributions. They are defined in the bill as contributions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, are not the contributions and the arrangements with respect to this legislation on all fours with the provisions in the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act? We are required to make contributions; call it a tax if you will.

Canada Pension Plan
The exchequer is required to pay pensions if certain conditions are met. This money is not put into some special bank account, it is put into the consolidated revenue fund; but the credit is there and the payments are made.
I am wondering whether the situation is not similar with respect to government annuities. The difference there is that people are not required to make contributions, but as far as the accounting is concerned it is the same. People make contributions which are credited to the government annuities account, but they go into the consolidated revenue fund. When payments are made they are made out of the consolidated revenue fund and are charged against the government annuities account. I would suspect that there are a dozen different situations like that, and I wonder whether in this legislation we are not just conforming to the general practice.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to pursue this point much longer, but I should like to reply to some of the comments made by the minister. Coming back to the question of when the time arrives when you have exhausted the fund, and you then have to increase the contribution rate in order to pay out the cheques, in order to increase that contribution rate you have to go to the provinces of Canada and get the consent of two thirds of the provinces representing two thirds of the people of Canada. The minister said it is inconceivable that this would happen, because in the first place a province would be cutting off the cheques for the people in its own province. I know one premier in Canada today who will convince the people of his province-


Mr. Walker:: He will not be there then.


George Louis Chatterton: I know, but a similar premier might be there several years from now, and he might tell his province that it is the government of Canada which is holding the cheques because the government of Canada will not improve the plan in the way he wants it to be improved. In such a situation he would hold a terrific club over your heads, and I think the government should play safe. Likely the present government will not be in power then-this is probably its last chance-but there is a danger there to the government which is in power at that time. I know the provinces asked for the two thirds, and there is reason for that; but I am sure the provinces would not object to the further safeguard that this two thirds

would not apply except in a case where you are running out of money.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That Bill C-136, now before the house, be amended to authorize, in the place of the age adjusted pension now provided for by part IV of the said bill, that a pension under the Old Age Security Act in the full amount of the pension available to those who have attained 70 years of age be paid commencing 1 January 1966 to those who have attained 69 years of age, commencing 1 January 1967 to those who have attained 68 years of age, commencing 1 January 1968 to those who have attained 67 years of age, commencing 1 January 1969, to those who have attained 66 years of age, and commencing 1 January 1970 to those who have attained 65 years of age.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, while the house has for some days been spending its time in detailed study of the provisions of the Canada pension plan proper, it has now reached the point of debating the amending resolution before proceeding on to that part of the bill which comprises amendments to the Old Age Security Act, which is part IV. I do not want to take up the limited time available to this committee, but I should like to speak briefly on the resolution which is now before us.
For the people of Canada the measure proposed in this resolution is in itself among the most important that parliament has had to deal with for many years. It is all the more important, of course, because it forms part of the Canada pension plan bill.
In this bill we in all corners of the house have been working together to establish a comprehensive plan of social insurance. It is a modern plan embodying the best features of social legislation of many countries. In conjunction with the improvement in old age security proposed in this legislation, the Canada pension plan will mean that the working Canadian will have his income pro-

tected for himself and his family to a degree that will be among the best in the world. The benefits of our economic good fortune in this land are going to be made available, as they should be, for the social security of all Canadians.
In order to assess the importance and the value of the present resolution I would like first to draw an analogy between action for age and action for youth. Last year parliament passed legislation to pay youth allowances between the ages of 16 and 18. The government's purpose in that legislation was to modernize one of the major features of our social legislation. When family allowances were instituted by a Liberal government 20 years ago, 16 was the normal school leaving age. But the number staying at school has since been increasing. With advancing technology it has become more and more important to society that most should stay at school, and so it became increasingly desirable to extend the allowance system to the 16 to 18 age group. Accordingly this major social advance was given high priority in the government's program.
In a similar way, when the government of Mr. St. Laurent started the universal old age security pension, it was sensible to make it available from the age at which virtually everyone is retired, that is, from age 70. But it is an increasing trend that people retire in Canada before they are 70; more and more, indeed, have no choice but to do so, and about one in five Canadians between 65 and 70 have been able to put aside so little for their mature years that they qualify for old age assistance.
Technological advance and rising living standards must be expected to make compulsory retirement at 65 more and more usual. This is far from an unmixed blessing to a young country like Canada. I know that, for instance, the Leader of the Opposition has some strong feelings about compulsory retirement; and indeed all of us, especially as we get older, may view it with certain concern.
The advance of medical science means that more and more people are capable of constructive activity for many years after they are 65 years of age. Indeed, in many cases there is a psychological need. A number of the members of this committee have encountered men, particularly, who have for years looked forward to their own retirement, especially when they face compulsory retirement. But some of them have found when they reached the age of that compulsory
Canada Pension Plan
retirement that they had nothing to do and felt useless. Many of them then felt that they wanted to go on working, or would prefer to do so rather than retire.
There is no question but that one of the challenges to our society is going to be to see that there are plenty of useful activities to save people from stagnation and boredom in their increasingly long years of retirement. But most of those activities will have to be outside the normal economic structure; they will not be paid jobs. We must accept the fact that economic forces will be predominant in making 65 more and more the usual age of retirement, at any rate from full time paid employment.
To make pensions available from age 65 has been throughout a central feature of this government's proposals. In the case of the new, earnings related pension to be provided by the Canada pension plan, it is an objective that can easily be applied with flexibility to individual circumstances. In this regard members of this committee will recall the discussion we had last evening with the hon. member for Kamloops. Since the pension is related to previous earnings, it is logical and practicable to say that the pension will begin at whatever age, between 65 and 70, earnings stop or at any rate are reduced to a low level.
This concept cannot, however, be applied to old age security. Old age security is a universal benefit. It is available to, for example, a married woman even if she has never in her life held a paid job outside her home. It would therefore be quite inappropriate to subject old age security to the retirement test established under the Canada pension plan. In making old age security available at an earlier age, we must not forget the principle of universality.
In Bill C-136 as it is printed the government proposed one of two possible solutions to this problem. Old age security would be available from age 65, but the monthly pension would vary according to the starting age. At 65 years exactly it would have been $51 per month. It was believed that a great many women would have taken the pension at 65 or soon after, while probably most men would have taken the old age security benefit at the same time they became qualified for their earnings related pension, that is whenever they retired between 65 and 70.
This system, we believe, would have had considerable merit. It was adaptable to individual circumstances, yet at the same time it was fair to all, in the sense that people

Canada Pension Plan
living to an average age would have got the same total benefit from old age security whether they waited to take it at age 70 or took a smaller pension for a longer time. By the time the Canada pension plan benefits reach their full level of 25 per cent of earnings, ten years from now, the total benefit available at the time of retirement would have represented a substantial standard of pensions for the majority of Canadians.
The government recognized, however, that this solution had one serious disadvantage. Many of the people who have very low incomes are also the people who have the least chance to go on earning beyond age 65, and who have no other resources. These people would have had to take their old age security at the minimum $51 level even though their supplementation through the earnings related pension might be very small.
The government has therefore decided that it is right to face the considerable cost to the taxpayer involved in making old age security available in its full amount from age 65. This will meet a very great social need for people with relatively low incomes in our country, so much so that I do not think any of us would hesitate to describe what is proposed in this resolution as one of the great social advances with which we are proud to be associated.
If we are frank we will recognize, however, that there is a disadvantage which is implicit in any universal benefit. It involves spending tax money for those who need the benefit but also for those who do not need it. That was the reason for the government's hesitation to pay old age security in the full amount from age 65; some people do go on earning and others have substantial private pensions or investment income.
This resolution is therefore intimately linked, as the Prime Minister announced, with a change in income tax which we will be proposing in the next session of parliament. The additional personal deduction of $500 a year, now available at age 65, will in future be available from age 70. Thus people between the ages of 65 and 69 who have taxable incomes will in future get $900 in old age security but will pay tax not only on that extra $900 but on an additional $500 as well. For anyone between the ages of 65 and 69 whose taxable income is above the handsome level of $90,000 a year, this means that the increase in taxation will exceed the value of the new old age security benefit. But all the rest of us will get more in old age security

than we pay in extra taxation and, of course, people with low incomes, not paying taxation at all, will get the full benefit of the $75 a month from the time they are age 65.
Some members on the other side of the chamber have said this is not enough. I have not been in the house very long, but I have been here from late 1960 and I cannot help remembering that until just before the 1962 election what is now the official opposition was content as a government to pay old age security in the amount of $55 from age 70 only-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Let us go back to 1957.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: -and even the N.D.P. recently had $75 at age 65 in its platform. I suppose it is easy to raise the bidding when there is no danger at all of one having to play the hand, but I would point out first that Bill No. C-136 does not leave old age security at $75 a month. It provides that in the future this pension will increase automatically for all recipients if the cost of living rises.
Apart from that, however, let us look at the pension prospects which are now being made available to the ordinary Canadian. If he is earning $300 a month he will be able to retire at age 65 with a benefit from the Canada pension plan of $75 and with old age security that makes a total of $150 a month. In other words, he will be able to retire at age 65 on half pay, and that is the situation if he is single. If he is married, when the wife is 65 and also drawing old age security the family income will be $225 a month or 75 per cent of the husband's earnings while at work.
For a man with a low average income, say $200 a month, pensions will of course be a higher proportion of earnings. For the single man the combined Canada pension plan benefit and old age security will be $125 or 62 per cent of the earnings he has been able to make over his lifetime, but for a couple the total pension will be $200 a month. In other words, they will be able to retire at age 65 with the same income they had previously during the husband's working years.
No one has denied that these are good pensions. The criticism is that they are not instant pensions, that they are not immediately provided for everyone. I have to say that I am rather surprised that those who advance this criticism so vigorously are doing so at such a late date. It is now about three years since the Prime Minister proposed in considerable detail a contributory pension

plan of the kind embodied in Bill No. C-136. Since that time many features of the plan have been modified, and I am certainly not ashamed that we have made these modifications. We have listened to advice; we have responded to expert suggestions, and we have taken the views of the provinces into account. We would not have got the advice or the views if we had not begun by putting forward a definite proposition for consideration.
I would not suggest for a moment that we have accepted every view put forward by each of the provinces regarding the plan. That is obviously not possible, but we think we have accepted the best of the views which were put forward and which will fit into one package.
However, the fundamental features of the Canada pension plan have not changed. It was never intended to provide instant pensions. It was and it is a plan to build on to old age security a pension related to earnings. The additional pension never has been suggested as a benefit for people who have already stopped earning. On the contrary, we have always said that there would be a 10 year transition period, and the only suggestions in that regard have been that it should have been longer, not that it should have been shorter, with the result that fewer Canadians would be entitled to full benefits.
We have sought to make the new pension available, to quote the white paper, "as soon as is possible in a fair and practicable way". We have always been careful to define the objective as being to ensure that people "will be able to look forward to retiring in security and with dignity".


George Louis Chatterton: All Canadians.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: We have not claimed that a contributory plan can do the same thing for people who cannot look forward to retirement but are already retired. Nevertheless the main line of criticism was, until very lately, not that we were doing too little but that we were attempting too much. The criticism was that the transition period was too short. The view of some critics was that it should be 20 years, and the view of others was that it should be 40 years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Please identify those critics.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am sure my hon. friend has watched the press as closely as I have in the last couple of years, and if there is anyone in the chamber who does not need to have these critics identified it is my hon. friend.
Canada Pension Plan
There was criticism as well that the indexing features, the first ever applied on this continent, were too radical. Others criticized the benefits on retirement and to survivors as being too generous. There was talk of overpensioning people. We might have listened to these critics, of course. If we had taken a 40 year transition period the Canada pension plan would have benefited only those Canadians now under the age of 25; or if we had accepted a 20 year transition period it would have benefited only those now under 45. We might also have had instant pensions with full benefit on the payment of a month's contribution, that is with no transition period, but who would there have been then to explain why Mr. X, who retired the day before the plan began had a flat rate pension of $75 and Mr. Y, who retired after making one month's contributory payment, had a full pension of $179?
We might have dropped the indexing, so that in future years the dollar return would have been less and less to those who had made contributions during the whole of their working lifetime, and have left it to each successive parliament to decide whether the fund could bear a succession of increases from time to time, thus adding further impetus to something which I know is decried by all hon. members, an election auction for the vote of the aged at the cost of the then taxpayers. We might also have ignored the social need for assistance to the disabled worker, his dependants and survivors, and have left out these expensive benefits.
But we honestly tried in the last two years to find a balance. We were making a start and our eyes had to be on the long term goal of what was going to be the effect for the foreseeable future in Canada as well as at present and during the transition period of 10 years. We are encouraged that even in a parliament where the government is a minority we have found general support for these views.
Now, however, the critics attack us on the so-called gaps in the plan. In fact the plan applies to almost everyone who is working. The only limitation is the practical one that account cannot be taken of work which produces only very small earnings. But the only people excluded on those grounds-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I have to interrupt the minister on more than one count. For one thing, I doubt whether her remarks are entirely relevant to the resolution now before us. Second, we are getting close to one o'clock,

Canada Pension Plan
but before we call it one o'clock I should like to bring to the attention of the committee that the Chair has been assuming that we are operating under the time allocation order specified in provisional standing order 61 A, which limits speeches to 20 minutes. I understand that although my authority to call time was questioned yesterday, the minister has just about reached the end of her allocation of time.
I may say, before the parliamentary secretary joins the argument, that there is a slight difficulty in connection with standing order 61 A, in which there is reference to a resolution preceding a bill. In this instance the resolution is not preceding a bill because we have the bill before us. On the other hand, I believe we are proceeding with part IV of the bill, and assume the committee will want to interpret the revised standing order in this light. With this in mind, I think I would have to advise the minister she has not more than 30 seconds remaining.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, since you have been telling the committee that we should know about all this special rule, should you not also point out there is a total time allotted of five hours?


Lucien Lamoureux: The Chair was hoping it would not have to reach that stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So did some of us, before the minister spoke.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am sure the committee will give unanimous consent to the minister concluding her speech. It is most interesting.


Lucien Lamoureux: We will call it one o'clock after the minister completes her remarks.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I thank the members of the committee for their courtesy. As I was saying, the only people who are excluded on the grounds of their small earnings are those for whom this resolution is especially important. They are people whose earnings are appreciably less than the $75 a month pension which it is proposed to make available for everyone at age 65. No one, certainly not the government, is going to suggest that this will relieve all poverty among retired people. Of course it will not. It cannot, especially during the transition period. However, it will provide for the Canadian people as a whole a sound pension plan. Even within the next few years it will appreciably reduce the incidence of poverty.
[The Chairman.]
All that, I agree, is not enough. But the way to deal with the remaining problem of poverty is not, I suggest, to load on to the pension plan an additional universal benefit. The effect of the measure proposed in this resolution is that by 1970 some 1,600,000 people will be drawing old age security. In that year an additional universal benefit of $25 per month would cost about half a billion dollars. That would be a formidable addition to what is proposed for pensions in this resolution and in Bill No. C-136. The additional good it would do has to be weighed against all that we need in Canada for education, for health, for the relief of poverty below age 65, for social capital of many kinds.
Most of us are familiar with the argument that we have to look at priorities. Are we, then, to put all our social eggs in one basket? What about the preschoolers? What about students up to and including university? What about the young married couples, and what about the great central group of income producers in our society? Are we to concentrate most of our new resources on the retired at the expense of other groups in our society?
We have, as a people, difficult and important choices to make, and we cannot do all we would like to do in any one field. We have to move as fast as we can, but we cannot achieve it by trying to do everything at once. If we consider the sums which were spent by this parliament in increasing old age security by $10 a little over a year ago and the sum which will be required when all individuals at 65 are entitled to a flat rate of $75 per month, we are adding $390 million annually to the expenditures of this country.
The choice would be very difficult indeed if a higher universal benefit were the only way to help the most needy. However, that is not so, and it is not the government's intention. For many months we have been preparing a greatly revised assistance program. We have had preliminary discussions with the provinces, and next month we will be meeting with the provincial ministers of welfare to discuss a new assistance program. It is through a program of that kind that we can adequately and equitably meet the needs of the people who are already retired and who, for other reasons, do not benefit from the new pension plan. This will be one of the next steps forward which this government is preparing to take.

Through the pension plan we are assuring, for people now working, a continuing income when their earnings cease. It will be available if they are disabled. It will be available to their dependants if they die. The rights to this security, once earned by contributions, will never be lost. There will be 100 per cent portability across our country and benefit rights will be kept in line with improvements in earnings levels and protected against the effects of changes in prices.
This is not a complete social measure; it will be followed, if this government is able to complete its program, by other measures which will continue its straightforward social advance.


Mr. Priilie:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could tell us how much longer she proposes to go on, because I should like to call it one o'clock.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have two half pages.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: One o'clock, because the speech has gone beyond the relevancy of the resolution by a long way.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I was about to pay tribute to certain people who are not in this chamber.


Malcolm MacInnis: We will agree to sit if you pay tribute to those who are in the chamber.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I was going to do that, too.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I must again thank the committee for letting me take a couple of minutes to finish the remarks 1 wish to make. Just before the luncheon break I was saying that the Canada pension plan, which is part of Bill C-136, together with part IV, the amendments to the Old Age Security Act, have been put together with a great deal of difficulty, and surely this is not so surprising.
There has been a great deal of public discussion with respect to the Canada pension plan, but in our federal system the plan could only have been possible after a long process of consultation and negotiation with the provinces. 1 would like very sincerely to pay a tribute to the co-operation of all ten provinces which, in greater or lesser degree, have had a great deal to do in formulating
Canada Pension Plan
the present plan. I regret it is never possible to comply with all the differing requests of different premiers at the same time, but I wish especially to mention the governments of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec because those two provinces, with the largest populations, are naturally the two which have gone furthest in studying pensions and developing their own ideas about them.
It is no secret that there have been some difficulties in the past and, inevitably, mistakes made on both sides, but we have been successful in evolving a pension system which will be essentially the same for people in Canada wherever they may move, and we have done that while preserving the right of any province, now or in the future, to pass its own pension legislation and operate a plan itself.
This great measure of social security for Canadians has been made possible by the Canadian spirit of the premiers of all the provinces, and I should like to pay my tribute to that spirit. Perhaps I will be forgiven if, before concluding, I also take this opportunity to pay my tribute to the Prime Minister of Canada. Without his openminded co-operation, his judicial sense of balance for the good of all the people of Canada, his patience with all points of view, including my own, the Canada pension plan might well have foundered long ago.
It is no secret that there have been diverse views over this legislation in the past two years, but the Prime Minister's spirit of reasonableness, of moderation and friendly persuasion, and of co-operation, has prevailed so that every member of this committee may pride himself or herself on being part of the group which brings to the Canadian people social legislation of great benefit, which will lead only to unity and the future security of Canadians everywhere.
If I may add one more thing it is that at times during the 14 days we have spent dealing with this legislation, it may have been that my own temper has not been what it might always have been. But perhaps members of the committee will forgive me if this once I take refuge behind my skirt and say I often see myself in a maternal role as mother of this, my baby, although I do not suggest that I more than any other am responsible for all of its characteristics. However, like a mother I am fiercely jealous of my progeny and I do not like people to call it misshapen, or warped, or anything but as beautiful as it appears to me. And I hope therefore all members of the committee will

Canada Pension Plan
forgive me on occasion my excessive passion over this, the Canada pension plan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Blame the faults on its father.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, you will excuse me if I excuse myself at the very beginning by saying that is a very difficult act to follow, particularly the last few words. However, I hope I can limit my remarks to the resolution before the committee and not- using a term which I used earlier this morning -commingle the discussion with that on the first three parts of Bill No. C-136. I am going to limit my remarks to the amendment to the Old Age Security Act. I think possibly the minister has unwittingly opened up the discussion on the bill itself, and it might have been better for her to limit her remarks and not to try to reply to some of the points put forward in the committee with regard to all of the clauses prior to clause 119, which is the first in part IV.
Neither is it my intention this afternoon to engage in a homily on geriatrics, except to say it would seem we have come to a crossroads in ideas with regard to senior citizens. First of all let me say that age 65 has come to mean somewhat of a watershed in thinking and in action with regard to the people of Canada. We have inherited some sort of fixation on 65 as the age of retirement, which is running contrary to the development of the science of geriatrics. People now have a much longer expectation of life than a generation ago, when 65 seemed to be the watershed between active life and retirement, prior to one or two years of continued existence and then anticipated departure.
Those engaged in the science of geriatrics are concerned, as the hon. member for Kamloops so ably illustrated yesterday, with the continued valuable livelihood and activity of older people, and there is no doubt that their continued activity lies at the heart of their useful life and their continuing for many more years on the fact of this earth. Within Bill C-136 we have seen a recognition of this in that there has been placed a deterrent on people retiring earlier, in other words prior to 70, because really the Canada pension plan has been focussed on age 70.
Now we are advancing to the age of 65 under the old age security legislation. One cannot try to confuse the issue of gaps being shown in the Canada pension plan for those people between the ages of 65 and 70, people who in certain circumstances or for reasons of their own, it may be because of conditions of employment, must retire at the age of 65

and would not qualify under the contributory Canada pension plan until the age of 70. There was this gap covering many hundreds of thousands of people who would not be eligible under the Canada pension plan, and this has been the method of trying to fill this gap-not under the pension plan, but under old age security legislation, which is an entirely different thing because old age security arrangements in this country are not on the basis of a contributory plan. It is true that specific taxes are levied for the purpose of sustaining the old age security fund, but there is no definite allocation of funds to the individual. So we come to this plan which was announced a short time ago by the government to reduce progressively the age of qualification for old age security payments without a means test to the age of 65 and we know this is to be fully operative by 1970.
I would have felt more satisfaction if during her speech the minister had treated the committee to a detailed study of the cost of this plan and told us how the ways and means available to the government would be affected. The minister did refer, it is true, to the changes which are proposed in the Income Tax Act to postpone the $500 allowance on taxable income from the age of 65 to the age of 70 on a progressive basis. This I agree will provide additional funds. It is also true to say that the federal contribution to old age assistance plans will also gradually disappear. It would have been instructive had the committee been given an estimate of what the saving is likely to be. I am sure we shall get one, but I believe the minister should have provided one earlier instead of going to such pains to defend herself against so many possible attacks. I am concerned about the additional cost which will be imposed on the general tax structure. I think that any responsible member of this house, while accepting an increase in old age security payments, would want to know precisely what these proposals are likely to cost. We know that at the present level of payments to people over 70 in receipt of old age security benefits, every dollar per month of increase represents a further charge of about $11 million per annum to the fund. In other words, a $10 increase in old age security benefits would mean another $110 million per annum. These are rough figures and they cover only those people over the age of 70.
It is readily understandable that by 1970 the number of people in receipt of old age security payments may have increased very greatly. At the present time the annual charge

on the fund amounts to more than $800 million, give or take the odd million dollars. It is estimated there will be 1,600,000 people in receipt of old age security benefits by 1970 when these proposed amendments become fully operative.
I should like the minister to indicate to the committee how many more people will qualify over the next five years for this progressive increase in old age security payments and what the annual increase in cost is likely to be. It is likely to represent a substantial bill. The minister spoke of an additional $390 million. This is a far cry from the somewhat casual estimate of an additional $180 million which we used to hear. It is true the figure may be around $200 million, because of the changes to be made in the Income Tax Act postponing the exemption for persons over the age of 65, and as a result of the gradual elimination of old age assistance. All this is predicated, I would assume, on the age groups as they stand today. It does not take into account the increasing tendency of people in this country to live longer.
What will be the effect on the labour market in this country? Is this move designed to continue to remove persons from the regular work force at the age of 65 and not make them available for what one might call the casual work force? I referred earlier to this paradox, in that the government plan to change the old age security legislation so as to induce people to retire at the age of 65 is in conflict with at least one philosophy of geriatrics. I think we can indulge in a good deal of speculation on this subject and I can see that these things may be difficult to forecast; it is hard to say just what will be the effect of this doctrine on the desire of Canadian people either to continue to work beyond the age of 65 or to accept retirement. After all, by receiving an old age security pension at 65 with a reduced pension under a private scheme or under the Canada pension plan, how persons will be induced to stop working and retire at 65, I do not know.
It seems to me that in essence these changes to the Old Age Security Act will operate to negate the deterrent which was built into the Canada pension plan. I recognize the validity of a deterrent, but there may be a question as to how restrictive that deterrent may be. The government insist on $900, but I would suggest that there is surely a conflict of principles involved here and that the government has obviously decided it prefers to overcome the deterrent in the Canada pension plan by the introduction of this increase in
Canada Pension Plan
old age security. I point out these what appear to me to be conflicts in thinking, because they are inherent in the two moves which have been proposed by the government.
The minister also referred to the introduction of the cost of living index. A good deal has been written and said, in this connection, about some of the difficulties which may arise in controlling inflation in the country, and to me this still represents a built-in time bomb within the Canada pension plan. With its further introduction now into the Old Age Securty Act I would say there is an almost irresistible precedent which is being set with regard to many other welfare measures. In another category, it would appeal to some to introduce it into government annuities. I do not consider the Canada pension plan as in the nature of a welfare plan, but it might be called a social welfare plan. Thus it will become irresistible as the years go on to apply this principle to other plans, and will once again contribute to a form of auctioneering in social welfare as elections come upon us. It is not only the government of Canada which is involved in this but the provinces too, and there will be this tendency just before elections to, shall we say, sugar some type of pill by announcing increases in social welfare benefits.
There are others of my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, who wish to speak and undoubtedly we will have a reply from the minister or one of her ministerial colleagues to the points I have raised from a financial point of view, because I think we must know just what this is going to cost us. After all, social benefits are a cost to Canada and its economic activities. There are many who have pointed out, both in the house and outside, that there comes a point where you cannot overload the economy, and one great danger is that we will siphon off from our gross national product far too much from the point of view of social welfare in order to permit us to accumulate the necessary savings for economic expansion. I admit not all would be lost, but these savings which will be available for economic development are being progressively reduced, and in essence are running counter to the policies encouraged by the Minister of Finance. In addition, naturally it makes it much more difficult for us to compete on an already very competitive international market, although I will not go into the problems we are facing in that regard.
I see the clock is catching up with me, Mr. Chairman, and I am going to limit my remarks. I hope we will get as full an explana-

Canada Pension Plan
tion as possible at the resolution stage concerning this amended resolution which deals with the Old Age Security Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like my first words on this resolution to be words of unqualified endorsation of the action parliament is now taking in the field of old age security. 1 refer to this action in terms of a general principle, namely our decision that old age security, a pension to all without a means test, should be made available to the people of Canada at age 65. For the moment I am ignoring the five years that it will take, under the terms of this resolution, to implement in full that principle; as I say, for the moment I am thinking of the principle itself, and I regard this action as one of the historic steps taken by the Canadian parliament in the field of old age security.
The minister indulged in a bit of history and perhaps I might do the same, even though some of the dates that I mention have been referred to on previous occasions. I think the first date of significance in this general area as far as the Canadian parliament is concerned was the year 1908, when government annuities were brought into being. The next important year was 1926, when the first old age pensions act was passed, becoming effective in the year 1927. Along the way there were improvements, and along the way other programs were added which are of importance. But I think the next highlight came in the years 1950 and 1951, when as a result of the sittings of a committee on old age security, and as a result of legislation in this house, we removed the means test from the pension at age 70 and established old age security as we now know it.
In my view the step we are now taking is to be classed with these other historic steps in that we are going to make the pension available at age 65. I am not ignoring the remarks the last speaker made about the age of 65, or his question as to why we have come to regard that age in the light we do. But the fact is that it is, roughly speaking, the age of retirement in business and industry, and for too many years now we have left our older people with this gap between the age of 65 and 70, which has been a most difficult period for many of our people to cope with. My correspondence with the people of Canada over the years has been heavy. I think it has been heaviest in the general field of pensions. I have received many sad letters about difficulties in getting 
by on the amounts of pension that have been available. I think the saddest mail has been from those individuals who have been in this age bracket between 65 and 70.
My colleagues and I in the New Democratic party are delighted that we are being permitted now to take this step. As I have already indicated, we regret that it will take five years to achieve the full implementation of this principle. We believe that pensions should be payable to all immediately at age 65, and if it were not for citation 250, paragraph 4, of Beauchesne's fourth edition, we would now be moving an amendment to this resolution which would have that effect. Unfortunately we are faced with that citation which tells us that a private member cannot move to alter the fundamental terms of a resolution which has been presented to the house with the Governor General's recommendation.


Eric Alfred Winkler: This is one time the rules are wrong.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I might indulge for a minute or two longer in the history of this legislation, even though this is a bit personal, I should like to refer to some of the things the minister said about the accomplishments of her party on that side of the house, and to some of her criticisms in respect of the requests which have been forthcoming from members on this side.
During the noon adjournment I went back into some ancient volumes of Hansard and I found out that the first time I had the opportunity to move an amendment to a motion to go into supply was back in 1944. I was a young member then, almost as young looking as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare is now, and I sat at that time in the back row. I moved an amendment on that occasion calling for three things to be done in respect of the old age pension, which at that time was $20 per month payable at age 70. My amendment called for three things. The first was to increase the amount, the second was to remove the means test and the third was to lower the eligible age. I regret to say that the amendment was ruled out of order. I have learned a few things since then and have since been more fortunate in this respect than I was in 1944.
It is some satisfaction, Mr. Chairman, to see that some of these things for which we have contended over the years will now be achieved. We now have the pension increased considerably and we have already got rid of

the means test at age 70. We are now going to make the pension available down to age 65. As I have already said, this gap between 65 and 70 has been a most difficult one for our people. It has taken such a long time to reach this point I wish the minister and her colleagues would even yet consider an amendment to the resolution now before us, and this could be done from the government side, to make this pension available immediately at age 65. Let us not make our people wait for this until 1970.
I agree with the hon. member for Edmonton West that we should be given some figures as to what this is going to cost; but when we get these figures, as I assume we will during the course of this debate, I hope the cost of this program, or for that matter the cost of paying the full pension to everyone immediately upon reaching the age of 65, will not be compared with what is now being spent on old age security, but rather with what the government was prepared to spend under Bill C-136 before it brought in this amendment. For example, Bill C-136, before this amendment was brought in, proposed that in the year 1966 individuals 69 years of age could, by making application, get pensions of $70.20 per month. Under the terms of the amended resolution those individuals will receive pensions of $75 per month in 1966.
There is another difference of which I am aware under the provisions, in that an individual who took the pension of $70.20 per month would have to stay at that level for life; so not everyone would take a pension at that stage, although I suspect that a large number would have done so. This means that for most people under this plan the government will only have to pay $4.80 more per month than it was prepared to pay under the terms of the original Bill C-136. I hope we will know when the figures are presented to us how much more it will cost to do this than it would have cost otherwise, and that this will be done by some kind of progression down through the years. Perhaps we can be told what it might have cost to bring the full force of this desirable objective into being right now rather than in 1970.
I am pleased to offer our commendation in respect of one other result of this resolution, and that is the abolition of the idea of an age reduced pension as set out in the original Bill C-136. I realize that many people thought this was a good idea when they first saw it because it seemed to be ingenious and a way of getting pensions started without a means test at a lower age. However I do think we
Canada Pension Plan
would have been in real difficulty in this country had we gone ahead with that scheme, whereby some people would start their old age security pensions earlier but would throughout their lives receive amounts less than would be received by those who had managed to wait until they reached age 70. 1 think we would have been in real trouble had that scheme gone into effect, and I cannot see how it could have lasted more than two or three years. I am glad that it has been abolished in favour of a universal figure which is the same whether one accepts the pension at age 70, at age 69 or, in due course, at age 65.
Just before lunch the minister ranged rather widely over the field, as she will no doubt recall, and indicated that this was all part of the total package which is set out in Bill C-136, which includes both the Canada pension plan and the universal pension. I agree with her that these two things have to be taken together. One must see what it is that the Canadian people are entitled to from the two plans when they reach retirement age. It is precisely because these two plans have to be considered together that I think the old age security pension should not only be available at age 65 but that the amount should be $100 per month. It seems to me if we do this we will achieve a much better relationship between that part of retirement security paid on a flat rate and that which is on an earnings related basis. The more the flat rate is utilized, the more will be mitigated the differences that will obtain among pensions payable to those who are retired, whereas the earnings related pension will make possible much higher pensions than would otherwise be available to our people.
The minister has referred to those who have clamoured for $100 per month, and has stated that this is only something that has been taken up recently. I suppose it is a matter of definition and degree as to what is recently", but she gave the impression that we had commenced to ask for this during our consideration of Bill C-136. I should like to remind her that as long ago as November 21, 1963, as recorded in Hansard at page 5004, I for one spoke for this, and made the plea that we increase the old age security pension so that it would be $100 per month at least by the time of our 100th birthday. Since that time we have made this request repeatedly-that pensions should be increased to $100 per month.
When my colleague for Burnaby-Richmond speaks later during this debate, as I am sure

Canada Pension Plan
he plans to do, he will place on the record the actual motion that he and I put before the special joint committee on February 8, in which we asked that committee to make a recommendation to the effect that the pension be $100 per month at age 65. I am sure he will also point out what the vote was on that occasion, and that on that specific proposal he and I were the only ones prepared to vote in favour of it.
In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, support has grown for this proposal, and I feel I must say to the government here, as I have said on other occasions, that I do not think the government is going to be able to get away with this pension plan, starting, as it will, to pay benefits in 1967, without there being at some time an increase in the pension benefits of those who are already retired. That is a reason supplemental to the one I gave a moment ago, but I think that along with the benefits that people are going to get from the Canada pension plan portion of Bill C-136 there should be and has got to be an increase in old age security itself. We will get to that when we study the clauses of the bill after the resolution is passed. We may get a chance on third reading if we do not get a chance before that, but I urge the government in the remaining hours or days, whatever they may be, that this bill is under consideration to look at the whole picture realistically.
The present government is going to get a good deal of credit for the Canada pension plan. I say that without reservation. Despite all the criticisms that the Kilgours and others have made, in the years that lie ahead people are going to be glad that this earnings related plan was put on the statute books. People are going to be glad that the old age security was already there. People are going to be glad that there is this combination which makes it possible for people at the age of 65 to retire and have $150, $200, $250, perhaps $300 a month, depending upon the age of the man and wife, depending upon earnings and so on. People are going to be glad this was done. This is, therefore, a red letter period in our Canadian history but I say to the government that the encomiums it is going to get are going to be softened, that against them there is going to be real criticism over the fact that for all those now 70 or over there is nothing whatsoever. I think the government should go all the way and give parliament the chance to pass a package that will really do the job by associating with the benefits of the Can-

ada pension plan, by associating with acceptance of the principle that old age security should be paid at age 65, the proposition that the old age security pension itself should be $100 a month at age 65 for all our people.
In the course of her remarks today the minister referred, as the Prime Minister did on the 17th of February when he made this historic announcement, to the changes that will be made in the Income Tax Act under which the $500 additional exemption now enjoyed by people who are 65 or over is to be amended with the result that all those between 65 and 70 who are drawing old age security benefits will have that $500 exemption taken away. The more I think about it the more I feel that the suggestion I made more or less off the cuff on the 17th of February when the Prime Minister made the announcement is a suggestion that the government should consider seriously.
The government knows that there is a very strong feeling in this country that the $1,000 and $2,000 income tax exemption levels we now have are not high enough in relation to today's cost of living. Therefore if the government feels that there should not be this discrimination in favour of people between 65 and 70 by their having the extra $500 exemption, I suggest that the way to cope with that situation, instead of taking the exemption away from them, is to raise the exemption level for single people to $1,500 and to raise the married exemption from $2,000 to $3,000. I want to put in the caveat that I heard the Minister of National Revenue make in the course of his statement in another place yesterday, which I have made many times on the floor of the house, that when you do that sort of thing, when you raise the exemption level you have to adjust the income tax rates in the various brackets above that level. Otherwise you are giving to the millionaires a windfall, a word we have heard a great deal in this chamber these days but which I think has been used erroneously, and you are giving very little to those just over the exemption level.
I urge, Mr. Chairman, that before budget time comes around the government reconsider its position in regard to the $500 exemption. Do not take it away from those now between 65 and 70. Give it instead to all but make the necessary adjustments of the rates so that the benefit of income tax decreases will go mainly to those in the lower brackets and not just in bonanzas or windfalls to those in the upper bracket.

I see that under our special rule my time is just about up and I will not transgress. I want to say again that I think that in the history of social legislation in this country the step we are now taking is an exceedingly important one. We are recognizing the fact that if old age security should be paid without a means test it should be paid at 65 as well as at age 70, and this parliament will have it to its credit that it enacted this legislation. I say again, and I will have an opportunity to repeat it when we get back on the Canada pension plan itself, that I think the total package of a two stage kind of plan, an earnings related and an old age security plan, is a good one for Canadians and as the years go by it will turn out to have been a well designed plan. But I think the principal gap in it all is the failure to do anything for the people now over 70 and the failure to cover certain other groups. This can be done by increasing old age security itself to $100 a month. The minister says there are other ways to do it. She says that the opposition members point out the gaps but come up with a simple solution. This has been the answer, Mr. Chairman, every time we have proposed increases. I remember the days when we used to advocate removal of the means test at age 70. I sat in the house and heard Liberals across the way say: "What. You mean you are going to pay a pension to millionaires without a means test?" But we found that was the way to do it, and let the income tax take care of the millionaires.
I suggest that the best way to cover the needs of those now over 70, the best way to cover the needs of those between 65 and 70, the best way to cover the needs of those who will not be earning enough to build up an adequate pension for themselves under the Canada pension plan, is to improve the amount of the pension under old age security itself. I regret that the rules stand in the way of our moving an amendment to make the eligible age of 65 effective right away. We think this is what ought to be done. We also think that along with this when we get into the bill the house should give the government the chance to make this very good bill a perfect piece of legislation by including in it old age security of $100 a month payable forthwith at age 65.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, everyone is vitally concerned and interested in the measure now before the house. We have followed with a great deal of interest the debates that have already taken place on this measure.
Canada Pension Plan
They have been very complex and involved and personally I have not taken very much part in the discussion so far. But as we now have before us part IV, the amendments to the Old Age Security Act, it stimulates within us a sense of responsibility because we recognize the claim that these senior citizens of the country have upon us in regard to their welfare, the standard of living they now enjoy and the standard they should enjoy in the days that lie ahead.
There have been many expressions of opinion regarding the advisability of tying in this particular section with the Canada pension plan. Reference has been made today and on other occasions to the fact that what we have before us is a package plan in that the earnings related section coupled with old age security will give Canadians a moderately adequate income in their declining years. On the other side of the question there are many who believe there should have been a separation of the earnings related phase of the pension plan and the old age security provisions. 1 believe that would have been much wiser and would have solved many of the problems. It would have made the measure much less complicated and involved and on the other hand it would have provided in a very adequate way for the discharge of our social responsibilities in these two fields.
We have a measure before us with a proposal to reduce the age on a graduated basis from age 70 to age 65. This is all to the good and we support this particular proposal fully. We have felt for a number of years that this was desirable and have advanced arguments in favour of it. We know the government at this time, in introducing this particular amendment, will make old age security available at age 65. We would agree that there should have been an increase as well in the pension payable. I think it was back about 1958 that we made the suggestion old age pensioners should receive a pension of $100 per month. I remember very well how we were ridiculed at that time and many people thought we had gone far beyond that which was legitimate, desirable or possible. It may be that we were a little bit ahead of our time, but we are very glad there are those today who are supporting the idea there should be a basic pension of $100 for our senior citizens.
Now, we know very well that the government is not going to consider it at this time. We know there is not going to be any basic change in the proposals that have been laid out in this particular measure. I suppose

Canada Pension Plan
therefore we must accept that fact. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I want to make it quite clear that we in this group are in support of a basic pension of $100 per month for our senior citizens. In view of the fact it is unlikely the government is going to move to make this increase available immediately, we are suggesting that at the same time there is this lowering of the age of eligibility there should be a gradual increase in the pension payable until at the time when the pension is payable at 65 pensioners may receive a basic pension of $100 per month. This is our proposal, and we believe it is well within the realm of possibility, just as we believe the other proposal is within the realm of possibility. Unless the government is prepared to make an immediate increase, we suggest consideration be given to incorporating into this measure the proposal that the pension would be increased $5 per month per year until it reaches a maximum of $100 when the pension is received at age 65.
There are many arguments we could advance in this connection. I do not believe it is necessary at this late stage in the debate, nor do I think it is advisable. Nevertheless, we wanted to present this proposal for the consideration of the committee and the minister. There is one other question with relation to the senior citizens' position. It has to do with those who are in the single category. It has been pointed out that the basic pension is $75. This is reasonable, perhaps, if both the husband and wife are receiving the pension. However, in the case of a single pensioner, whose costs for rent and other things continue just the same, I do not believe it is reasonable. I believe, therefore, there should be a bonus of some kind or an increase paid to those who are in the single category to enable them to meet the high cost of living which, in the case of married people, is shared between the two receiving the old age pension. As I pointed out, I did not intend to speak at length at this time. There will be other members taking part, but I did want to advance these suggestions for the consideration of the committee.


Mr. Perron:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few brief remarks concerning the resolution to amend part IV of Bill No. C-136. I also have a few suggestions concerning what the charming and able Minister of National Health and Welfare told us when she introduced that resolution a while ago and stated that the only objection to this provision is that it is too generous. In fact, she stated

very clearly that the only charge that could be levelled was that we were granting too much. She also said that it was a great step forward in the field of social security.
My colleague from Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said that the words "social justice" could be added to that remark concerning social security.
Following the hon. member for Edmonton West, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) claimed that his group was the first to ask in this house social security based on true social justice; and he was highly pleased with this step toward a true social security in Canada.
In my opinion, the charming Minister of National Health and Welfare was not too serious when she spoke about criticism that there were too generous features in Bill No. C-136 and the resolution which we are now discussing and which will enable five years hence those who have reached the age of 65, to benefit from this pension under the proposed amendments to this Bill No. C-136.
It is evident that many principles are involved, because social security and social justice are mentioned in connection with Bill No. C-136.
But I will stick to the principle of social justice, and there were those who tried to justify the retirement, not compulsory but desirable, at age 65 of all those who wished to continue in some employment; that is what is called geriatrics. Geriatrics deals with the older person who wants to continue some activity, salaried or not.
Now, many principles are involved when one speaks of social security and social justice.
The charming minister told us that this amendment to Bill No. C-136 will enable people who otherwise would not be covered to retire in security and with dignity. This is very well, it is well thought, it is even very well said. But I wonder what the millions of Canadian workers will think of such nice and friendly words which mean that they will be able, at age 65, to retire in security and with dignity, when during their 20 or 40 years of active life, they have not even lived in decent conditions, because of this very system which today compels our governments to introduce legislation such as this Bill No. C-136? Finance compels us to restrict the social security conditions of the Canadian people to the limitation of dollars our people can have at their disposal.
I mentioned geriatrics a while ago. It is already admitted, by many thinkers, sociologists and trade union representatives that

more and more people aged 50, 55 and 60 lose their jobs because they are being replaced by automation in industries which, for the last 20, 25 or 30 years, enabled them to earn their living; those people hardly And something to keep them busy, to assure for themselves and their families a reasonable salary on which they can live.
Surveys are being made throughout the world on the effects of automation. I feel that the problem of aging could also be studied.
Socialists, members of the New Democratic party are happy about this great step toward social security made possible by Bill No. C-136. I wonder whether the utopia of full employment is not being recognized by the adoption of Bill No. C-136.
Socialists welcome such action and it is even suggested that this privilege should be granted to persons of 65 years of age. It is probably in order that the official record will show them to have been the promoters of social security in Canada.
On this matter I wish to point out that if we take into consideration geriatrics and progress, many persons who belong to our working classes cannot find today adequate employment under normal conditions in Canada.
This is proved by statistics. From 1955 to 1965, that is during the last ten years, Canada never had fewer than 400,000 unemployed persons. In fact, we had as many as 700,000 unemployed, including family heads aged 35, 40 and 45 years who could not find a job.
If we had had legislation enabling a man who spent 40 years of his life building this country to retire with dignity at the age of 60, family heads aged from 35 to 40 years could have earned an honest living in some job, while men who had reached the age of 60 or 65 could have withdrawn from the labour market.
During that period extending from 1955 to 1965, many youths aged 16 to 18 never came on the labour market because we encouraged them to pursue their studies, to the extent that today very few Canadians between the ages of 18 and 20 do not attend school.
This transformation occurred during the last decade.
That labour force of persons aged 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 did not clog the labour market, because they pursued their studies. And yet we still have regularly in Canada between 400,000 and 700,000 unemployed persons.
Canada Pension Plan
Is that not sufficient proof that while some people find satisfaction in the fact that they were the promoters of social security, as mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, we were right, and are still right, while considering this amendment to Bill No. C-136, to request what we have been asking for, for at least 10 or maybe 20 years in the province of Quebec, namely a pension with a test if it is considered absolutely necessary, at the age of 60; a pension, as of age 60, for those who cannot find a job or who, due to ill health, cannot get an adequate income to live decently in a country as affluent as Canada; and at 65, without a test.
We have been clamouring for this for the past 20 years. However, a little over a year ago, when social security benefits were raised from $65 to $75, our N.D.P. friends were satisfied and most happy with this increase.
Today, they would like to be the only ones to foster adequate social security.


Robert William Prittie: That is right.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, adequate social security implies the very principle of social justice. Let us be fair to those who have given 30 years of their lives to make Canada what it is today. The great wealth of our country is not to be found in the homes of the Canadian consumers who could surely enjoy a little more comfort and live in dignity and decency. But, we have brought forward Bill No. C-136 which will take away in advance, in some cases, what savings low income earners could have made and, in other cases, deprive some of them of a decent living, if the human point of view and the Canadian cost of living are taken into consideration.
Looking at the contributions which will have been made or at the benefits which will have been given in 30, 40 or 50 years from now, it is no wonder that Bill No. C-136 is so complicated.
I conclude my remarks with some quotations which are not in today's Hansard but which I would like to draw to the attention of the charming Minister of National Health and Welfare, even if she has said that we know nothing about Bill No. C-136 or social security.
However, before doing so, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say that what was true yesterday will also be true tomorrow, because truth is eternal.
I will read some excerpts from various documents which deal precisely with old age

Canada Pension Plan
security problems. I have here an article published in Front ouvrier on May 27, 1950, and which deals with the old age pension plan. I quote:
On the one hand, it would be a crime to impose a contribution on workers whose income is not high enough for them to live decently. When a large number of workers lack sufficient purchasing power, it would be illogical to deprive them further by forcing them to contribute to a pension plan. In such a case, they will ask for pay increases on a pro rata basis which will complicate the problem even more.
Referring to the same article, when I tell those who think only in figures to limit our financial system solely to purchasing power, here is how it ends.
That is the problem: Where will the money come from? Who will be taxed? From whom will we take money to give it to others? Who will be overtaxed?
But is it necessary that those who are working today should buy fewer products so that there will be enough left for the aged? When they think of our surplus of products, responsible people answer no. But those who fail to see that only money is lacking, and not products, answer stupidly "yes".
That is what was written in 1950 concerning the pension plan. When I say that what was true yesterday is still true today and will be true tomorrow, I think I am right.
I shall quote another document published following the statements or surveys made under the direction of Mr. Mitchell, a former minister of labour, who advocated a certain social security pension plan in Canada.
Mgr. B. J. Eustace in a summary of Mr. Gerard Filion's proposal that the role of the state should always remain supplementary in the field of social security, stated:
The state should never undertake anything (in the field of social security) that could be done by individuals or by co-operation between capital and labour. When industry has done its share, continued Mgr. Eustace, the state then might make good for the deficiencies of lower groups.
Before it is too late, before the state undertakes to provide for the security of workers at the expense of their freedom and of the socialization of business concerns, we suggest to the trade unions and employer associations to meet and discuss the possibilities and the steps to be taken in order to guarantee the security to all while safeguarding their freedom.
Mr. Chairman, you have here further evidence that the state is now doing the opposite of what the principles stipulate to those who believe in the freedom of the human being, the freedom of private enterprise, to those who believe that we should not set up a system of state capitalism smarter than the die-hard capitalistic system under which the country

has suffered the consequences and the chaos which we have experienced so far.
It is all very well to extricate ourselves from a difficult situation but we must be careful lest we should jump out of the frying pan into the fire.
I hope that following other remarks I will have the opportunity to make when we consider clause 1, we will succeed in opening the eyes of those Quebeckers who today are getting more and more involved in the baneful and dangerous system of state capitalism.


Edgar John Benson: I believe the resolution now before the house represents one of the most significant and important milestones in the provision of old age income security in Canada. Within a few years more than half a million people in the 65-69 age group will be receiving this pension each year. The annual expenditures involved will exceed the level of payments under the universal pension when it was introduced in 1952.
By 1970, at which time the age of eligibility will be 65, 1,622,000 persons 65 years of age and over will be receiving the flat rate universal old age security pension. Of this number some 574,000 people will be in the 65 to 69 age group.
It is gratifying to note the measure of support that has been afforded this proposal in the house. Just as the principle of a universal flat rate pension payable at age 70 received wholehearted endorsement in 1951 when the old age security program was introduced, we have reached the stage when the principle of the universal pension applied at an earlier age is generally acceptable. Increasingly it has become apparent that while age 70 might have been a reasonable age for the commencement of this benefit in 1950 when the joint parliamentary committee recommended this approach, this is not so now, a decade and a half later. Technological change continues to exert pressures for earlier retirement ages. Retirement practices in industry tend toward younger rather than older retirement ages. Correspondence received in the Department of National Health and Welfare over the years has served to emphasize the weakness in the existing old age security program with respect to the age of eligibility for the pension. This point has been brought out in many of the briefs and representations before the committee.
There are many who reach age 65 with some modest provision for their retirement but who use up these funds during the five


year period before reaching 70. Some have had insufficient savings, private pensions or other means to see them through. For others serious illness may have wiped out or reduced what provision had been made. For many older people this five year gap between retirement and receipt of old age security has been a period which slowly and steadily reduced them to an impoverished condition so that the amount of the universal pension at age 70 has proved to be insufficient. Some have had to apply for assistance on reaching age 65 because their personal provision for retirement was too meagre. Some carry on for a few years beyond age 65 before they have to seek old age assistance. Many of these people had modest incomes throughout their working life and had heavy family responsibilities to meet as best they could, and as a result they were able to make little or no provision for retirement income.
Part IV of the bill as it now stands contains the principle that old age security should be payable at age 65 rather than at age 70 as provided in the Old Age Security Act. It is proposed that the age of eligibility should be reduced to 69 in 1966, to 68 in 1967, to 67 in 1968, to 66 in 1969 and to 65 in 1970. The same approach of extending coverage to the lower age groups a year at a time is proposed in the resolution and in the amendments to clauses in part IV which will follow.
The concept of an age reduced benefit payable from age 65 will be dropped under the proposal set out in the resolution. Instead of the size of benefit being determined by the age of the beneficiary at the time he or she begins to receive the benefit, the full pension will be paid regardless of age. It was pointed out in the joint committee that the $51 a month payable at age 65 would be insufficient to meet the needs of many and that these people would have to obtain considerable supplementation through public assistance. It was also suggested that those who took the age reduced benefit at some age below 70 would find it difficult to continue on at that reduced rate after age 70. Indeed it could be argued that these considerations might in themselves make it difficult to maintain the age reduced approach over the long run.
The joint committee in its report recommended that the government give consideration to further measures regarding the position of those people who, because they are or soon will be retired, will not be substantial contributors to, or beneficiaries from the 20220-779J
Canada Pension Plan
Canada pension plan. This proposal will be extremely helpful to many retired people who have not yet reached age 70 and who will not be contributors to the earnings related plan. It will also be most helpful to the many people who are in their early and midsixties and who are near retirement but who will not be substantial contributors to the wage related plan. Thus, this proposal meets a number of the points of criticism raised during the joint committee's deliberations and in some measure meets this particular recommendation of the committee. If the nature and scope of this proposal and of the earnings related plan, along with their financial implications, are assessed, it will be seen that this represents the most far reaching provision for old age security ever undertaken in Canada.
In the years ahead, Canada pension plan benefits will steadily increase in size and the number of persons receiving those benefits will grow and grow. This universal flat rate benefit complements these earnings related benefits. The combined benefit level as proposed by this resolution and the provisions of Bill C-136 with regard to the earnings related benefit will afford retired Canadians a measure of security previously unknown. This universal flat rate pension together with the exemption of the first $600 of earnings under the earnings related plan, means that the combined program is heavily weighted in favour of the low income groups, while at the same time providing for a differential in the benefits afforded.
While the majority of people in the 65 to 69 age group are not employed in gainful employment, there are some who carry on in full time employment and continue to receive their normal earnings from employment or self employed earnings. The retirement test under the earnings related plan will, of course, be applicable in these instances. With the provision of $75 a month for persons 65 to 69, the question of whether or not such a retirement test should also be applied to this group had to be considered.
The problems of administering an earnings test to some recipients of an earnings related plan and to some recipients of both, present extensive technical difficulties. This would be further complicated by the fact that in any province operating a comparable earnings related plan, the federal government would be involved in applying the retirement test to the flat rate benefit to all eligible residents in such a province. The problems

Canada Pension Plan
of integrating a federally administered retirement test and a provincially administered retirement test would add a further dimension to the complexity.
An alternative approach which does not involve these complexities and which would be less onerous on those who do continue to have earnings, is the one now proposed. This will involve the removal of the $500 income exemption for those at the age at which the new old age security payment becomes payable. The effect of this provision will in some ways be fairer than a retirement test in that it will affect all taxable income and not just earned income up to a ceiling of $5,000. Those with very high incomes will, of course, have a considerable proportion of the $900 pension recovered through income tax, while those with very low incomes will be unaffected. For persons with incomes in between, the degree of recovery will be related to levels of income with the amount of recovery becoming progressively higher as income rises.
In addition to the income from this source, there will be a gradual decline in expenditures under existing old age assistance programs. Expenditures under the Old Age Assistance Act will come to an end in 1970. Since the federal and provincial governments share these costs on a fifty-fifty basis, this proposal will relieve both federal and provincial governments of expenditures on old age assistance payments.
It is estimated that expenditures eliminated by this proposal would be $19.8 million in 1966 and $95.4 million in 1970. One half of the savings on old age assistance and a portion of the improvement in income tax revenue arising from recoveries from the $900 a year pension and the removal of the $500 exemption would accrue to the benefit of the federal budget, while the cost of the higher old age security pensions for those 65 and over would, of course, fall on the old age security fund.
It is estimated that old age security payments for persons 65 and over will amount to about $998.5 million in 1966, $1,109.4 million in 1967, $1,248.9 million in 1968, $1,404.5 million in 1969 and $1,579.3 million in 1970. Under Bill C-136, with the age reduced pension commencing at $51 a month at age 65, the costs would have been $975.3 million in 1966 compared with the $998 million now proposed-there is thus an increase of $22.7 million in 1965-and $1,306.1 million in 1970 compared with the $1,579.3 million now

proposed. This is a gross increase of $273.2 million in 1970.
It can be seen from the sizeable amounts of expenditures involved that the government considers that it is important to stage the introduction of these pensions over a period of years, starting with those in the 69 year old group in 1966 and continuing by lowering the age one year at a time. The growth of the economy over the next five years will be helpful in providing additional income each year through the earmarked contributions used to finance the old age security fund. Estimates of revenues from the 3-3-4 formula indicate that there will be sufficient income in the fund to meet the additional expenditures arising from the increase in the pension from $65 to $75 a month introduced by the government and approved by this parliament and the additional expenditures arising from the lowering of the age of eligibility which is now under consideration by this house. These estimates indicate that in the five year period, 1966 to 1970, revenues should be sufficient to meet pension payments without the need for an increase in the rates of contributions to the old age security fund. I might add that this is the case for the foreseeable future beyond 1970 as well.
I might also indicate at this point that in this regard the government must show financial responsibility, and in this connection-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question. Does that mean that if we were not making these changes the government would have been overtaxing the people of Canada in the old age security taxes?


Edgar John Benson: The government would have been moving into a position where it could have funds available for old age security purposes. These funds, as my hon. friend well knows, may not be used for any other purposes.
One of the matters I should like to point out at this time to my hon. friend for Winnipeg North Centre is that in this the government is being financially responsible. With regard to the proposal which he espoused a little earlier in this debate, I have made a few calculations on the proposal outlined by him and this would cost not $400 million odd next year, as was indicated by one of my hon. friends opposite, but $813.1 million next year. In other words, if we were to follow the suggestion that we increase old age pensions to $100 for everyone at age 65 next year, it would cost $1,807.2 million as compared with $994.1 million. My hon. friends

all know that if the government were to take this proposal seriously and were to be fiscally responsible, it would mean, in effect, that the 4-3-3 formula which we presently have would become an 8-6-6 formula. That is, we would have to add 4 per cent to personal income tax up to an amount of an additional $120 provided we kept that base.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit another question?


Edgar John Benson: Just let me finish. We would also have to add 3 per cent to the 50 per cent corporation income tax and 3 per cent to federal sales tax if we were to finance this out of O.A.S. revenue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister now permit a question. Does he realize that this seems a bit odd: When the government does something it wants to do it does not have to raise taxes, but when it does something the opposition wishes, it seems to have to raise taxes.


Edgar John Benson: I think the fact that we will be able to do this without raising any taxes indicates that this government is very farsighted in its views. There has been a great deal of criticism from the other side of this house of the imposition of sales tax on building materials. If this sales tax on building materials had not been instituted we would not be able to finance the program we are proposing without an increase in old age security taxes.
In a highly complex modern society most people want some means of protecting themselves against the hazards that threaten income. The old age security program for more than a decade afforded some measure of protection against the loss of income due to old age. The resolution under discussion will extend this protection to more than half a million Canadians. It will be supplemented by the earnings related old age insurance program designed to raise as quickly as seems reasonable the level of retirement pensions in Canada. And this new system of old age income security which combines flat rate and graduated pensions will be complemented by a range of benefits designed to assist widows, orphans and the disabled. Bill No. C-136, with the proposed amendments to part IV, will represent the most comprehensive social security program ever considered by this parliament. It represents the outcome of almost two years of continuous work and study ranging from federal-provincial nego-
Canada Pension Plan
tiations to the detailed examination by a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons.
As each year goes by the scope of income security for the retired, for widows and orphans and for the disabled will be steadily augmented. With these provisions a new dimension will be added to social security in Canada.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one brief reference to a previous part of the debate on this matter. I was very sorry that the government did not see fit to accept the recommendation of the committee concerning the dropout period. We received direct representations from the firefighters association and the Canadian teachers association to extend the dropout provision, and the committee recommended 20 per cent. The government has come in with 15 per cent and I think it is unfortunate that they have done so in face of the recommendation of the committee.
To deal with the particular matter now under discussion, let me say first of all that I am pleased with the change which has been made concerning the amount to be paid by way of old age security at age 65. The Canada pension plan is the result of a great deal of study, the result of the work of many expert people over a long period of time. In particular, I refer to the actuaries and the staff of the department. It is the result of negotiation with the provinces, which was not achieved overnight. I would suggest that the change which has been made in the amount which is to be paid to persons who retire at 65 is one of those fast political decisions which can be made quickly if necessary.
To illustrate this point, during the committee proceedings the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out a number of times that the government would not be able to live with this $51 figure for very long. That is to say, those persons choosing to retire and to take old age security at age 65 will receive $51.
As reported at page 2102 of the committee's proceedings, the hon. member said:
The other point is that this proposal would wipe out the suggestion in the bill that we can have an actuarially reduced pension between ages 65 and 69.
He was referring to a proposal advanced by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.
To continue the quotation:
X want to see something done in this area and I would like to see it done on a no means test basis, but I am convinced this idea of having

Canada Pension Plan
Canadians on old age security at a lesser rate who shall have to continue for the rest of their lives on that rate is not one that will stand up in our Canadian society or in our Canadian economy.
We then moved a motion in committee, as he suggested, which appears at page 2057 of the committee report and reads as follows:
The committee also recommends that consideration be given to the amending of part IV of Bill C-136 to provide for an increase in the pension paid under the Old Age Security Act to $100 a month and for the lowering of the eligible age for the full pension under the Old Age Security Act to age 65.
That motion was defeated 19 to 2 with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and myself being the only ones voting in favour of it. All the Conservative and Liberal members voted against it.
Following that we moved another motion which also appears at page 2057 of the report and which is as follows:
The committee also recommends that consideration be given to the amending of part IV of Bill C-136 to provide for an increase in the amount of the pension paid under the Old Age Security Act and for the progressive lowering of the eligible age for a full pension under the Old Age Security Act to age 65.
That motion was defeated 15 to 6, but in this case the Conservative members of the committee voted with us.
I suggest that between that date, which was February 8, and the date the Prime Minister made his statement in the house, which was February 17, some very quick political decisions were made, and this probably proves that this can be done when it has to be done. It would seem that all the months of actuarial work were disregarded in making the decisions in respect of this bill, because the government was worried about the political effects of the figures which had been presented to it earlier.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, let me say that we are pleased with this change because, after all, it is results that count.
The implementation of the Canada pension plan and the improvement to old age security by progressive lowering of the age will not solve all the problems in connection with old age security. We will still have a large number of people in this country who will not be covered by the Canada pension plan, or who will receive very little from it, and others who will not have private pension plans to implement their income. We have been providing to some extent for these people during the past few years under the Old Age Assistance Act-that is, persons between ages 65 and 69 under an agreement

between the federal government and the provincial governments.
As old age security becomes available to individuals down to age 65 the cost to the federal government under the old age assistance program will be reduced, as will the costs to the provinces be reduced. I think we will then have to look at that group below age 65. I suggest this is not a problem which will come to light in the future, but one that is in existence now.
Before my election to this house I was a member of a municipal council, and as such had to deal with matters of social welfare.
I still receive calls from individuals in this regard. There is quite a large group of individuals between ages 55 and 65 who are in rather difficult circumstances. This is particularly so in respect of individuals over the age of 60, but who have not reached the age of 65. Until such time as they reach age 65 there is only one source of help available to them, and that is the usual city or municipal social welfare assistance. Many people are reluctant to apply for social welfare, although perhaps they should not be, because they have contributed by way of taxes to the cost of social welfare during their earning years. Many individuals still feel that this is something they do not want. These people do not have quite the same objection to accepting old age assistance. They seem to make a distinction between the two in their minds, and it does not hurt their pride nearly as much to apply for old age assistance as it does to apply for social welfare.
I am aware of the existence of many individuals between the ages of 60 and 65 who need help, but at the present time social welfare is the only help available to them. I think we should look at this situation and change the terms of old age assistance in order to assist this group of people. This suggestion is not new, but has been made on previous occasions.
I have here an advertisement that appeared in the Vancouver Sun of Thursday, April 4, 1963 under the heading of "The Liberal Policy-General Election-1963". It outlines the standing of the Liberal party in respect of the whole field of pensions. I should like to quote one part of this advertisement which deals with the portability of pension plans, about which we have been talking here:
Make the $75 old age assistance available to single women and widows at age 60.

Many companies retire men at 65 but women at 60. Earlier assistance will therefore be made available to women, in co-operation with the provinces.
At the bottom of this advertisement appears the names of all Liberal candidates in British Columbia and the Yukon. The name which leads all the rest is that of Tom Kent, who ran in Burnaby-Coquitlam. I mention his name particularly because the former candidate for Burnaby-Coquitlam is a more influential individual in respect of this matter of pensions.
Mr. Chairman, I must remind Liberal members of these promises which were made during the last election campaign. Perhaps everyone in Canada is not a cynic and can just dismiss campaign promises after an election, but I received a call from a woman recently who is in her early sixties and is in a difficult financial position. That woman considered this advertisement rather seriously and fully expected that when the Canada pension plan was introduced her situation would be looked after. To be quite honest, I had not noticed this particular advertisement and did not realize that this promise had been made until this lady brought it to my attention, but I can assure you that she did take it very seriously.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Surely he is not indicating to the committee that that advertisement, which sets out the commitment of the Liberal party, which is also a commitment of this government, is a part of the Canada pension plan?


Robert William Prittie: I am not suggesting that it forms part of the Canada pension plan, but it was part of the Liberal party election campaign program for pensions and social security. Perhaps this is just an objective, but under the heading "Health Care" appears the following:
The objective of the Liberal party is to establish, in co-operation with the provinces, a medical care plan for all Canadians.
That has been an objective ever since I was born in 1919. I think that this was an objective, but in this particular case it would certainly appear that this was something which was to be introduced within a very short period of time.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest this question of election promises is something that we should take very seriously, since we may be involved in that game again soon. It is very well to-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.
Canada Pension Plan


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I am still on the subject in reference to-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I was just wondering whether the hon. member has just launched his election campaign, or whether he is proposing now to consider the legislation now before this committee.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I am dealing with old age security and trying to point out that there is a group of individuals not covered by this proposition, but who should be covered. I merely intend to say in connection with elections that it is all very well to make promises about building causeways to certain islands, because when those promises are not lived up to no one is hurt very badly. On the other hand when statements of this kind are made and people expect to be assisted in regard to their financial problems, these statements should be made in a serious vein.
I would conclude my remarks by making a plea to the minister and to the former candidate for Burnaby-Coquitlam to do something about this particular problem. I made some inquiries and as far as I can determine there are no discussions under way with the provinces to amend the Old Age Assistance Act.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Oh, surely my hon. friend cannot say that. If he was present in the house he heard me say that there is a meeting in less than two weeks with the ministers of welfare, and that we discussed this matter over a year ago and are continuing these discussions. I said this only an hour or two ago.


David Orlikow: Ten years from now you will still be having discussions.


Robert William Prittie: I must admit I did not hear the hon. lady say that, but I am very glad to hear that she did. There is only one other point I want to make in connection with the particular subject under discussion, old age security and payment at the age of 65. A few minutes ago the Minister of National Revenue made some comments about the cost of the proposal which had been advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and myself. He mentioned a figure in excess of $1| billion next year if our proposal were introduced. I suggest that if the will is there the government can find the money to do these things. They have not exhausted all sources of revenue. He suggested that if our ideas concerning pensions were implemented all of the taxes under the formula for old age security would have to be raised. I sug-

Canada Pension Plan
gest they would not all have to be raised. Is the government getting all it can out of the corporation tax structure compared with the situation in some other countries? Has it looked at the question of depletion allowances for companies in the oil drilling field? Has it looked at the question of a partial capital gains tax such as exists in the United States? Has the government looked at the question of what I consider to be still a very large defence budget for the results obtained? I am sure if the government really wanted to do so it could find more money in that area.
This is the typical attitude taken over the years, in that whenever we suggest something we are told that the cost is astronomical and it cannot be done. I suggest that if the government wants to do these things they can be done.


Mr. Macdonald:: Like magic.


Robert William Prittie: However, Mr. Chairman, we are very pleased that this change has been made. I will conclude by saying that I was amazed with the rapidity of action in regard to that particular change, but it is the results that count.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few things at this stage of the debate. I too am very pleased with the introduction of part IV of the legislation and the objective set forth in the resolution. I must say that I did not follow the deliberations of the joint committee too closely but I was somewhat perturbed when I noted that in the course of their discussions an amendment was moved by the representatives of the Conservative party which in effect would have given every Canadian citizen $100 per month at age 65 but it was turned down. I heard my colleague to the left say that he and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre were the only two who voted for a flat $100 payment at age 65, but I also note that they did not support the amendment put forward by my colleagues on that committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You know why, too.


Eric Alfred Winkler: It does not matter to me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It does not matter?


Eric Alfred Winkler: No, it does not matter. I said on a previous occasion that my position on this question was that I wanted all citizens at age 65 to receive an old age pension of $100 a month, and I will say why. Although, as I stated, I support the legislation completely and entirely, I believe that the pay-

ment should be $100 a month at age 65 across the board from January 1, 1966.
The minister stood in her place and tried to take great political kudos for the presentation of all this welfare legislation. In doing so she reminded me very much of the stumping politician. She wanted to take all credit for anything for which credit could be taken and to accept none of the responsibility for the fact that things were not so well accepted by the general public with her party in power. We do not have to go back too far to find examples of what I am talking about. She almost shed tears over the way that things were being presented.
Let me say again that as early as 1960 I placed before the house a contributory pension plan and at that time suggested that $100 a month be paid at age 65. I have not changed my position since. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says there is a reason why they did not support our position during the sittings of the joint committee. Let me put this forward to the committee, Mr. Chairman, in the light of the legislation that is before us. The $75 a month which will be paid across the board at age 65 in 1970 would have been augmented by $25 from the Canada pension plan.
Again, someone has mentioned this afternoon that there has been a lot said about the area of additional benefits, the inequality of the current structure and the windfalls that will occur for those now age 45 to age 60. I think that Canadians generally are sufficiently responsible to justify me in saying that this age group would have been satisfied to receive a more equitable pension when they are eligible; but everybody is the same these days. If you are going to give something to one person he is certainly not going to turn it down. I believe that the minister must accept this responsibility because I think that the cost of living will increase sufficiently in the ensuing years after the establishment of this plan that $100 will certainly not be too much.
The minister quoted this afternoon those tremendous words in the white paper about security and dignity and all the rest of that bunk. I say to the members of the committee that if even today the payment was $100 a month anyone having to live on that sum of money would find it a very difficult chore to make ends meet. I realize that the government may be looking ahead and thinking about medicare and other things, but these things are far in the future.

Another hon. member referred this afternoon to the people who come to see him. I have had the same experience. When I return to my constituency each week end most of the cases I have to deal with are welfare cases. I know that when I go home tomorrow I will have five or six or maybe ten welfare cases to deal with and, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond said, in many instances the age of these people is well below 65, which indicates quite clearly that there is a distinct need. Now, the Minister of National Revenue quoted at length a tremendous number of figures concerning the cost. Again, they are the people who are doing the proposing. Therefore, as he said, they have to act in a responsible manner in regard to raising the money. With this statement, I totally agree.
However, at the same time, Mr. Chairman, I believe that when we are going into this field now it will not be so easy to act in a sensible and responsible manner at a later time, and there will be few opportunities for the people who are in this position to get anything more. At election time, however, we know the government has a tendency to lean a little farther. The initial government proposal would have reduced the pension at age 65, that is if the contributor wished to take it, and it would have been $51 per month and the $75 old age security, of course, would have been left out. The proposal we have before us is one which was made in the committee by the members of the Conservative party. I suggest that is the reason we have this legislation before us. Let us make no mistake about that. In other words, once again the opposition forced the government into a move which, all of a sudden, the government finds responsible. I think many of the other amendments which have been suggested here have been equally responsible, but the government has acted in its usual way and accepted none of them.
In so far as this resolution is concerned, I may say that I am expressing my own view. I have said this earlier, and I do not believe all of the members of my party would support me. I do not intend to introduce an amendment, but I understand and I hope that an amendment will be introduced to increase this payment immediately, as of January, 1966, to $100 per month. I will stand in my place and support that amendment, Mr. Chairman.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It will be out of order.
Canada Pension Plan


Eric Alfred Winkler: Naturally, everything the
opposition does is out of order. You told us that a few minutes ago.


Mr. Munro:: That is the only reason you are making it.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous, Mr. Chairman? The parliamentary secretary says that is the only reason we are making it. If this is the only contribution he can make to Canadians who find themselves in this position today, then he had better go back home and enter into practice. He is of no value here.
I should like to say something to the Minister of National Revenue who referred to the imposition of the 11 per cent sales tax. He made a peculiar statement this afternoon. He said, had it not been for the imposition of the 11 per cent sales tax this plan would not have been possible. Let us have a look at how long this 11 per cent sales tax has been in effect. It was based on a 4-4-3 formula, if I remember correctly. I believe the government took a lot of money out of circulation during the period of time this tax has been in effect.


Edgar John Benson: Will the hon. member permit a question? Does he realize the additional 3 per cent was effective only on January 1 of this year, that is the old age security tax portion?


Eric Alfred Winkler: I am well aware of that. You have imposed the 11 per cent tax over what period, how long?


Edgar John Benson: Since January 1, of this year.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Obviously you have collected a substantial sum of money in that period of time. It seems to me that from the viewpoints which have been put forward in regard to the Canada pension plan, we have almost reached the stage where it might not be a bad idea to change our thinking. As has been stated before, there will be a substantial number of people added to the bureaucracy. They are going to have to be paid. I believe somebody said they would number 3,000, but I do not know if this is correct. In any event there will be quite a bill for the taxpayer to meet, and make no mistake about it, the cost is going to come out of the taxpayer's pocket.
We know from the United States experience that in due course the contributory portion is going to be a lot greater than the percentage that will be collected when the plan becomes effective. If it does rise to the point which it is projected in the United States it is going

Canada Pension Plan
to be, that is 11 per cent, in Canada it is going to be difficult tor the Canadian industrial worker and for many of the firms. Would it not be a wiser thing to pay it straight across the board at age 65, even if the costs were covered by a sales tax? This plan would be more equitable because the people who have money would be spending it on those things upon which a tax is collected, but everyone would receive benefits. As the plan is now, it is certainly not going to be equitable because the $75 at age 65 is going to be paid to the person who, as the minister says, will be living in security and with dignity, whereas the maximum that one might be receiving from the plan and old age security is $254. This would be provided, of course, that the husband and wife both live to collect this pension. Now, I would say that is quite a discrepancy. I do not believe the government should back away from increasing this payment from $75 to $100.
I would be very pleased, if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre or some other member moved an amendment to increase the payment to $100 per month, to stand up and support the amendment.


Edgar John Benson: May I ask the hon. member a question? He said he would stand in his place and support an amendment to increase the payment to $100 per month at age 65. Would he also stand in his place and support the necessary increase in taxes to cover this increase, which would be a responsible act? I have suggested it might mean a sales tax of 3 per cent, an income tax of 3 per cent and a 4 per cent corporation tax.


Eric Alfred Winkler: There is no doubt about that. I will support the financial measures required to produce the $100 per month.


George Louis Chatterton: There have been a few speeches between the speech made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and this moment, so that I have had an opportunity of drying my tears and recovering from the emotional impact of the words at the end of her speech. The hon. lady is obviously motivated by maternal instinct for this baby of hers. I am inclined to think, however, she is either a fickle or a careless mother because one of the first offspring which was delivered last April, I believe, was either abortive or rejected. Then, the second offspring which was delivered I believe in July of last year was also rejected. From my experience, mothers usually have the greatest concern for the first offspring, but in this instance it

appears that the hon. lady has most concern about the third one.


Mr. Pepin:: A beautiful baby.


George Louis Chatterton: I heard a comment about a beautiful baby. This is not the description I heard of it, according to the evidence given before the joint committee. The hon. lady has attempted to beautify this baby because she has already made some changes.
The third plan which we are considering provided for a reduced amount of old age security at age 65, so it is a little more beautiful now than it was. The minister paid some glowing tributes to the Prime Minister, including a reference to his patience. Now, with that, Mr. Chairman, I agree completely. I cannot understand the patience of the Prime Minister, particularly with the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I do not know if he calls her Judy or not, but he must have said to her, "Look, you had your first chance in April and your second chance in June or July. I don't care how bad the third one is, but I am not going to give you another chance." Furthermore, the Prime Minister must have said to her, "Don't forget the veracity force, the birds, and pictorial art normally read by children, and certain interference in a provincial election." Indeed, I agree with her that the Prime Minister has patience to an endless degree. Of course some people believe it is not patience but lack of decision, and this refers not just to one minister but to many others.
The hon. lady made a speech before one o'clock that was the most political type I have heard on a subject like this for many years, and no doubt it prompts some response along these lines. The government's proposal to provide old age security pensions in due course at age 65 is one which will be supported by this group, and certainly by me. But I think it was a political decision.
In the first place, whenever you introduce a flat rate instant benefit there is bound to be a certain amount of inequity. In other words, if you say, "We will provide this benefit as of today," somebody will say, "Why didn't you provide it yesterday?" That is understandable to some extent. But when a government says, "We will provide $75 a month to those who are aged 65 but not until 1970," then immediately those who are aged 65 now will say, "Why not now? Why only in 1970?"
In that respect the proposed measure with its progression of benefits by years is very-unfair and will cause grave feelings of dissatisfaction among those who will not be 65

until 1970. If the government is going to provide old age security benefits at age 65 I think the proposal could be greatly improved if it should be started in a certain year. It would be all right if the government said, "We will provide it to those age 67 in 1967." Everyone would then think they were treated in the same way.
Obviously the government is concerned about how much this is going to cost. But if the government has decided so much money can be allocated for the improvement of the Old Age Security Act then the question which arises in my mind is whether this is the best way to spend that money-the way outlined in this resolution? For example, the government proposes that in due course $75 a month will be paid to everyone who reaches age 65. Now, a great number of Canadians continue to work after age 65, so that they will get it too, and perhaps the money could be better spent by limiting the old age security payment to those 65 or over who are retired.
We heard evidence before the joint committee that the greatest need exists among those Canadians who are now over age 70. Some evidence was given that the need actually increases with each year over 70. The question was also raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that there are many people under age 60 who might be in greater need than those who are 65 years of age, particularly if they are still able to work and are working.
If this sum of money is to be allocated to old age security the question arises, is this the best way to spend it in accordance with this resolution? In this regard I wish to quote a gentleman for whom I know the minister has the greatest respect, Mr. W. M. Anderson, chairman of the board of directors of the North American Life Assurance Company. He is a great humanitarian, and the way I heard his evidence is that he is not one who objects to raising money for social justice purposes. But he is concerned that the money which is raised for these purposes is spent in the proper manner so that those who are in need will receive some assistance.
Mr. Anderson suggests that without taking anything which is promised under this resolution from anybody, that is from those who turn 69 next year and who will receive old age security benefit then, and those who turn 68 the following year and receive it that year, any benefit beyond that be eliminated under part IV, that an advisory committee be appointed, and an actuarial report ordered into the expenditures of the money which the government has in mind. He suggests that this 20220-780J
Canada Pension Plan
would give us two years in which to decide what would be the best way to spend this money. He states:
In this connection it is interesting to note some of the relevant material which could become available to such a committee in the near future:
1. The report of the Senate committee on aging.
2. The report of the royal commission on taxation.
3.	The report of the federal-provincial discussions regarding the various assistance programs.
4.	The remaining unpublished 1961 census monographs and additional age group analysis relating to the census.
5.	The potential use of the 1966 census as a special survey vehicle.
6.	Analyses by age group of income tax returns for 1962 and subsequently.
7.	Analyses by age group of needs-tested supplementation of old age security and old age assistance.
8.	Analyses by age group of occupational pension and annuity coverage for both active and retired lives.
9.	The Canadian welfare council's conference on aging scheduled for January 1966 and collateral studies now going forward in certain of the universities.
In addition I would think by that time the government would have available an economic report on the old age security fund which, incidentally, we asked for two weeks ago. In other words, what I am suggesting is that the measure proposed by the government by way of this resolution is strictly a stopgap political measure.
If the government would go so far that nobody could say, "You are not giving us anything that you have not promised to give in 1966 and 1967," then we could take the time to have a commission of inquiry into old age security related to the Canada pension plan, and that inquiry could consider what other measures we should take. Should more assistance be given to those people over age 70? Should we give consideration to widows at age 60? I am sure even the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, knowing full well that the government will not consider any changes in its present proposals, would support this suggestion.
This is the sort of approach which was taken in 1952 when old age security was first introduced. At that time the government did not say to a joint committee, "This is what we want to do. Please approve it." In effect they said: Tell us what you think we should do. I am suggesting the same might be done, now. I am not saying that the resolution should be rejected or part IV turned down. I am merely asking the government to consider paying this monthly pension of $75 to those who are 69 next year and to

Canada Pension Plan
those who are 68 in the year following, but to stop at this point as far as the present bill is concerned. Then, during those two years I have mentioned, let us have this commission of inquiry to consider the whole question of retirement pensions and of assistance to those in need. Maybe the ideals of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre can be attained by means of such a commission.
I do not think any of us object to the raising of the money for pension purposes but we want to be sure that the money collected is distributed fairly and to the best advantage of those in the greatest need.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I only have a few brief remarks to make in order to obtain a clearer definition of all the implications which this resolution can entail from the fiscal point of view. I should like first to refer to the original bill presented last April, that is Bill No. C-75, which served as a basis for Bill No. C-136, following talks between the federal and provincial governments last June.
Since noon today it has often been stated that eventually further talks with the provinces will be held to consider the procedure to be followed for the application of Bill No. C-136.
On April 21, 1964, there were press reports to the effect that the house had accepted almost unanimously the principle of retirement funds. As a matter of fact, La Presse of April 21, 1964, reported the following statement from my colleague from Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), and I quote:
The agreement between the Canadian government and the provinces illustrates what is meant by a real confederation of two nations where understanding is possible and where each nation will continue to govern its own destiny as it sees fit.
Mr. Gregoire stated that on the whole he was satisfied with the government proposals and that it was the first concrete step taken in the past two years to foster a better understanding between the federal and provincial governments and between the two great nations of our country.
Mr. Gregoire pointed out that yesterday's developments in federal-provincial relations should not encourage complacency. This is only a start, stated the member for Lapointe, and by 1967, he said, it should be possible for the provinces to opt out of joint agreements and plans and take over the whole field of income tax.
I appreciate that with this preamble you do not see exactly what I am coming to. Here it is: We do not know, in almost any sphere in Canada, what co-operative federalism means exactly. We have heard the Prud'-homme version, that is the version of the hon. member for St. Denis, to the effect that co-
[Mr. Chatterton.l
operative federalism is a constant state of flux. A constant state of flux: That is wide, that opens many doors.
I understand that since April 1964 there have been meetings between the Minister of National Health and Welfare or her officials and the representatives of the Quebec government, and that Quebec stated rather clearly, I think, its rights and privileges to exert, in the field of social security, what belongs to it under the constitution. But I also understand that under clause 4 of this Bill No. C-136, we confirm a principle that several constitutional jurists have held, namely that in the case where the provinces do not use their right in the field of social security, the federal authority is justified to legislate. It is precisely under this social security provision that Mr. Godbout's agreements have been justified and that the constitution has been amended in order to authorize the federal government to apply a direct tax on the salary of all Canadian citizens at the beginning of the war of 1939-45.
I admit that there were other agreements, when it came to a so-called universal social security system making it possible to pay a pension to all people aged 70 and over.
There were also other agreements and I understand that in 1954, they were revised once more when consideration was given to the possibility of passing an old age assistance legislation, administered by the provinces but financed in part by federal revenue.
A new agreement was signed in that connection.
As I said, if co-operative federalism is to mean a constant evolution, I wonder how one is to interpret the bombastic statements of the Quebec premier when he speaks of a special status, of a further step towards the recovery of provincial taxation powers and of the province's possibility of recovering 43 per cent of income tax by withdrawing from joint programs. According to him, that would only be a beginning.
I wonder if clause 4 of the bill under consideration does not justify my comments on other sections of this legislation when I said that this would be tantamount to setting up a gestapo through the checking of anything associated with the application of the pension plan or, at least, of the principles of contributory pensions under a so-called national scheme, by federal inspectors, in the provinces where Bill No. C-75 seems to apply.
I do not claim to be an expert in constitutional law. But I must admit that I am terrified when I think of the problem arising

from clause 4. There is a link between the contradictions noticed this last week about a particular status for Quebec and this morning's statements which made the front page of the newspaper Le Soleil on Thursday, March 11, 1965.
According to Mr. Jean Lesage, Quebec will be able to obtain a special status.
When you read that part of the report where Mr. Lesage deals with the delegation of powers, the opting out of joint plans, you see that the objective is to make a revised, repatriated and most flexible constitution.
As far as I am concerned, I do not think that the flexibility of a constitution is a way to guarantee to the province of Quebec the rights given by the 1867 constitution. The reason for the existence of a constitution is precisely the protection of the rights of minorities.
So, a flexible constitution, according to the promoters of co-operative federalism, who never gave an exact definition of it-and the definition given by the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) would make the question even more seriously what would happen if, today, we definitively passed that Bill No. C-136-calls for the exercise of a right of veto and the bargaining power which is to serve as a counterbalance in the preparation of a new constitution from now until 1967.
Such a flexible constitution gives me some concern. I think that the province of Quebec and the people of that province should be more conscious of the implications of clause 4 of Bill No. C-136 in the field of taxes.
That is why, in the light of the serious arguments brought forward by the previous speaker, considering the studies now under way in a committee of the Senate on aging and on fiscality-we even have in Quebec a commission which, for the last two years, has been carrying out a most comprehensive investigation on fiscality in that province and in Canada-I think it would be proper, as he said, not to tie up with that clause of Bill C-136 the part of social security which comes under amendments already made to the constitution.
I would very much like to get an answer that would put an end to that fear which is undoubtedly shared by all those who want to see better understanding between all Canadians from Quebec as well as the other provinces; I would very much like to get from the minister some explanations about the possible effects of clause 4 and the amendment under consideration not only on taxation but
Canada Pension Plan
on the scope of the rights that the application of that clause will allow.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, the resolution before us today moves some way, as others have said in this house, toward satisfying the feeling of a great many Canadians that what should be concentrated upon is the old age security pension. I cannot say that I have had an opportunity to talk to too many of my constituents; the necessity of being, shall I say, too long in this house over the last year has unfortunately kept many of us out of touch with people in our ridings. But I feel that the impression I have gained from talking to various people is that there is a general feeling of satisfaction that the government is now moving to lower the age for old age security from 70 to 65, even if the first move will be delayed for a couple of years, and in spite of the fact that there is some bewilderment as to why it is necessary to do this in stages.
I could go a little further, Mr. Chairman, and say that the feeling I have received from talking to people in my area about the pension plan and the old age security plan is that people prefer the old age security plan. There are certainly a lot of people who do not need a pension who will get it. I am not sure whether their feeling about avoiding a means test is because they do not like a means test or whether the administration cost involved in ascertaining who needs it and who does not would amount to more than the actual payments to those who have no need for it. In any event, the general feeling seems to be that this type of payment is preferred.
Next, I have found a general feeling among people, even those who have not at the moment a pension plan, that in this day and age of rapidly advancing cost of living there is a predominant interest in the amount of take home pay received. People who work in factories and plants which offer some sort of company pension plan, or people with their own private pension plan, find that there are so many deductions being made from their pay cheques that it is becoming harder and harder to meet each week's bills as they come in, and the thought of even one more deduction fills them with considerable dismay.
I am not aware how much this proposal is going to cost each year. I admit that I should be aware, but I have not got the figures in front of me at the moment. How-

Canada Pension Plan
ever, I am sure we can only surmise as to the amount of administration expense which will be entailed in the Canada pension plan itself as compared with the administration expense now involved in paying old age security. Here is where I have considerable hesitation in being too enthusiastic about the plan as a whole. I support this sort of payment even though it is going to cost a certain amount of money, and even though a lot of people who do not need it will receive it, and I do so because I know that the government is not going to run into a tremendous amount of extra expense just because the age is lowered from 70 to 65 or as a result of this progressive lowering. Once the scheme is set up and in operation I do not think that the added administrative cost will be very substantial. I can find no reason which assures me that the administrative cost of the Canada pension plan itself is anywhere near that determinate. In other words, the question of contributions is one which we can all understand. While we want to avoid the government paying this out of its own pocket, the payment still comes out of the taxpayer's pocket. Old age security payment is made out of general revenue. We are saving money on administrative costs, and I am not at all sure that the government should not take another look at this plan-or shall I say these plans, because we have had two or three plans before the bill which is now before us, and even that bill has been changed quite a bit. Therefore, perhaps I am not too far out of line in suggesting this, because there is another way of looking at it and perhaps we should look at the matter a little longer.
May I call it five o'clock?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could make an appeal on behalf of the ordinary members of the house. Some of us would like to see the actual amendments which are going to be made to part IV of Bill No. C-136, but by rule they cannot be given to us until this resolution is passed. I wonder whether, if the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is nearing the end of his remarks, and if he is the last speaker, we could carry on for two or three mintues and pass the resolution, so that we could see the amendments. This would make our discussions on Monday much more intelligible.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am agreeable to that, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Langlois:: No.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?
IMr. Nugent.]


Raymond Langlois: No. May I call to your attention, Mr. Chairman, that it is five o'clock.
I think the hon. member for Beauce still has a contribution to make and we have some more members in our group who wish to speak on this resolution.


Lucien Lamoureux: It being five o'clock shall I rise, report progress-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member for Megantic a question? Do he and his colleagues not realize that they can discuss those things to which the hon. member for Beauce was referring during our consideration of various clauses in part IV? Surely we would all be in a better position to consider this bill after we have been given the actual amendments that are being proposed in respect of part IV.


John Carr Munro: Those subjects can also be discussed during our consideration of clause 1.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Our discussion of clause 1 will also give an opportunity to discuss the matters referred to by the hon. member. I will defend the rights of that group to make their speeches in respect of those things during our consideration of other clauses, but I do think we would be better off if we could be given the amendments proposed tc clauses of part IV.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, it is precisely at this stage of the resolution that some of my colleagues who are not here this afternoon intend to present arguments. In such circumstances, may I be permitted to call it five o'clock?

Progress reported.


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



IMMIGRATION ACT


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-69, to amend the Immigration Act (racial discrimination).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-69 is a simple one. It is to eliminate racial discrimination from the immigration laws of Canada as passed by this parliament. The members of this house may be surprised or

even shocked to hear that the laws passed by this parliament, still on the statute books, still authorize racial discrimination as a basis for the acceptance or exclusion of individuals seeking to come into Canada. Indeed I spoke to one hon. member a few moments ago and informed him that there does remain racial discrimination in our statutes in regard to immigration, to which he replied that he had no idea that was the case.
The bill itself is short and simple. It provides that section 61 (g) of the Immigration Act be repealed. Section 61 states, in part:
The governor in council may make regulations for carrying into effect the purposes and provisions of this act and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations respecting
(g) the prohibiting or limiting of admission of persons by reason of
(i)	nationality, citizenship, ethnic group-
And so on. I would ask hon. members of this house to pay particular attention to that phrase, "ethnic group".
And it continues:
-occupation, class or geographical area of origin,
(ii)	peculiar customs, habits, modes of life or methods of holding property,
(iii)	unsuitability having regard to the climatic, economic, social, industrial, educational, labour, health or other conditions or requirements existing, temporarily or otherwise, in Canada or in the area or country from or through which such persons come to Canada, or
(iv)	probable inability to become readily assimilated or to assume the duties and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship within a reasonable time after their admission.
The principle of this bill is to eliminate those sections by which the governor in council is authorized by this parliament to regulate the admissibility of people to Canada. The only portion of those words that refers directly to origin is the phrase "ethnic group", although others that refer indirectly are "peculiar customs, habits, modes of life", "geographical area of origin" and so on. Those are also words that are apt to be used for the purpose of rejecting would-be immigrants to Canada on grounds of racial background.
Those provisions are entirely out of line with modern policy statements made by this government and its predecessor regarding the basis of our immigration policy. There was a time when racial grounds were considered satisfactory grounds for exclusion. Indeed people were excluded specifically by statute if, as an example, they came from what was then called the Chinese race.
For some time now our spokesmen have made it clear that in fact the policy of Can-
Immigration Act
ada in respect of immigration is not based upon racial grounds. In fact we have two streams of immigrants coming into this country: We have those who are admitted on grounds of their skill and ability to make an economic contribution to Canada, and we have others admitted on the basis of what we might call family grounds, or grounds of relationship to Canadian citizens.
The provisions which this bill seeks to eliminate are those which are entirely out of line with the modern concepts of the immigration policy announced from time to time by the government of this country. Those grounds are anachronistic at this time. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the provisions which my bill seeks to eliminate are inconsistent with Canada's, as well as other countries', professed declarations of policies in the international field.
Just this morning, Mr. Speaker, the members of one of the committees of this house, namely the committee on external affairs, had presented to it by a spokesman for the Department of External Affairs a statement in regard to a declaration adopted unanimously by the United Nations general assembly on November 21, 1963 regarding the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. We were told by that spokesman for our Department of External Affairs that this declaration provides a standard of conduct for all members of the United Nations. We were told that Canadian government policy supported this declaration, its aims and purposes, and that the Canadian delegate voted in favour of it at the general assembly.
What is in that declaration to which we have subscribed? In the affirmations or recitals appears the following:
Solemnly affirms the necessity of speedily eliminating racial discrimination throughout the world, in all its forms and manifestations, and of securing understanding of and respect for the dignity of the human person.
Article 1 states:
Discrimination between human beings on the grounds of race, colour or ethnic origin-
And, I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, and the attention of all members of this house, to that phrase "ethnic origin", which is exactly the same as the phrase used in the section to which I have referred, and which I wish to have eliminated.
Article 1 states, as I have said, that discrimination on these grounds-
-is an offence to human dignity and shall be condemned as a denial of the principles of the charter of the United Nations, as a violation of

Immigration Act
the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the universal declaration of human rights, as an obstacle to friendly and peaceful relations among nations and as a fact capable of disturbing peace and security among peoples.
Article 2 goes on to say that no state shall make any discrimination in regard to various matters "on the grounds of race, colour or ethnic origin", and no state shall advocate or lend its support to any discrimination. Article 3 reads as follows:
Particular efforts shall be made to prevent discrimination based on race, colour or ethnic origin, especially in the fields of civil rights, access to citizenship, education, religion, employment, occupation and housing.
Article 4 states:
All states-
We are included in "all states".
-shall take effective measures to revise governmental and other public policies and to rescind laws and regulations which have the effect of creating and perpetuating racial discrimination wherever it still exists.
We have subscribed to an international charter under which it is undertaken that all states will take effective measures to rescind laws based upon racial discrimination wherever it still exists. And so on. I will not deal with all the other provisions of the resolution, but they all call upon states to take immediate and positive measures to the end of implementing this particular declaration.
Our own leaders have also made clear their detestation of discrimination in relation to immigration matters. As found in Hansard for October 18, 1963, the first session of this parliament, at page 3738, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) a question about Mr. Wayson S. Choy, a Canadian born citizen of Chinese origin who was refused admission to the United States on the ground that he was of Chinese origin. In answer to my question the Prime Minister gave an elaborate and prepared answer in which he said in part:
At the outset I should like to make it very clear that as for Canadian law and policy the present government, like its predecessor, is firmly opposed in principle and in practice to racial discrimination. Mr. Choy may rest assured that as far as Canadian law and policy are concerned his Canadian citizenship is the same as that of every other Canadian born citizen.
Then he went on to say that, although he would not make official representations to the United States as it might not be appropriate to do that, "this does not mean that the Canadian government favours the inclusion of racial origin provisions in the immigration laws of the United States or any other country." We cannot do very much, Mr. 
Speaker, about the immigration laws of other countries, but if the Canadian government according to the Prime Minister, and I fully accept his statement as made in perfect good faith and sincerity, does not favour the inclusion of racial origin provisions, my bill should be passed because it eliminates a provision based on racial discrimination where parliament explicitly authorizes the governor in council to keep people out on the basis of their ethnic groupings and other grounds which can only be related to race.
I do not propose to elaborate on this matter because I doubt very much that there is anybody in the house who disagrees with what I am saying. I just want to make one or two further observations about it. I anticipate that either the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Nicholson), who I am glad to see is in the house, or his parliamentary secretary may speak in this debate and will say that they agree with the principle of what I am saying, but that the whole immigration law is in the process of examination with a view to extensive revision. I hope this is so; I have urged that it should be so. I think there are very many matters in the immigration law that require careful revision. I know that Mr. Sedgwick, a Toronto lawyer, has been consulted about this matter, but I do not understand why that should make it necessary to delay the present passage of legislation eliminating racial discrimination from our laws.
Let no one in the house say that this does not matter very much because the actual regulations under which the flow of immigrants is governed do not incorporate racial discrimination. Sir, I have found, as I have no doubt every other member of the house who has travelled outside of Canada has found, that in the small world of today, where, whether we like it or not, technology has pushed us all into one society, these relics, if you will, of racial discrimination appearing officially in the law of Canada are an offence to many people throughout the world. They notice these things; we may not. It may be that a member of the house can say that he did not know the immigration law contained such a provision. It may be that the minister may say, as I have no doubt he can say, that we do not apply racial discrimination at this time intentionally or officially, certainly not within the intention of the government, although it may sometimes be done under cover by some people who still retain ancient prejudices.

But even when we say that, we cannot get away from the fact that people in other parts of the world are intensely sensitive to this sort of thing. They say: You retain on your statute books a law passed by your parliament embodying the right, the authorization to the governor in council to keep people out on the ground of their ethnic groupings and the geographical areas from which they come. As I said, it is inconsistent with our real policy and it ought to be eliminated.
I cannot follow why it should be necessary for us to wait for advice from anybody else. This paragraph can be eliminated without touching at all the practical administration of the law. I am quite sure that no informed person will say that our present regulations are based on this subsection (g). They are not based on subsection (g) but rather on other subsections in section 61, so we are not undermining the administration. All we are doing is asking the house to say at this time that we stand squarely against racial discrimination in our immigration laws.
I think the government and the house would gain great kudos if they would pass this rather simple bill I have introduced. It does not have to wait for an investigation. You do not need learned counsel to tell you that racial grounds for discrimination are wrong. We have solemnly affirmed that. Every nation of the United Nations has solemnly affirmed it. We do not need anything like that. Let us act; let us not go through this process of putting off.
I received a telegram today, and I dare say other members of the house did, inviting me to go to Toronto to take part in a parade at seven o'clock tonight. I was invited by students to go and parade as a protest against what is going on in the state of Alabama in the United States and perhaps in honour of a man who lost his life in battling against racial prejudices in that country. But as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, this house and I myself would be doing more in this cause, more to aid the battle of those who throughout the world are fighting against the tragedy of racial discrimination, if we would pass this modest bill this afternoon and take the authority which we have as a parliament to eliminate something of which none of us can possibly approve, and which I know we do not approve.
I believe there is no one in the house who will not subscribe to the view that racial discrimination is a hideous and dangerous anachronism in the world in which we live
Immigration Act
today. If this is so, let us take our part in eliminating from the laws for which we are responsible this blot upon the name of Canada.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the intent of the bill is to remove from the regulations authorized by section 61 of the Immigration Act those provisions which were mentioned by the hon. member, but in order to put the matter into perspective so far as all the regulations are concerned I believe I should perhaps quote the whole section.


David Orlikow: It will only make it worse.


Hubert Badanai: I quote:
The governor in council may make regulations for carrying into effect the purposes and provisions of this act and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations respecting,
(a)	the terms and conditions under which persons who have received financial assistance to enable them to obtain passage to Canada or to assist them in obtaining admission to Canada may be admitted to Canada:
(b)	literacy, medical and other examinations or tests and the prohibiting or limiting of admission of persons who are unable to pass them;
(c)	the terms, conditions and requirements with respect to the possession of means of support or of passports, visas or other documents pertaining to admission:
(d)	the admission to Canada of persons who have come to Canada otherwise than by continuous journey from the countries of which they are nationals or citizens;
(e)	the prohibiting or limiting of admission of persons brought to Canada by any transportation company that fails to comply with any provision of this act or any regulation, order or direction made under it:
(f)	the prohibiting or limiting of admission of persons who are nationals or citizens of a country that refuses to readmit any of its nationals or citizens who are ordered deported; and
(g)	the prohibiting or limiting of admission of persons by reason of
(i)	nationality, citizenship, ethnic group, occupation, class or geographical area of origin.
(ii)	peculiar customs, habits, modes of life or methods of holding property,
(iii)	unsuitability having regard to climatic, economic, social, industrial, educational, labour, health or other conditions or requirements existing, temporarily or otherwise, in Canada or in the area or country from or through which such persons come to Canada, or
(iv)	probable inability to become readily assimilated or to assume the duties and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship within a reasonable time after their admission.
At this point, I should like to point out that within any one citizenship group there is no racial discrimination. For example, all citizens of France are treated alike, regardless of whether they are Chinese, Negro or of any other origin.

Immigration Act
The hon. member's bill is presumably designed to correct the citizenship discrimination, and it would have this effect, even though the explanatory notes in the bill state that its purpose is-
-to remove the authority given to the governor in council to regulate admissibility to Canada on racial grounds.
Now, sir, stripped of any legal terms, this would simply mean that although the authority would remain in the act, there would be no intention of exercising such authority in making regulations governing the admittance to Canada of qualified persons. In seeking to remove the basis for the discrimination, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) would repeal paragraph (g) of section 61 of the act, thereby severing not only the power to make regulations limiting admission by reason of citizenship, but also occupation and labour conditions.
This amendment would, in fact, remove the power to make any effective admissible classes at all.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Has he paid any attention to the provisions of paragraph (b) of section 61 that permits all types of tests of suitability and so on?


Hubert Badanai: That is the interpretation my hon. friend is putting on this particular section. I suggest that the tests would certainly have to be directly related to the existing provisions in the Immigration Act.
Now, discrimination is of course offensive to us all and the immediate reaction would seem to be an easy agreement to delete portions of paragraph (g), particularly those which appear to have aspects of racial discrimination. In short, the principle of the bill is good. We all want to avoid racial discrimination. However, the hon. member's bill would remove the necessary authority to make effective the admission of desirable immigrants. Many complex problems are involved and until these can be solved, well meaning but ill considered or premature changes should be avoided.
It may be of interest to the members to know what the landing requirements are at present under the act. Landing in Canada is limited to persons who comply with all the requirements respecting landing in Canada set out in the act and the regulations, and who come within one of the following classes:

(a)	a person who, by reason of his education, training, skills or other special qualifications, is likely to be able to establish himself successfully in Canada and who
(i)	has sufficient means of support to maintain himself in Canada until he has so established himself,
(ii)	has come to Canada, under arrangements made or approved by the director, for placement in employment,
(iii)	has come to Canada, under arrangements made or approved by the director, for establishment in a business, trade or profession, or in agriculture, or
(iv)	is the son, son in law, daughter or fiance of a Canadian citizen who
(A)	resides in Canada, and
(B)	has applied for and is willing and able to provide care and maintenance for the person, until the person has established himself successfully in Canada:
(b)	a person who is the husband, wife or the unmarried son or daughter under twenty one years of age of an individual who
(i)	complies with the requirements of paragraph (a),
(ii)	is accompanying the person to Canada, and
(iii)	is willing and able to provide care and maintenance for the person until such person has established himself successfully in Canada: or
(c)	a person who is the parent, grandparent, husband, wife or fiance, or the unmarried son or daughter under twenty one years of age, of a Canadian citizen or of an individual legally admitted to Canada for permanent residence who
(i)	is residing in Canada, and
(ii)	has applied for and is willing and able to provide care and maintenance for the person until such person has established himself successfully in Canada:
(d)	a person who is a citizen of any country of Europe, including Turkey: or of any country of north, central or South America or islands adjacent thereto; or of Egypt, Israel or Lebanon, if such person is:
(i)	the son, daughter, brother or sister, as well as the husband or wife and the unmarried son or daughter under twenty one years of age of such son, daughter, brother or sister, as the case may be; or
(ii)	the unmarried orphan nephew or niece under twenty one years of age, or fiance of a Canadian citizen or of a person legally admitted to Canada for permanent residence, who is residing in Canada and who has applied for such person, and who is willing and able to provide care and maintenance for such person until he has established himself in Canada.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that immigration problems cannot be solved simply by repealing paragraph (g) of section 61 of the Immigration Act without creating even greater problems.
May I point out that the Immigration Act has been in force since June 1, 1953. It had been drawn up in consultation with the Department of Justice, the privy council office and other interested departments, and before its enactment had been studied by committees of the House of Commons and Senate. I understand that representations were heard

from private bodies vitally interested in the legislation.
The act itself contains no discriminatory provisions whatever against any persons on the grounds of race. It does provide, however, for the making of regulations by the governor in council prohibiting or limiting the admission of persons by reason of "nationality, citizenship and occupation."


David Orlikow: What is that for?


Hubert Badanai: That is in the regulations, not the act.


David Orlikow: What is the reason for it?


Hubert Badanai: I shall come to that. In 1956 the regulations were revised, admission to Canada being determined on the basis of an applicant's citizenship, and his relationship to a Canadian citizen who was able and willing to sponsor him. The greatest preference was given to immigrants from Britain, France, the United States and the older members of the commonwealth, followed by immigrants from Canada's other traditional source countries in western Europe.
Provisions were made for the admission to Canadian residence of a broader range of close relatives from Europe and the Americas, and some countries of the Near East. Admissions from elsewhere in the world was limited to the immediate family, that is, the parents, husband, wife and unmarried children under 21 years of age of a Canadian citizen residing in Canada. Amendments were also made removing the necessity for the sponsor in Canada to become a Canadian citizen before his family could be admitted.
Again immigration regulations were completely changed, providing for the admission of any person on the basis of his education, training, skills or other special qualifications regardless of his race, citizenship, country of origin or country of residence. However, the basic sponsorship provisions for the admission of the relatives of Canadian residents from Europe, the Americas and the Near East were retained.
In the years from 1956 to 1962, when admissibility was regulated on the basis of citizenship, or on citizenship coupled with relationship to a Canadian resident, the colour of the applicant for admission was not a factor in determining his admissibility. Persons who were of other origins than the majority of the citizens of these countries were not excluded on those grounds. It is true, of course, that the most preferred countries for immigrant sources were predominantly European in the racial content of their
Immigration Act
populations, but this was due to the fact that Canada, over the years, has endeavoured to select immigrants who were adaptable to Canadian life in terms of culture and political philosophy, as such persons finding familiar institutions in Canada feel more at home, and this assists in their re-establishment in the new life they find here.
The regulations introduced in recent years removed every possible suggestion that admissibility to Canada was governed, directly or indirectly, by the ethnic origin of intending settlers. Persons of all origins and nationalities are now admissible if, by reason of their education, training, skills, or other special qualifications they are able and likely to become successfully established in Canada. Canadian experience indicates that a substantial volume of immigration is highly desirable. Unfortunately, new population cannot be added in a hit or miss way without regard to their means of subsistence or their effect on Canadian life.
Technological change and the development of Canadian society to its present complex state require that, to be able to establish themselves successfully, new settlers must be economically competitive in terms of training, skills and personal qualities. While Canada has made every effort to sustain the movement of immigrants from countries having like economic, social and political backgrounds there is no reason why qualified people from other countries cannot integrate successfully into Canadian society, and the existing immigration regulations recognize this principle.
In the application of the criteria to determine an applicant's personal qualifications no rigid yardsticks have been set. I want to emphasize that. At the same time the educational standings, skill levels where applicable, and the professional qualifications of an individual must be related to Canadian experience and requirements. The department naturally seeks immigrants who have formal academic, educational or vocational training. Other factors also enter into the considerations, such as an applicant's knowledge of one of Canada's official languages, his financial resources, personal adaptability, and desire to succeed. In the end the question of whether an individual applicant has qualifications such as to justify approval becomes a matter of human judgment. Immigration officers strive to exercise this judgment on as sound a basis as possible, and to minimize the possibility of human error.

Immigration Act
On December 31 last the Prime Minister said at a press conference, and I quote from a transcript of that conference:
I have asked the minister to prepare a white paper on immigration policy, immigration administration and immigration procedures, telling what has been done and what is in process, and to have that available it at all possible-and it is possible, I think-by the beginning of the next session ot parliament.
The white paper will set forth the considerations which are relevant to the determination of a long term immigration policy for Canada. It will also deal with some of the major problems in an administrative nature on questions relating to legislation or procedure that are appropriate for parliamentary attention and consideration in due course. It is anticipated that the white paper will form the basis for consideration by parliament of the whole question of immigration policy and legislation. I would suggest therefore that in all fairness to the department, which is in the process of preparing a white paper, and to the government which is considering all questions relating to immigration, consideration of what the passing of Bill C-69 might achieve should be deferred.
I am confident that under the energetic leadership of the minister, whose interest in immigration is, I happen to know, unsurpassed by that of any other hon. member in this house, the appropriate amendments to the Immigration Act will be introduced in the not too distant future.


Reynold Rapp: I should like to take the opportunity to speak in this debate on Bill No. C-69 described as an act to amend the Immigration Act (racial discrimination).
The practice of discrimination on racial grounds is, of course, a vicious practice, particularly when followed by a state. In the first half of the present century we have witnessed many examples of racial discrimination, especially in time of war. Unfortunately such discrimination still exists today. With this in mind the bill states that its purpose is to remove the authority given to the governor general in council to regulate admissibility to Canada on racial grounds. With this object I am in full accord and I must congratulate the hon. member for Greenwood on having brought a bill of this nature before the house.
Canada is a land which needs immigrants. We have millions of acres of land which will provide many people with an oppor-
[Mr. Badanai.)
tunity to come here. Our history has shown that people who come to this country and who settle on our farms in particular make good immigrants and good citizens. If adopted, the terms of this bill would mean that in future such people could not be discriminated against on grounds of nationality, citizenship, ethnic origin, occupation, class or geographical area of origin.
In the past Canada has proved to be a haven for thousands of immigrants desirous of coming to this country, and I believe the bill before us would do much to ensure the continuation of such a fortunate record. It is my impression that in the past the Canadian government has never used racial discrimination to a great extent, though it is true that during the war-I am thinking of the 1939-45 war-steps had to be taken to ensure attention being paid to those people whose wish to visit Canada was not inspired by a genuine desire to settle here.
We have lived through a period when discrimination was shown against people from Asian countries. However, the record on the whole is not a bad one, and since this country does need many more immigrants I believe the bill before us would be a valuable addition to the statutes of Canada. I support it wholeheartedly and I hope the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) who usually talks out bills of this kind will take my observations into consideration and retain his seat.


Mr. Greene:: Would the hon. member permit a question? I should like to ask the hon. member what he is doing at the present time.


Reynold Rapp: My object in speaking on this bill was to express my approval for the principle it contains. That is why I took the opportunity of asking the hon. member not to use the remaining ten minutes in order to talk out the measure.


Alexander Bell Patterson: The
bill introduced by the hon. member for Greenwood and brought before the house this afternoon is a most important one. I believe the immigration policy established by any nation must to a considerable extent recognize the situation which exists within the boundaries of that country. It must take into consideration the national interest, for a haphazard and poorly directed policy would serve neither the country itself nor those who desire to make it their home.
For these reasons I believe it is not only desirable but essential that all the related

factors be considered in this important area. We all realize that immigration has a vital role to play in our national development. The contributions made by new Canadians are clearly evident in every phase of our social and economic life, and without them Canada would be infinitely poorer. We in this country have been singularly blessed by providence. We have great areas of land containing vast resources and the capacity to provide an increasing supply of the necessities of life. There is the general recognition and guarantee of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as many other advantages which together make this country a very desirable area of the world in which to live.
It would appear that under the terms of the Immigration Act policies can be followed which lead to a refusal to admit persons founded on their nationality, citizenship, area of origin and so on. This has been brought to our attention by the hon. member for Greenwood, and I believe the time has come when we should give consideration to some of these sections of the legislation. However, the question which arises in my mind is this: Why should we delete the entire section as outlined in the explanatory note? I believe some of these provisions are still essential. No matter how much new Canadians may have contributed to this country, and no matter how much we may depend on immigration for the expansion of our population and our domestic market, we have to recognize that some of these factors must be taken into consideration. However, I will agree that when it comes down to the specific areas of nationalities and ethnic groups, I do not believe that this provision should be left on our statute books.
It has been pointed out that consideration must be given to occupation and economic circumstances and to the possibility or otherwise of people making the necessary adjustments when they come to Canada. These are very important considerations and I do not take exception to them because, as I have mentioned before, to admit into this country people who have not the ability to take their place and make their own way and sustain themselves is not in the best interests of Canada or the Canadian people. As I have pointed out, I believe the time has come when we should remove some of these limiting factors such as nationality, ethnic group, and so on.
In order to substantiate his argument and bolster his presentation the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) referred, quite propimmigration Act
erly, to the United Nations convention on racial discrimination, which question was brought to our attention today in one of our committees. Canada of course is a signatory, and one of the responsibilities we assumed when appending our signature to this document was that everything possible would be done to remove any element of discrimination in our national life. What we have been observing throughout these past few weeks has shown the extent to which discrimination may lead some people, and we abhor this type of thing.
As far as the principle of removing a limiting factor on the basis of nationality or ethnic groups is concerned, I would be in full support of this principle, but I think very careful consideration ought to be given to other aspects of the situation. As I have pointed out, we must recognize the fact that national interests, as well as the welfare of those whom we would welcome to our country, require and demand that we give adequate consideration to these other factors as well.


Mr. Skoreyko:: I wonder whether I might ask the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Badanai) a question. I was very interested in his speech, in which he indicated that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Nicholson) is working on a white paper on citizenship and immigration matters. Could he inform the house as to when this white paper will be ready?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: If I might answer that, Mr. Speaker, encouraging progress is being made on the white paper. We are hopeful that it will be tabled some time in the late spring or early summer, certainly before we adjourn for the summer vacation, so hon. members will have an opportunity to study it during vacation. It will be referred to a committee of the house when we resume our session in the fall.


William Skoreyko: Can the minister assure the house that all the recommendations which are outlined in Bill C-69 which is sponsored by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) will be taken into account in the white paper?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am delighted to assure the house that all the representations made here today, including those made by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), will be given very careful consideration by my department, by me and then by my colleagues when it reaches the cabinet stage.

Immigration Act


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of points which I feel are still worth consideration in this house before the bill is adopted. Section 61(g) of the present Immigration Act would be eliminated if this bill were adopted. In the course of his presentation of this bill, and as a result of questions by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), the parliamentary secretary stated that it would be very difficult indeed to bring in regulations if the entire section were omitted. I believe the hon. member for Greenwood also referred to paragraph
(b)	of the section, which refers to illiteracy, medical or other examination and tests. The hon. member felt that the necessary regulations could hinge upon the interpretation of that paragraph of the section.
I do not believe this is so, Mr. Speaker. There are many reasons why the Immigration Act is being reviewed. I was pleased, as I am sure was the hon. member for Greenwood and all other hon. members in the house, to hear the statement made a few moments ago by the minister about the white paper and the work which is being done on the revision of the act. I am sure that none of us favour the sections which rely on ministerial discretion; they are far too broad. But I would ask the hon. member for Greenwood, through you, Mr. Speaker, this question: Is he prepared to say that if he struck out this section there would be authority in the act for regulations which would prohibit a group of immigrants whose custom was, for example, nude parading?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I would have no objection at all.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Or a group of individuals who were dedicated to terrorism as an instrument of social change and who resorted to dynamiting-


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is asking me a question I wonder
whether I could reply to it by saying that there are ample provisions in the act itself to exclude-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hon. member has already made his speech. If he wishes to answer this question he would require the unanimous consent of the house, and it must be understood that he is not closing the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I would point out to the hon. member that section 5 of the act contains all sorts of exclusions on the ground of terrorist activities, and so on. You do not require this discriminatory section.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I think we are all dedicated to the proposition of government by law and regulation, so far as it is possible to do so. But this is the section of the act which contains the feature that none of us like, and I commend the hon. member for Greenwood for bringing it to the attention of this house. None of us endorses racial discrimination. Racial discrimination is not applied by regulation but is potentially there through the wording of the act.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I think the wording of the section, particularly that dealing with peculiar customs, habits, modes of life or methods of holding property, permits the development of regulations which are absolutely essential for the administration of the Immigration Act in the public interest.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired. It being six o'clock this house stands adjourned until two thirty o'clock on the afternoon of Monday next.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 15, 1965